1957-12-04

Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, December 3, at page 1775 of Hansard there is recorded a question which I addressed to the Prime Minister. I asked that the parliamentary assistant take it as notice. I will not bore the house with the full question, but I shall refer to the pertinent parts. They are as follows:
Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the city clerk of Windsor, acting on behalf of the metropolitan committee . . . requesting an appointment to meet with him and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Public Works? . . . Was the Prime Minister advised of my telephone request of November 28 to his secretary attempting to arrange such an interview? . . . has the Prime Minister had drawn to his attention my letter to him dated November 28, requesting such an interview by the committee? If so, would he kindly indicate when he may meet with this committee?
On the same page there is a reply by the Minister of Public Works, who said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am supposed to answer that question as parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, as Minister of Public Works or in what capacity, but I understand that the answer has gone out and it has been suggested that the delegation should meet the Prime Minister next Wednesday.
This morning I was in receipt of a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare stating that he had arranged a meeting for 4 p.m. Wednesday next, December 11, at which his colleague the Minister of Public Works had agreed to be in attendance.
This morning I also received a telephone call from someone purporting to be from the Prime Minister's office, stating there was a doubt that the Prime Minister would receive the delegation requested.
Is it, therefore, not the intention of the Prime Minister to receive the delegation dealing with a matter of vital national importance to all municipalities in Ontario, namely the unemployment situation and the assistance to municipalities in taking care of unemployed employables; and is it not the intention of the Prime Minister to respond to my letter of November 28?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not raised any question of privilege, in my opinion. He might more properly have brought the matter up in a question before the orders of the day are called. Does the hon. member consider there is a question of privilege in the facts he has suggested?


Donald Ferguson Brown: Yes, Mr. Speaker; there is definitely a question of privilege because I was told by the Minister of Public Works that the Prime Minister would meet with us next Wednesday, and I have received a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare stating that that is not so.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I just returned a moment ago and I had no advance notice of this matter. But let me tell my hon. friend that any message he may have received from somebody purporting to be somebody saying that it was not my intention to meet with the delegation, as I understand it, on December 11 is incorrect. What the question of privilege is I am sure I do not know, but certainly I am available at any time, and the date has been fixed.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this discussion should be continued. It was not, in my opinion, a question of privilege and should not have been raised at this time.



STARRED QUESTION


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 22
Mr. Benidickson:: What steps, beyond the setting up of the Borden royal commission, is the government taking to assure, on an interim basis, that consumers will not be required to pay an inequitable price for natural gas from the trans-Canada pipe line in areas where gas is already or is soon to be made available?


John George Diefenbaker: Stand.


William Moore Benidickson: This question has been on the order paper for some time. I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister could soon deal with it, unless I am to take it that the lack of reference to this subject on Monday when the Prime Minister outlined forthcoming legislation during this session is the answer to this question.

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



CAMPBELLTON, N.B.-CROSS POINT, QUE. BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, since January 1, 1953 to date, in connection with the proposed construction of a bridge across the Restigouche river from Camp-bellton, New Brunswick, to the village of Cross Point, Quebec.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: This is perfectly all right, Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservation that the government of the province of Quebec has no objections.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation stated by the Minister of Public Works?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 41-Mr. Kirk:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents received or sent since June 21, 1957, by the Minister of Public Works or any other minister, or any official of the Department of Public Works or other government departments concerning the release or dismissal of Harris Bush from the position of foreman of repairs on Middle Island wharf, LaHave islands, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is satisfactory, subject to the reservation that documents passing within the department or from one department to another are not to be produced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 42-Mr. MacEachen:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents received or sent, since June 21, 1957, by the Minister of Public Works or any other minister or any official of the Department of Public Works or other government departments, concerning the dismissal of John MacDonald, inspector of repairs to the wharf at Cribbin's point, Antigonish county, Nova Scotia.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, here again there will be the same reservation in regard to documents passing within the department or between one department and another.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Hahn:
For a copy of contract or agreement between the Union Steamships Limited and the government relating to the application for and receipt of a subvention as included in the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1957, item No. 496.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: There is no objection to making available the terms of the contract under which a subsidy is paid to Union Steamships Limited for the provision of certain coastal shipping services in British Columbia, but the hon. member will appreciate that the general practice of making copies of all departmental contracts available for circulation would involve a very heavy stenographic burden in view of the many hundreds of contracts and agreements entered into by the department over the year.
In the circumstances, I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to review the copy of the contract which is available on the departmental files of the maritime commission rather than have it copied and tabled. If so, I should be glad to make arrangements accordingly.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take advantage of the offer.


Mr. Sinclair:: Bring your tape recorder along, too.


Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the house I take it this motion may be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have given him notice. If he has not had time to obtain the information he may, however, take this question as notice. How many pounds of butter had the agricultural prices support board in store on December 1, 1955, 1956 and 1957? How many cases of eggs had the agricultural prices support board in store on December 1, 1955, 1956 and 1957?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I received the right hon. gentleman's notice just before coming into the house. I have not had time to get these figures. I would suggest to him, however, that this is a question which really might more properly be put on the order paper, though I will be delighted to get the figures for him and give them to him tomorrow if he wishes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Thank you.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Sinclair: would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on a story in this morning's Gazette with a Glasgow dateline, to the effect that business offered by the Canadian trade commission has been refused by the British shipbuilders because of a five-year backlog of business. My question is this. Have other British manufacturers refused offers from his trade commission because of the high level of employment now fortunately enjoyed in Great Britain?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about any refusal of orders which might have been suggested by members of the trade mission now in England and Scotland. I am quite aware of the fact that in some British industries there are very substantial orders waiting to be filled, but whether or not that has affected any of the plans of our Canadians I do not know.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The answer given by him on December 2 in reply to a question shows Mr. G. W. Hunter, assistant deputy minister, Department of Defence Production, listed with a buying classification comprising engineering, lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting.
The list supplied by the minister then shows another heading, "Civil servants", setting out the names of various gentlemen who are apparently members of the delegation, people listed as civil servants but who are not in a buying classification. Is there any reason for listing the assistant deputy minister, Department of Defence Production, as a member of the mission rather than as a civil servant?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where does this information appear?


Walter Adam Tucker: At page 1759 of Hansard of December 2.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any particular significance attached to that.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Adam Tucker: May I ask a supplementary question. Mr. Hunter is listed as having a buying classification. Does he have instructions to buy? For what reason is he in the delegation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hunter is one of the two assistant deputy ministers of the Department of Defence Production. I do not know how he came to be shown in this return as a buyer. He is with the mission in his capacity as a civil servant.


Mr. Mcllraith:: He heads the biggest buying department in the government.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I was not clear in regard to the answer I received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the leader of the house to my question in regard to the trade mission. The question was:
What are the names, business addresses and classifications of representatives chosen to form the Canadian trade delegation now in Great Britain?
The answer gives as a member of the trade commission the assistant deputy minister, Department of Defence Production, Ottawa. Ottawa is given as his business address, and his classification is listed as engineering, including lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture, flour milling and consulting. This is the answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The assistant deputy minister of defence production was an actual member of this trade mission whose purpose, we understand, is to buy or place orders in the United Kingdom. I wish to know what orders he was instructed to place in the United Kingdom under the heading of engineering, lumbering, fishing, textile manufacture and flour milling?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it is an error in printing.


Howard Charles Green: What page?


Walter Adam Tucker: Page 1759 of Hansard. His is the fifth name on that page.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the assistant deputy minister of defence production has no authority whatever to place buying orders. He is simply a member of the mission. I do not know how he came to be put down here as a buyer.


Hon. Jean Lesage (Monimagny-L'Islel):: On
the same subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the same list of members of the delegation and their buying classifications. I have noticed that 15 members of the delegation are interested in purchasing textile goods in Great Britain. Following up the question put by the hon.

Inquiries of the Ministry member for Coast-Capilano, I should like to know whether it is not a fact that there is full employment in the textile mills in Great Britain, in sharp contrast with what is happening here in Canada?


James Sinclair: What are they buying?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have just now been looking at the buying classification of the people on the mission, and I think-


Jean Lesage: It is your list.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the first time I have seen it.


James Sinclair: It is your answer. It was given under your name.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was given under my name, and I regret that I did not examine more closely the answer that has been produced here. This is the first time I have seen it, and the buying classification seems to me to be in error because there is certain duplication in the mention of textile manufactures, flour milling and consulting, which I am sure does not apply to some of the gentlemen mentioned. I will have the record checked and a more accurate answer produced.


Jean Lesage: Have any textile mills been visited by the delegation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There may have been some, Mr. Speaker; I am not sure. The mission is free to visit any industry in the British isles. There is no limitation upon what visits they may make.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I noticed that the representative of New Brunswick on the trade delegation is a candy manufacturer. Is it the intention to import more candy into this country?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No restrictions are placed on the members of this commission. They are a very distinguished group of businessmen, quite competent to carry on the business of their particular firms. No government restriction at all has been placed upon what they may do, what they may see or what importations may be made.


Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but before I do so I wish to thank him for having chosen a cousin of mine as a member of his delegation.


An hon. Member:: He did not know that beforehand.


Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: The gentleman in question, Mr. J. Rene Ouimet, among other products manufactures cheese. Would the minister tell us if cheese is the cause of his big smile upon his return from Glasgow? Would he


also tell us if one of the purposes of sending the delegation was to buy cheese from the United Kingdom?


An hon. Member:: Ask your cousin.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to say to the hon. member that his cousin is a first class member of the mission and a good representative of Canada. I have had several conversations with him, and I hope he has now recovered from the sore throat that was bothering him two days ago. I do not think I can answer the second part of the question.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday, December 3, I directed a question to the minister about the intention of the Canadian trade mission to take orders for British-made motor cars while on its visit to the United Kingdom. I must say that I, with all members of the house, was very pleased to find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, heading the delegation, had been so courteously and enthusiastically received by the manufacturers in the United Kingdom, and had been guided so expertly on the tour by Sir William Rootes as host.
Since the United Kingdom derives a great part of its dollar reserves from the sale of automobiles in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how much time is needed to lay the foundation for a question, but it seems to me the hon. member should come to the point.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was paying a compliment to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If I am permitted I will now ask my question. Is the minister aware that Sir William Edward Rootes, G.B.E., is a British motor car manufacturer, also chairman of Rootes Motors Limited, and associated companies; chairman of Singer Motors Limited; director of Humber Limited-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question seems to me not to be of the order which are usually entertained here in accordance with the rules of practice. It is a question of general information and knowledge not within the particular responsibility or knowledge of the minister to whom the question is directed, and I must rule the question out of order.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Mr. Speaker, I merely asked if the Minister of Trade and Commerce was aware that this man is the chairman of the various motor car companies I have named.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the question. I hope the hon. member will observe my ruling.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us if the trade mission included representatives of the automobile industry in Canada? If so, who were the representatives?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Look over the list.


George James McIlraith: The list is not correct. The minister has repudiated his parliamentary assistant's list.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The only incorrectness in the list, as I see it now, may be in the buying classification.


James Sinclair: That is the most important part.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There may be some misprints after some of these names. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the hon. member for Essex West for his very complimentary remarks, which were unfortunately interrupted by some of my friends on this side. His question was declared out of order, but in any event I thank him for his kindness.
An invitation was extended to the members of the automobile industry in Canada earlier, but for various reasons the gentlemen approached were not able to join the mission.


James Sinclair: We want Canadian workers to work, not British workers.


Mr. Nowlan:: That is your philosophy, is it?


James Sinclair: Unemployment in Canada.


Mr. Fleming:: You have repudiated your leader's statement, have you?


James Sinclair: I have done no such thing.



CANADIAN SURPLUS DISPOSAL PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Friday last in his absence I asked the acting minister of trade and commerce a question with regard to consideration of establishing a surplus disposal program for agricultural products in order
Inquiries of the Ministry that our surplus might more rapidly move forward to the people in the underdeveloped countries of the world, where there is urgent need for them. I wonder whether the minister would care to answer that question today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to thank the hon. member for drawing my attention to this question. I think it might have been stated with greater particularity.
The hon. member refers to a surplus disposal program. We are constantly selling surplus produce from this country in the markets of the world. If the hon. member has in mind a program such as that adopted in the United States, we have nothing quite similar to that; but we are taking every measure possible to dispose of our surplus produce and, in fact, negotiations are under way right now with regard to the food requirements of the needy peoples of the world.



UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance has an answer to the question I asked yesterday as to the announcement that the United States cabinet was asking for an additional $1J billion for surplus disposal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this question more properly pertains to the Department of Trade and Commerce than to the Department of Finance, and I therefore turned over my friend's written inquiry to my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, feeling he was not having enough questions to answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is there any answer to the question, then? I might repeat my question, which I asked yesterday. Has a news report been brought to the attention of the minister that the United States cabinet is proposing that congress supply another $1J billion for disposal of surplus agricultural products in the coming year?
Can the minister comment on this disturbing report, and what is the answer in the light of the consultations held between members of the Canadian government and the United States government some time ago?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This came to me only yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and without further information I do not see that it will necessarily interfere with any assurances given to us by the cabinet in Washington. A large part

Inquiries of the Ministry of the surplus disposal program of the United States has been to assist needy people in the world who are not normally consumers of flour and do not use our wheat. Therefore I do not think that would interfere with any of our wheat export business.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then may I ask a supplementary question. Is the Canadian government considering any extensive program to help the needy people of the world in the same way as the United States government has done?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we are just as concerned with the needs of such people in the world and perhaps just as well informed as are the United States government or my hon. friend, and we are now considering a program to assist them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the government considered a program in addition to the 2 per cent increase under the provisions of the Colombo plan?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a painful business for me, putting a friend on the spot. However, duty demands I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
My question is based on a letter I received yesterday. Has the minister received letters from veterans, including one named Brooks, complaining of the fact that while immigrants and in some cases United States personnel are admitted to Shaughnessy hospital, certain veterans are denied admission?
Can the minister assure the house that no needy veterans requiring treatment will be denied admission to departmental hospitals?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I received the hon. member's question just as I was entering the house. I can assure him there is nothing painful about it at all. I should like to take it as notice, and I will give the hon. member a reply tomorrow.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell
the house whether the recommendations of the international joint commission concerning the pollution of boundary waters upstream from the international boundary line under various terms of reference have been carried out, and whether the government will consider extending these terms to cover the St. Lawrence river downstream to Montreal, particularly in lake St. Louis, where the discharge of sewage and industrial waste is rendering that lake a danger to the health of persons residing on its shores?
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that while I directed the question to the Prime Minister it falls under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the question as Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member in sending to me a copy of this question this morning.
My answer is that the recommendations of the international joint commission concerning the pollution of boundary waters under the various terms of reference have been accepted by the governments of both the United States and Canada. A good deal of progress has been made toward the implementing of the necessary corrective measures. As my hon. friend no doubt appreciates, the control of water pollution is a continuing process.
With respect to the second part of the question, the terms of reference of the international joint commission could not be extended to cover the St. Lawrence downstream to Montreal including lake St. Louis, as it lies entirely within Canadian territory.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question and say that the international joint commission has already referred to the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers a question concerning pollution, turbidity and water levels in that part of the St. Lawrence which is purely in Canadian territory. I now ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will not request the international joint commission to refer the pollution of waters in lake St. Louis to the commission in the same manner as the complaint concerning lake St. Francis was referred to the commission?
ILater:']


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I can get an answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the supplementary question I asked him.


Sidney Earle Smith: I will
take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which I sent him this morning. For this reason he has not had it for too long. When I sent notice of the question it was my intention to enclose the newspaper report which contained the basis of my query, but I discovered later that this was not done. I have now sent to the Prime Minister the newspaper article to which I referred, and if he is not prepared to answer the question at this time he might take it as notice.
My question is based on a newspaper report relating to unemployment. The international union of mine, mill and smelter workers has apparently become very concerned over its position in regard to purchases which the unemployed may have made on the instalment plan. My question is based on that report, and it is this. As a result of the growing unemployment in Canada, and particularly in Calgary and vicinity, according to a press report, will the federal government take such steps as are appropriate to prevent foreclosures and repossessions of homes, farms and other possessions that have been purchased on the instalment plan?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman
sent me the press reference in question, which appears in the Alberta Country Life. As a matter of fact it contains the answer to the question. It reads:
Alberta has not had a moratorium order since the late 1930's and early 1940's, when the Aberhart administration ordered credit hold-offs to protect farms and homes.
There is no authority in the federal government under the British North America Act to bring into effect a moratorium or anything of the nature suggested in the question. This is a matter of property and civil rights and, as in the 1930's and early 1940's when the Aberhart administration acted, the responsibility still rests with provincial governments under the constitution.



NON-OPERATING RAILWAY UNIONS    REQUEST FOR CONCILIATION BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the government received a request to appoint a conciliation board in connection with the dispute
Inquiries of the Ministry between the non-operating employees and the major railways of this country? If so, is this request being met?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, the government has received a request to appoint a conciliation board. The regular procedure for the establishment of this board is being followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. gentleman yet in a position to indicate who will compose the board?


Michael Starr: No. This necessitates the appointment of a representative of the employees, a representative of the employers, and a chairman to be appointed by the government. That has not as yet been settled.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the report from the royal commission on the dispute between the C.P.R. and the diesel firemen, which he suggested on October 15 he expected would be available toward the end of November?


Michael Starr: No, I have not received that report.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister inquire and find out when the report might be forthcoming?


Michael Starr: I am continually inquiring about this matter, but as yet the report has not been submitted.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has any firm agreement been arrived at with the directors of the Howe Sound Copper Company to keep the Britannia mine in operation? If so, would the Prime Minister explain the terms of the agreement? I regret that I did not send him notice of the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not that information. I think the Minister of Justice is the appropriate minister to whom to direct the question.


Frederick George Hahn: Then I direct the question to the Minister of Justice.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: I regret that my attention was directed elsewhere while the hon. gentleman was asking his question. I apologize. If he would repeat the question I will try to answer it.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Frederick George Hahn: Has any firm agreement been arrived at with the directors of the Howe Sound Copper Company to keep the Britannia mine in operation? If so, would the minister explain the terms of the agreement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker; no agreement has yet been arrived at. My last conversation with them was yesterday afternoon. As yet I have not had the opportunity to report to my colleagues, but I will be doing so as soon as possible.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As a result of representations made by the provinces at the recent conference, can the Prime Minister say what further consideration has been given to bringing t.b. sanatoria and mental hospitals under the provisions of the hospital insurance scheme? Can he say whether or not the provisions of the act will be made to apply at an early date? Can he assure the house that despite the fact such amendments were not listed in the statement of legislation still to be presented to the house, this does not close the door to these worth-while amendments being introduced this year?


John George Diefenbaker: I made a reference in the house earlier to the national hospital insurance act. There will be amendments brought before the house. With regard to the particular question as to their nature, that will be revealed when the bill is introduced.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that amendments will be brought before this session of the house?



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
PROTECTION OF FISH IN FRASER RIVER AFTER WixTER DIVERSION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. My question is this. Has the minister studied the report of the British Columbia Engineering Company regarding the possible diversion of the waters of the Columbia river into the Fraser river, and if so can he assure the house that no action is contemplated by the government which would adversely affect Fraser river fishing?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to say that I have not studied this particular report to which the hon. member refers, but I am reasonably familiar with the question. I can assure him that as Minister of Fisheries I will do my best to carry out my responsibilities as imposed on the Minister of Fisheries by the legislation to the effect that he shall protect the fisheries of this country.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: Yesterday I asked if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources had received the final report of the British Columbia Engineering Company regarding the possibility of the diversion just mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The minister replied that the final report had been received on January 9, 1957. I had doubts about the accuracy of that reply, and yesterday I checked my notes. They confirm that what was received by the government on January 9, 1957, was the initial draft of a preliminary report. My question dealt with the final report. Has a final report been received?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into this matter and be prepared to give the hon. gentleman an answer in the near future.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, which I did not hear but which appears at page 1774 of Hansard. Since I am anxious to give the hon. gentleman as much information as possible, and co-operate with him, I feel I should answer that question now. The hon. gentleman's question was asked at the conclusion of my statement that the previous government awarded a certain contract to a contractor who had already demonstrated unsatisfactory performance and who apparently had an especial attraction for them, the previous government. At that point the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount asked:
What does the hon. gentleman mean by that?

Had I heard the question I would have answered it at that moment. I meant by my remark that the officials of the Post Office Department, who had had previous experience with the contractor in question, recommended in writing to the minister on April 25, 1957, that his tender not be accepted. This recommendation resulted from their previous experience with the company, all set out in writing to the minister at that time, which indicated that deliveries of uniforms would not meet the required schedule; that concessions and alterations in specifications would be asked for after the letting of the contract; that the Post Office Department would be requested to buy overproduced uniforms when the contract was completed.
Thus, since the post office officials did not wish to do business with the company but the government did, and signified so by treasury board minute No. 517269 of May 9, 1957, which awarded the contract to the obviously unsatisfactory firm in question, I can only assume that it had a particular appeal to the government to persuade them to override the recommendation of these officials in such a technical matter. The house will recall it was this same contractor who was subsequently so late in his deliveries that summer uniforms for our postmen are still being delivered.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to give this detailed information to the house, but since the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount asked for it, I felt he should get it.


Hon. George C. Mailer (St. Antoine-Wesi-mounl):: Mr. Speaker, the comment which was made yesterday and which was made today by the Postmaster General is the kind of statement we are accustomed to getting from him.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Carlyle Marler: I would ask this further question. Was the contract in question not submitted to the treasury board, and was the contractor not the lowest bidder in relation to all the bids that were received?


William McLean Hamilton: Yes, there was a difference of several thousands of dollars between this and the next lowest bidder. But from time to time there have been cases where you had obviously unsatisfactory contractors. The usual practice of treasury board is to refuse contractors who have previously demonstrated their unsuitability.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



U.S.-CANADA  INQUIRY AS TO JOINT AIR DEFENCE COMMAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Justice with respect to the United States-Canada joint air defence command. Is there any further order in council dealing with this matter other than the order in council dated July 31, 1957, and the statement of the secretary of defence of the United States and the Minister of National Defence of Canada filed as sessional paper No. 183?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the negative.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister reconsider the business of the house to allow for legislation to increase the pensions of former government railway employees, which he himself has termed totally inadequate?


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend did not ask so many questions of little or no importance from time to time we would get on with the business here faster.


James Sinclair: Of no importance?


Henry Joseph Murphy: May I ask a
supplementary question. Is the Prime Minister aware that this group of men are pensioners of the old Intercolonial Railway, are small in number and a very elderly group now, and that this is a matter of urgency?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is. May I say that I notice that my hon. friend during the four years of office of the last government never raised that matter by a question.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Has the Prime
Minister read the Hansards of the last four years?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.


George James McIlraith: He does not like questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that over the past number of years the Prime Minister has raised this matter a number of times, do I take it from

Inquiries of the Ministry what he said this morning that the plight of retired C.N.R. pensioners is not now an important question?


James Sinclair: "Of no importance" is what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is that it is important.


James Sinclair: Oh, you are changing it now.


John George Diefenbaker: And it always was important. But we have a legislative program that requires immediate attention, and it is before the house. I can tell my hon. friend this. These various matters that require attention are going to receive attention from this government with the same dispatch that we are carrying out our programs.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the government do anything to prevent foreclosures on mortgages guaranteed under the National Housing Act in those cases where the debtors have become unemployed?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, these are mortgages which are subject to the provincial law. As the Prime Minister pointed out earlier today, the federal government has no jurisdiction in cases of that kind.



DECREASE IN MARKETING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I addressed a question to the acting minister of trade and commerce. I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be prepared to give an answer. My question as reported at page 1661 of Hansard was asking for an explanation from the minister as to why the farmers' marketings of grain in the prairie provinces up to November 13 were at the very low figure of 129 million bushels, which is slightly more than half the ten-year average. I asked further whether the minister was prepared to give consideration to the immediate announcement of a deficiency payment in the form of a participation payment from the treasury on last year's crop to compensate for this drastic decline in income.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member who asked the question knows the answer to the first part of it. The elevator capacity of this country was filled prior to the taking off of the present year's crop. We recognized that fact and through cash advances made provision so that farm income would reach the producers this fall.
As to the second question about consideration of the immediate announcement of a deficiency payment in the form of a participation payment from the treasury on last year's crop, I have no answer to give at this moment. The matter has been brought to my attention on several occasions, but no decision has been reached as yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask a supplementary question on this point. Was the report in the Regina Leader-Post, when the minister was there at the time he was addressing the wheat pool convention, to the effect that in his opinion the wheat producers did not need a subsidy, an answer to the question that was asked this morning?


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend appears to be referring to a newspaper report-


Hazen Robert Argue: That is right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -which I have not seen. If he will draw it to my attention I shall be glad to deal with the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question is this. Has the minister at any time, in Regina or elsewhere, made the statement that the wheat producers of this country do not require a subsidy from the national treasury?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have no recollection of making any such statement. I am surprised that this should appear in print and be reported as having been said by me. I was asked a series of questions at the Regina meeting, but I do not recall any question along that line at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: I might further inform the minister that, if my memory serves me correctly, it was made to a reporter in an interview in the Saskatchewan hotel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the statement he made a moment ago in answer to a question directed to him by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson).
The statement he made was to the effect that the cash advance legislation had been introduced by the government in an effort to

alleviate the storage problem and the question I would like to ask the minister is as follows. Is he aware that because of certain regulations, countless farmers are unable to qualify for cash advances on the acreage which they own?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have received no reports yet to that effect.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and, in his absence, to the acting minister. Shall I be obliged to place another motion on the order paper in order to obtain the documents and correspondence I asked for in motion No. 17, which was approved and passed by this house on November 8 last, almost a month ago?


Douglas Scott Harkness: think I need not say that I know absolutely nothing about this matter and therefore cannot give any reply at this time. I will have the matter looked into and find out why there was delay, if there has been any delay, in connection with making the return.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister comment on the carrying out of his statement made in this house on November 19 last to the effect that contracts let for the Trans-Canada pipe line provided that clearing of the right of way must be commenced within two weeks of a contract award?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the information I received, Mr. Speaker. I have not the page of Hansard in front of me, but I indicated that the clearing had to be completed before the spring opening, which meant winter work on all that stretch of the pipe line.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the question put by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). Due to the situation in northern Ontario, where
Interim Supply
a great number of bush workers are unemployed, would the minister use his offices to see that this slashing of the right of way is started immediately so it will alleviate that problem?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question put on Friday last by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Thompson) regarding the policy of the government in the negotiation of labour disputes in so far as it refers to Canadian citizens and other than Canadian citizens, I would like to say this. The government has not found it necessary to formulate any specific policy on this question, as labour bodies choose their own representatives and negotiations must be carried on with those representatives.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware of a report in the recent issue of the Calgary Albertan to the effect that a church in the city of Calgary has had to discontinue its assistance to refugees in distress because certain money promised to that church by the immigration branch has not been forthcoming? Will the minister look into this matter and see to it that if any commitments were made they will be kept?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. gentleman has just sent me a copy of the press report referred to, which is the first time this matter has come to my attention. I will most certainly look into it at once, and if the facts are as reported I will straighten them out right away.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY

['I hear a lot of laughter from across the way, but I want to assure you, sir, that neither I nor my colleagues will be intimidated by any laughter. I listened to the prolonged and verbose circumlocution of the Minister of Finance. I have a problem to bring to the attention of the government and I intend to do so in the remaining few minutes. If I do not get too many interjections from hon. members opposite, I think I can do it.\n\nThis problem, Mr. Chairman, applies perhaps more particularly to my own constituency. It has to do with the administration of two acts, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I bring this to the attention of the government because I believe it involves interdepartmental arrangements for carrying out the regulations of the two acts.\nAs hon. members know, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, unless a person is an industrial worker and within the two years prior to application for unemployment insurance benefits has paid a total of 30 weeks into the insurance fund he is not eligible for benefits. I bring this to the attention of the government because in my constituency we have a large group of people who are engaged in the oil industry because that area of the province of Saskatchewan is perhaps the largest oil field in Canada at the present time. Whether or not this is due to the new policy and the failure to take proper steps to give assurance to the industry and the oil companies that the future holds something for them in the way of further investment I am not sure, but the committee will recall that I asked the Prime Minister to give information to the house on the outcome of the visit of Premier Manning to the Prime Minister in respect of the oil situation in Alberta.\nIn addition to this, sir, we have the cost-price squeeze facing our farmers. Owing to the cost-price squeeze, and the lower return to farmers, many of them have gone into the oil fields and some of them are also working in the coal mines. For the information of the committee I might say that approximately half the coal of Canada is produced in my constituency. The problem is this. People who are employed part-time in the coal mines and in the oil industry and who have not completed 30 weeks of employment in either of those industries in the last two years are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. At the same time we have the anomaly of people who are part-time farmers and who pay into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act through deductions on the sale of their grain. Such people are not eligible under the regulations of these two acts for compensation under either one of the acts. I should like to bring this to the attention of the government. Owing to the peculiar circumstances these people are not eligible under the regulations of the two acts. I hope the minister will bring it to the attention of the proper authorities that we have people who are paying into both the unemployment insurance fund and the Prairie\n\nFarm Assistance Act but, owing to the regulations, they cannot qualify as industrial workers and are not eligible for payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They do not receive any compensation and they cannot qualify under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because they are not classified as bona fide farmers. They are not eligible for awards under this act.\nI would suggest to the government that a great deal of leniency be shown in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so that people who are trying to supplement their incomes and find it very difficult to carry on, but are doing what I think all of us want them to do, namely try to find work to provide for their families, shall be eligible for payments and awards made under one or the other of those acts.\nI think it is a real problem. I appreciate that the administrators of the Unemployment Insurance Act are trying to do the best they can. I think those who are carrying out the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are very sympathetic, and I do hope that my plea this afternoon will be given serious consideration and that people in this category will receive the proper consideration because in most instances it is a real problem in my constituency.\nResolution reported and concurred in.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $260,679,899 09 being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the

Interim Supply
items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, except items 52, 57, 116, 117, 131, 132, 153, 156, 158, 248, 252, 281, 322, 324, 328, 333, 334, 335, 336, 355, 397, 399 and 460, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $50,000 being one-sixth of the amount of item 367 of the said estimates; and a sum not exceeding $1,787,853.42, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of items 318, 373 and 389 of the said estimates;
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $1,497,738.25, being one-twelfth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, except items 626, 635 and 654, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament;
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $2,138,888.89, being one-ninth of the total of the amounts of items 669 and 670 set forth in the further supplementary estimates (1) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and a sum not exceeding $125,000, being one-twelfth of the amount of item 668 of the said estimates;
in addition thereto a sum not exceeding $13,474,054.84, being one-sixth of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the further supplementary estimates (2) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958 except items 754 and 759, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament; and in addition a sum not exceeding $1,853,666.67, being one-third of the total of the amounts of items 729, 732 and 737 of the said estimates, be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1958.
He said; Mr. Chairman, the present motion asks the house to approve a vote of interim supply in the total sum of $281,607,101.16 to provide for all necessary requirements of the public service up to December 31 excluding, of course, those for which full supply has already been granted, namely those described by the votes in the main and supplementary estimates for the Post Office Department and those votes for which eleven-twelfths have already been granted.
In no instance is the total amount of any item being released by the bill which is to be founded upon the present resolution, which is the fourth vote of interim supply. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I do not need to go back and repeat the explanations which were given to the house when the last motion of interim supply was made and debated on October 16.
I give to the house the usual undertaking that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item of the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee of supply; the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and not curtailed in any manner as a result of the passing of this measure.
Broadly speaking, of the four groups of estimates already tabled in the house, three of them last spring and one further group by myself in October, the following is the way 
in which the present bill deals with the fractions of those votes required. With the exception of seven items of which I will make special mention, the pattern is as follows, making an exception of the main estimates of the Post Office Department and those of its supplementaries which have already been voted.
What is asked of the house by this motion is a vote of one-twelfth of all items which were set up on the basis of the full fiscal year. As to those supplementary items which were brought into effect on July 1, and which therefore apply to only nine months of the fiscal year, the request is for a grant of one-ninth of those items. As to those items which were put into effect on October 1 and which, accordingly, run for only six months of the fiscal year, the request is for a vote of one-sixth.
I mentioned seven items of a special character, four of which are in the main estimates and three in the further supplementary estimates. Six of these pertain to the Department of Public Works and one to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in the latter case in respect of work that is being done for that department by the Department of Public Works. In all seven cases these represent construction items where the work of construction has to be expedited during the construction period of the year, and accordingly the amounts are accelerated in keeping with the fact that distribution of the expenditure is not spread evenly over the full 12-month period. But, I repeat, in no case is the house by this vote being asked to vote the entire amount of any item. The amounts which will be involved in any item, even these accelerated items, will not exceed eleven-twelfths of an item; and the full rights of the house in the matter of discussion or criticism of any of these items are accordingly preserved.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, the members of the official opposition do not intend to impede the passage of this interim supply bill in any way. As far as the main estimates are concerned only one department, the Post Office Department, has, of course, had its estimates approved and included in an appropriation bill, and of course it is necessary for the government to have money to meet the obligations in all departments which will accrue at the end of this month.
We are, naturally, aware of the fact that there are some items for which interim supply motions have already provided a fraction of eleven-twelfths. They are spelled out here, and we are not considering them today. Some other items will also reach the

fraction of eleven-twelfths, so when we have the interim supply bill in January, if the session lasts that long, we will of course expect these, too, to be reserved unless the estimates are through by that time.
There is another point I should like to mention, the same point I made when the Minister of Finance first tabled the estimates at the beginning of the session and which the Leader of the Opposition made at the time of the first interim supply bill, a point which other members of other parties have also raised, and which I myself again refer to. That is the fact that when the Minister of Finance tabled the main estimates at the beginning of the session he took the unusual course of saying that he did not necessarily stand behind all the items. He pointed out that the main estimates had been prepared by the previous government and submitted to the house, and that the estimates of only one department had gone through before the election.
We were naturally rather surprised at that position, because the traditional position taken is that when a government submits estimates to the house it stands behind every one of the items. If later it is shown that the original estimate is not fully required, it has been the custom for the government itself to inform the house that it intends to amend that estimate. That course was not followed by the minister, on the ground that to reprint the estimates and delete the items he was not supporting would cost a considerable sum of money; I think $20,000 was the figure he mentioned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And there was not time.


James Sinclair: Yes, and he said there was not time. I pointed out to him that we did not expect him to go to that expense and trouble. We were sure there were very few items he would change either by deleting or reducing them, and it would have been very helpful to members of the opposition especially to have had a mimeographed table which could easily have been prepared showing the items which we could not expect the government to fully support, those it intended to reduce or remove. There have been repeated requests for that sort of information. It is obvious that the Minister of Finance must have this information, because he could not have made the statement he did unless he had carefully perused every item. We did not ask for specific details of reductions, simply a list of the item numbers so we could be aware in advance whether to expect a change from the estimates we had submitted to the house.
Interim Supply
The minister failed to give us that information, so we have had to try other ways of securing it. As each department has come before the committee the first question asked of the minister concerned was what items did he not support and whether he found the waste and extravagance about which the Minister of Finance trumpeted so loudly when he was in opposition, during the course of the election campaign and also since he assumed the ministry of finance.
Last September the first public declaration made by the Minister of Transport in his usual frank way was a statement to the effect that he had found no evidence of waste or extravagance in his well-run department. Since that time we have had the charming lady, the Secretary of State, come before us with her estimates, and she reported that she had found no waste and extravagance and that there were no reductions in her estimates. She was followed by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, who repeated that statement. Then we had the very affable Minister of Veterans Affairs, who went even further. Not only did he say he found no evidence of waste and extravagance, but he added that in his opinion he did not expect to find waste and extravagance; and I commend him for that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the hon. member will recall my remarks he will find that I said I did not consider money spent on veterans pensions and war veterans allowances wasted money.


James Sinclair: I am sure we are all in agreement with that, but the actual statement was that the minister had found no waste and extravagance in his department. Of course not all the money in his department goes directly to disabled veterans or in the form of pensions and war veterans allowances. Some is for administration and construction. We were confident the minister would find no evidence of waste and extravagance, because those responsible for the administration of these funds are very efficient.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I might say that the money for construction is handled by the Department of Public Works.


James Sinclair: Yes. The estimates of that department will soon be before us. Following the Minister of Veterans Affairs our newcomer, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, brought his estimates before the external affairs committee, and he of course was asked the same question. He did report that with one exception there were no reductions in the estimates which had been prepared by the previous government. The one exception he mentioned was the sum of $336,000 for capital construction on our

Interim Supply
embassies abroad. He felt this was the time to reduce that expenditure and I may say that members of the official opposition would heartily agree that in a time when there is so much need here in Canada of work to be provided by capital construction we should cut down on that type of work abroad at this particular moment. I can assure the Minister of Public Works that when he brings forward his estimates we will expect a greatly accelerated program of public works to help ease the slack in employment which is lamentably present at this time.
With regard to the remarks made by the Minister of Finance concerning the second class of items of public works, where because of the nature of the construction year there has to be a greater proportion of money available so this work can go ahead, I would suggest to the minister that he would have been very helpful in providing for intelligent discussion of these estimates if he had acceded to our extremely reasonable request to provide this list. We are beginning to realize what a short list it would have been. Here are four departments in which there has been not one item reduced or removed. It would have been very helpful if the minister had given the house the information it is entitled to receive.
It may be that because of his failure to supply this information we will have to spend a longer time on our own estimates than we would perhaps have found necessary if we had been told in advance what items were likely to be changed. Those remarks apply to the official opposition but are not applicable to the other two opposition parties, since they had no part in preparing the main estimates, so to them all estimates are strange and they naturally would require as much information as they could obtain concerning them.
It is not my intention to prolong the debate, and I shall close by saying that we recognize the need to get interim supply through so the government's bills for November can be met.


Donald Methuen Fleming: December.


James Sinclair: Pardon me; December. For this reason we do not intend to obstruct this resolution in any way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, it is not our intention to attempt to hold up passage of the items involved in the interim supply bill. We realize that the government has to have the money to meet its bills during the month of December, and it will be our intention to help them get them through as auickly as possible.
Interim Supply
We realize that quite a number of issues might be raised under the items that are mentioned in the resolution, but we do believe that if we were to attempt to debate those items now it probably would result in a repetition of debate when we have the regular estimates before us. We feel that the time to enter into a full debate is when the full departmental estimates are brought before us. For that reason it is not our intention to raise the issues now. As has already been suggested, some of them may be urgent but I do not believe they are that urgent. Consequently we look forward to a more critical examination of all the departmental estimates when they are brought before us.
The minister has given an undertaking that all our rights will be protected in full, and we believe he will see that this undertaking is properly filled. There is one point, of course, that I have to draw to my hon. friend's attention. I doubt very much whether we are going to have the fullest possible opportunity for critical examination of the departmental estimates if we continue with the present long hours of sitting after Christmas. That was the reason I moved the amendment the other day to try to limit these long hours when we are to sit in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening six days a week for the period up to Christmas.
It is all very well for us to try to finish the business in that time, if we can, but I do not believe anybody is fooling himself for one second if he thinks we are going to be able to get through 26 items of legislation and give a critical and thorough examination to all the estimates of 16 departments before the house, and still have time for committee meetings and all the other things that have to be done in the work of the house. We are going to need far more time than the 17 days that remain before us; and certainly, Mr. Chairman, it would seem foolish, if we are to come back after Christmas to complete the work, to go on sitting those long hours to consider the very important business of the house.
Therefore I would certainly ask the government and the minister himself to give some sympathetic consideration to the possibility of limiting these long sitting hours to the period between now and Christmas. If we come back after Christmas with unfinished business let us take more time for careful and critical examination of all the estimates because, if we do, we might possibly be able to help the minister find some of those items in the estimates where he can save some money where there is evidence of waste and extravagance.

Interim Supply


James Sinclair: He is looking hard for them.


Solon Earl Low: The important thing is that we want to be able to look very hard, which we cannot do if we are rushed in our work and gloss over rather than get right down with our teeth in the estimates.
I simply suggest that so far as we are concerned at the moment we are going to help the government get these things through, because we realize they have to pay their bills. If we do not enter into a discussion of what might be considered urgent issues at the moment it is not that we do not appreciate their importance, but we do believe it is neither necessary nor wise at this time to have a repetition of debate such as will happen if we should raise those issues now and debate them and then raise them again when the departmental estimates are brought before us.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I want without taking too much of the time of the committee, to raise a very urgent matter. Last Friday night a large meeting was held in Vancouver under the auspices of the Vancouver labour council. There were about a thousand people or a little more in the audience, and representatives of all parties were present.
Now, I think it must be said that the member of the Conservative party there present, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, received a very bad reception. It had nothing to do with that member personally, I am quite sure, because he is liked and respected in Vancouver. I think undoubtedly the bad reaction to the remarks of the hon. member was due solely to the inadequacy of the government's employment program.
That hon. member, according to the radio, has now written a letter to the Prime Minister and released it publicly, setting out some points, and he finished that letter by saying that his experience at the meeting was the first time he was ever booed. He said later it was a new and demoralizing experience for him. But I repeat, Mr. Chairman, it is not really something that has anything to do with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, but it has a lot to do with the fact that the government's program for meeting the unemployment situation in Canada has been unimaginative, dilatory, negative and completely uninspired.
The meeting appreciated what the government has done in the way of alleviating hardship, the extension of seasonal unemployment benefits and the extension which is going to be made by way of federal contribution to relief as such; but all members in the house know that while people

may be able to survive on unemployment insurance or relief payments, they certainly cannot live and give a decent life to their families on those payments. That meeting undoubtedly felt that jobs were the first essential, and that relief was never a substitute for jobs.
What are some of the practical suggestions that came out of that meeting to which the government should pay attention? I am not thinking of the long-term necessity of social planning in this country by which we can plan to utilize our productive resources, not in accordance with the profit expectations of a few large companies but in accordance with what the Canadian people need. However, this meeting did lay down an immediate program of crash steps that the government could and should take.
I should like to refer to these steps without taking much time, notwithstanding the importance of the matter. First, they said there should be an accelerated over-all program of public works in Canada now, at all three levels of government. At page 1360 of Hansard for November 21, 1957, the Minister of Public Works said it was not the intention of the government to launch a special program of public works across Canada.
At that time the minister did say that was the fault of the previous administration in not leaving any works on the shelf. We cannot accept this bandying about of responsibility between the two old parties, such as we have seen to date. Whether or not the Conservatives are right in saying the Liberals are to blame and it is a legacy they have inherited, or whether the Liberals are right in saying it is the fault of the Conservatives that unemployment has increased is not the question. Actually they are both right in blaming each other.
Second, the National Housing Act must be completely reconstituted. At the moment, Mr. Chairman, according to the information I have received, the average down payment of a home owner under that act is $3,800, and the average income of the average borrower who takes out an N.H.A. loan is $5,700. In other words we have a housing program that helps those who least need help and completely passes over the heads of the vast majority of the Canadian people.


Mr. Lambert:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Yes.


Norman Platt Lambert: Is he aware that in the city of Edmonton there has been a vast program of house building and that the down payments are as low as $1,595, with some at $1,900 and $2,400?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: have given the average across Canada, and that would undoubtedly mean there were some below and some above. If the hon. member would reflect on what I just said he will see that I said the average income of those across Canada who are taking advantage of the N.H.A. is $5,700 a year for 1957. He will see, therefore, that we have no low cost housing program; we have no program that helps the wage and salary earner or the farm people who make up the bulk of the people of Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask my hon. friend if he is aware of the terms of a resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works which contemplates an amendment to the National Housing Act, and having as one of its purposes a reduction in the amount of the down payment?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Yes, I am aware of it, and I hope the remarks I am now making will influence the extent to which the down payments are slashed.


The Chairman:: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to discuss the National Housing Act at the present time.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: was just answering a question that was asked of me. As a matter of fact, I would hope that the down payment might be eliminated altogether and that the interest rate will be slashed, as was done for the veterans in the United States. I hope for this, notwithstanding the statement made the other day by the Minister of Public Works that the interest rate under the N.H.A. was not going to be reduced below 6 per cent. I regret that.
The third step that could immediately be taken to alleviate unemployment would be to invoke and activate the provisions of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, whereby the federal government would make credit available to the municipalities at a low interest rate. At that time it was 2 per cent.	This act	is still	upon	the statutebooks of	the country and	could	be readily
and easily invoked.
Fourth, the national development program in British Columbia should be proceeded with. I believe this meeting expressed concern about the development of Columbia power and the fact that	the plan	is still	lagging so badly.We still	have not	started	upon	our hydro
project in British Columbia. Unfortunately there are few signs that negotiation with the United States are proceeding, or that negotiations with British Columbia are proceeding on that question.


Frederick George Hahn: What about the Rocky Mountain trench?
Interim Supply


James Sinclair: You mean Wenner-Gren, that ex-nazi?


Mr.   Kahn@: Does that not help in the development of British Columbia?


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: That
was not referred to at the meeting, so I am not referring to it.
The fifth matter which is of importance is the need for trade with the Asian countries and that would include, of course, trade with China. Again we must see that the first step toward expanded trade with China is diplomatic recognition. In spite of what the Prime Minister has said in this house, it is clear that since Great Britain did accord diplomatic recognition to China her trade has increased. Recognition was felt to be important, and they expect still further growth in exports to China.
The sixth point that came before the meeting was the necessity for large scale capital assistance from Canada to the undeveloped countries of the world to help in providing employment here and to promote the interests of peace, as well as help in closing the gap between the hungry and the well-fed nations of the world. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that Canada should, as part of an employment program as well as in the interests of peace, subscribe at least 1 per cent of our national wealth through some such program as SUNFED under the auspices of the United Nations.
I should like to close by asking the government to reply before interim supply is voted, and state what they plan. In view of the response their speaker received in Vancouver, have they new proposals in addition to the humdrum and routine proposals made by the Minister of Labour? Do they plan anything of an imaginative and bold nature to take care of unemployment in Canada this winter? It is now estimated that Canada loses $150 million a month by the enforced idleness of many of our best and most capable workers. The homes that are not built, the goods that are not produced, the farm machinery that is not available and so on now runs to about $150 million a month. In addition to that can we afford the moral obloquy of many of our people suffering hardship and even hunger in the midst of the potential abundance which modern science has made available?
(Translation):


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, while the house is considering these estimates I should like to take the opportunity to raise the question of unemployment in the Canadian textile industry.

Interim, Supply
Conditions there are at this time certainly deplorable. For instance, at this very moment, the large textile plant of Montmagny has closed down and several hundred workers are jobless. I can remember that during the last election campaign, the Conservative candidates, at least in the province of Quebec, or the so-called Independent Conservative candidates, promised to help stabilize the textile industry in Canada.
When the session started in October, I expected to hear in the speech from the throne about some bills, or special legislation to help stabilize this industry. But, as in many other fields where serious problems have cropped up, the government had no program to offer. The matter was referred to a committee, as other most significant matters were referred to royal commissions or to conferences preliminary to more conferences.
The position of the textile industry is deplorable. The government is doing nothing. The December 2 issue of Hansard gave the official list of members of the trade delegation, or I could perhaps say, the purchasing mission, to the United Kingdom. On going over this list it will be seen that 15 members were particularly interested in going to the United Kingdom to buy textiles, whereas 7 others were out to buy consumer goods. If you single out the names of those seven others, you will find, for instance, the name of a representative of Eaton's and representatives of other large firms obviously interested in buying textiles.
This mission is going out to buy in Great Britain products that are being manufactured right here in Canada; while the textile industry and other industries over there are enjoying full employment, here in Canada our textile workers are out of work. Moreover, the government itself selected the members of the delegation and is paying their expenses, to allow those business men and importers to buy, in the United Kingdom, products manufactured by workers who are fully employed, thus depriving our own textile workers of the jobs they need to support their families.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of expanded international trade. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. It is a recognized fact that Canada must increase its international trade to balance its economy. On the other hand, I think it is going a bit too far,-merely to fulfil the unconsidered promise made by a prime minister,-yes, yes,
[Mr. Lesage.l
I repeat, to fulfil the unconsidered promise made by a prime minister-of switching 15 per cent of our external trade,-to send a mission into another country to buy products that can be manufactured in Canada, while our own workers in factories turning out the same type of product are without jobs.
I ask the government what they intend to do to remedy the situation, and especially if, in sending this trade mission, they are willing to take the risk involved for an important sector of our economy.
(Text):


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: I want to come back to this subject which was introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East. I refer to the most urgent matter facing the nation today, namely that of unemployment. It has been said, and I think with some accuracy, that by the time spring comes around there will be as many as 700,000 to 800,000 men in this country unemployed.
Many of us have a rather glib habit of talking about the unemployed as though they were an impersonal mass, but having in my younger days been unemployed myself and knowing what it means, I say that between
700,000	and 800,000 unemployed mean between 700,000 and 800,000 personal tragedies. If there is that measure of unemployment in this country the fault must lie squarely with the fiscal policies of this government.
It is in the interests of Canada that the opposition keep this government in office as long as they can if only for the purpose of showing up its complete and utter bankruptcy. The government has no solution whatsoever to the problems which are going to face us in this field. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the government is trying to hurry through as rapidly as possible the legislation which is in front of us. They want to get the estimates through by Christmas. They want the opposition out of the road so that publicity cannot be given to what is happening in the country today. On the other hand, while we are prepared to facilitate in every reasonable way the business of the house, we are also going to insist that these problems which are manifest in our economy must be brought forward, and we have a right to expect answers from the government.
We have been told that there is no shelf of public works inherited from the Liberal party, nor has the government any ideas at all about public works. Yet surely today

is one time when public works are required in this country. We know of areas where schools are desperately needed and where the federal government, through the provincial government, could give assistance with regard to the capital cost of the building of those schools. We know that hospitals are desperately needed. Again, assistance could be given for that capital cost. We know that roads are desperately needed. All across this country there are a great many things to do which ought to be done and which stare one in the face. Yet there is no word whatsoever from this party which sits opposite me.
I think of one case in my own constituency. Part of it is a new city of over 20,000 people. It has banks, industries, stores and, as I said, over 20,000 people living in it. Yet there is no post office there. I refer to the city of East Kildonan. Surely one of the things that could be done now as part of a public works program would be to build a badly needed post office in that area. I am sure that if one went over every municipality in this country one would find things which could be done profitably and which would be socially useful.
But if these things could be socially useful we must consider the kind of social catastrophe which results from unemployment. I do not think we shall ever go back to the conditions of the thirties, because the people of this country would not tolerate such conditions today. If there were to be unemployment on the massive scale we had then for any lengthy period, there would be revolution in this country. The ordinary people know, if this government does not, that if there is money for war there can be money for peace as well.
One of the things this government must be prepared to do is to spend money. The Minister of Finance may be in a bit of a quandary right now as to how he is going to balance his budget. I am, of course, quite convinced that there will be no budget brought down in this parliament. There will be an election first, because the government dare not face the country or this parliament with a budget and the financial mess which it will show. But I for one would be quite prepared to see an unbalanced budget if it meant that some of the unemployed were taken off the unemployed lists and given productive work. There are many things to be done in this country, and it is high time the government informed this house and Canada what their plans are to alleviate the growing menace of unemployment which faces us today.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not intend to detain the committee for more than two or three
Interim Supply
minutes, but I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance and ask that he and the government give some consideration to it. It is something along the lines of that brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He has pointed out the position in which the government finds itself by saying to the house that legislation is going to be delayed unless the estimates are put through. Of course they, with all members of the house, realize that the estimates have to be reasonably examined. So we are apparently in the dilemma that legislation which the country wants and which the members presumably all want is held up because of the necessity of putting the estimates through in a reasonable and proper way after careful examination.
When we ask the government to proceed with such an important measure as that to provide for improvement in the position of agricultural producers, we are continually told, "Those other measures and estimates must be proceeded with, and if you put them through we will reach that measure". We were told last night that we would reach this important measure with regard to agriculture today, provided we put through ahead of it this interim supply bill, the amendment to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the resolution with regard to the Export Credits Insurance Act, and the resolution in respect of the National Housing Act. We are told that if we put all these things through we will then reach this important measure on agriculture.
I think the hon. members of this house must realize that to say by the time we get interim supply through and deal with these very important measures such as housing, the insurance act and so on, we are going to then take up this most important act on agriculture but only providing we deal with ail these other matters first, is practically the same as saying we are not going to get this agricultural matter dealt with this week, because we will run into finance estimates on Friday and the defence estimates tomorrow, and probably other estimates on Saturday.
What I am getting at is this. While I am thoroughly and wholeheartedly in support of the attitude of the leader of our party when he says it is our desire to co-operate with the government in enabling it to have a fair chance to implement the promises upon which it was elected, I also agree with another suggestion of my leader which I think a lot of us would accept without hesitation. I would point out that the Minister of Finance and other prominent members of the government of which he is a member served on the estimates committee when in opposition, and

Interim Supply
they all testified to the value of that committee. Now our leader has suggested repeatedly to the government that we have this great program of legislation to consider and with which the house wishes to proceed, in addition to the estimates, which obviously are all going to be spent by the end of March. So if there is going to be any reality in considering them they should therefore be considered and put through not later than January next. So he has said we should submit some of these estimates to the estimates committee for consideration by the members who will be on that committee. In that way the estimates could get a thorough examination and the government could go ahead with its legislative program, a part of which is this important matter to agriculture.
The house has now been in session for approximately seven weeks and here is this matter which in my opinion is at the root of a lot of our growing unemployment troubles in this country, namely the falling off in the purchasing power of those in primary industry, particularly those engaged in agriculture. The government has promised to do something about this, and the longer it delays the more these problems are piling up. The economists realize that it is much easier to arrest a downward trend, economically speaking, than to right it if it is allowed to go a certain distance. I would think the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and other members of the government would have accepted with alacrity the suggested co-operation of the official opposition as outlined by our leader, in order to help deal with this situation which we know is not an easy one.
I cannot understand why the government does not accept the suggestion, even at this date, and have some of these estimates referred to a committee where some members can look into them, because we are being put into the position where, if we do our duty and examine these estimates in the way we should examine them, we will be accused of holding up the program of the government. The government must be desirous of putting us in that position, otherwise they would meet the suggestion that has been made in order that they might go ahead with their legislative program. Why do not they do it?
I dropped into the external affairs committee yesterday, where I saw the estimates of that department being examined by the members of that committtee who were very much interested in that department. When these estimates come before us the house itself will know that they have been

thoroughly examined in that external affairs committee and it is going to be able to pass them in much less time.
We could take, for example, the Department of National Defence, which is the department that occupies the minds of many of the people today. Much thought has been given to all the many aspects of the duties of this department, and I know we are all conscious of that fact. This is one area in particular where this parliament, if it is going to do its duty to the people, should be examining the estimates very carefully, but if we want to examine them then we hold up the legislation.
Why does not the government agree to appoint an estimates committee, which would be set up by the government itself in order to consider the estimates of the Department of National Defence? This procedure would double the efficiency of the members of this house, and I do ask the government to reconsider the suggestion to set up an estimates committee so this house can do a better job, not only of putting through the estimates and examining them, but also of ensuring the government a chance to implement the promises upon which they won the support they received in the election.


Mr. Hansell:: May I call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["May I call it one o'clock.\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we do not wish to unduly prolong the discussion of this resolution. We have promised and agreed to co-operate as far as possible with the government in getting through this legislation and passing the estimates in the limited time which appears to be at our disposal.
However, there is one thing I should like to say, and in this connection I should like to ask the minister a question which perhaps he may be able to answer after I am through. I should like to know whether or not there are any estimates which are to be withdrawn, or whether there are any which are going to be curtailed. I am interested in this because if any estimates are to be withdrawn then an opportunity will not be given to members of parliament to air any problem they may have in mind coming under those particular estimates.
I rather fancy that members may find themselves in the position of expecting to be able to speak on certain matters but finding that the estimates do not come before

the committee, so they are not able to speak as they expected. I do not know what will happen to the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I had something to say on that matter the other day, but we did not reach the particular item I wished to use in connection with my speech, and it would now appear that perhaps we will not have an opportunity to discuss those estimates this session.
Mr. Chairman, there is one point in this connection that I wish to bring to the attention of the committee and of the Minister of Finance in particular, because I am quite certain that any policy he may pursue will have an effect on the problem I am going to place before him. Several hon. members have risen today and spoken concerning unemployment. Whether or not the government want to recognize that there is an increase taking place in unemployment is their business. Some of us cannot help seeing by figures and facts that there is an increase in the number of unemployed.
The government may say this started before they came into office, but I am not too much concerned about when it started or who is responsible. I am going to present to the minister an unemployment problem which has existed for some considerable time, and that particular unemployment problem is in my own constituency where we had at one time a rather extensive coal mining industry.
For some time now, since the dieselization of the railways and the increasing use of other fuels, the coal mining industry of the Crowsnest pass area has been in a very deplorable condition, and I think my remarks regarding the industry in this particular area will be true practically throughout the entire country. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the government because it affects a vast community, and in this connection I should like to put a few figures and facts on the record.
I have a letter here from a local coal mining union, signed by the secretary, which gives an example of how often the coal miners have been able to work over the past couple of years. I will read one paragraph, which says that from January 1 of this year to the end of September, eight months, the mine at Bellevue, which is one of the communities within this Crowsnest pass area, will have worked no more than 60 days. Think of that, no more than 60 days in eight months.
The letter continues, and says that from October 1, 1956, to September 30, 1957, that is for an entire year, the mine has worked approximately 90 days. That is a deplorable situation. It is accentuated, too, by reason of the fact that the coal mines in this particular 96698-117
Interim Supply
area work on shifts, and because they work on shifts the unemployment insurance payments made to the men are affected. The men work perhaps one shift a week and by reason of that fact they are not totally unemployed. If they work one shift a week they do not appear to be as eligible for unemployment insurance benefits as if they were continually unemployed for a further length of time.
I want to put on the record here a small table. I will read it if I do not have unanimous consent. This table was enclosed in the letter I have just read, and it says that unemployment insurance for a married man who had a full week off one year ago amounted to between $26 and $30, but today by reason of this shift work he receives $19 to $21. A single man in respect of a full week off one year ago received $19 to $23; today he receives between $13 and $15.
Here is another part of the schedule which says that a married man working one shift one year ago received by way of unemployment insurance between $21 and $29; today he receives between $6 and $8.
Now, when we say "worked one shift", that means one shift in a week. A single man who worked one shift a year ago received between $14 and $22. Today he receives $5. According to another part of the schedule, for two shifts a married man received between $7 and $15 one year ago. Today he receives nothing. When a single man worked two shifts a year ago he received $6 to $8, but today he receives nothing. All this is in respect to unemployment insurance.
In the letter dated September 25, to which I have just referred, this local union secretary said that some of its officers were coming to Ottawa to interview the Minister of Labour, and I understand they did meet with him. Some amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were passed in this house the other day. These will benefit some unemployed by reason of the further extension of time for the payment of benefits and so forth, but they will not help these particular miners who are working only one or two shifts a week. This was the subject of the interview with the minister, as I understand it, but no remedy for this situation has been brought in. I will not take any more of the time of the committee on this point. Instead I will save the committee's time and personally speak about it to the minister.
I wish to deal now with the coal mining industry in general and in the Crowsnest pass area in particular. I know the government extends a somewhat sympathetic feeling to those people who are unfortunate in their employment, or to an industry which

Interim Supply
finds itself in unfortunate circumstances; but what we need is something more than a mere expression of sympathy.
I recall that just a few years ago, when Mr. Drew was out in Alberta, he visited a certain area in the southern part of the province and delivered a speech relating to the coal mining industry. In that speech he declared that something had to be done for the industry, and suggested that if he ever got in power something would definitely be done. It was significant that he did not find himself in power after that election, and when we returned to Ottawa we found him still sitting on the opposition side of the house. I waited to hear him come forward with some concrete suggestions as to how we were going to solve the problem which existed in the coal mining industry, but from that day on we did not hear a word from him on the subject. The election was over and his party was defeated. But the situation has changed now, and the same party which Mr. Drew led just a few years ago is now led by another gentleman, and the same party is now in office instead of being on the opposition side of the house.
We want to know whether or not this government is going to take up the cudgels of battle for the coal mining industry of Canada, particularly in the depressed area of the Crowsnest pass, and devise a policy that will keep that industry going and thereby give reasonable employment to those in the industry who are presently unemployed. Surely it is the duty and responsibility of government to devise some sort of a national coal policy.
I am not suggesting for a moment that it will be easy. The government will really have its hands full if this problem is to be properly tackled, but I believe it can be done. There is no use saying, "Well, we have set up a royal commission on energy that will look into all these problems." Some of us have been in this house long enough to have seen commissions come and go, and I personally have not yet discovered too much that has actually been accomplished as a result of the establishment of a royal commission. They have made recommendations, their work has been complete and thorough, and frequently their recommendations have been good; but in the final analysis it is up to the government to implement the recommendations. Many of the recommendations of royal commissions have been laudable, but governments do not seem to act upon them.
We owe it to the people in the depressed coal mining areas to tell them whether or not we believe the industry should continue to exist in Canada, because they have a right
	.
to know and the government in office has a responsibility to tell them. If the government's answer is yes, then it should be made known soon. There is no use saying an attempt will be made to put the industry on its feet a year from now, because that does not put any food on the breakfast table of the coal miner tomorrow morning. Something must be done soon.
On the other hand, if the government reaches the conclusion that the Canadian coal mining industry is about to fold up and it is unable to do anything about it, this information should be made known so the industry will know exactly where it stands and the coal miners will know their position. If it is to fold up then I believe it is the government's responsibility to rehabilitate the people in the coal mining districts of Canada.
There are ways in which this could be done if rehabilitation should prove necessary. One is to see that new industries are encouraged to go into the depressed areas and sustain them. This would be feasible in some of these areas. In the Crowsnest pass district, for instance, there is plenty of industrial potential. There is a good deal of lumbering and there could be a good deal of mining-not coal mining, perhaps, if that is to go by the boards, but other types of mining. It is the government's responsibility to see that something is done along that line.
We have been talking for quite some time about the possibility of thermal power being established in the Crowsnest pass area. In the last election my Liberal opponent declared that there was to be a thermal power plant situated in the Crowsnest pass district, and he mentioned Blairmore as the location. Oh, yes, he went so far as to say he had been able to achieve this for the people in that area. That was his election cry. I know that politicians can sometimes stretch the truth and give their statements a good deal of colour, and I am not going to plead innocent of doing that myself on occasion; but I must say that when politicians go out and state positive lies in respect of things of this sort, that is going too far.
I had this in mind, so I asked a question on the order paper just recently. I inquired about the establishment of a thermal power plant in the Crowsnest pass area. My question was passed as an order for return. I do not quite know why, because there was not much research involved in providing the answer. However, when questions are passed as orders for returns the answers do not appear in Hansard, and in order to learn what the answer is people must travel to Ottawa or request someone to look up the sessional paper. I am going to state what the answer

was in order that it may appear in Hansard. My question was in two parts, as follows:
1.	Has the government of Canada negotiated with any person, firm or corporation, during the past year for the installation of a thermal power plant at Blairmore, Alberta or any other community in the Alberta section of the Crowsnest pass?
2.	If so, with whom were negotiations carried on and with what results in each case?
This is the answer that was given in sessional paper No. 200, filed on Thursday, November 28:
1.	The Dominion coal board have no knowledge of any negotiation with any person during the past year on the installation of a thermal power plant at Blairmore, Alberta or in any other location in the Crowsnest pass.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
Then there are added the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Then we find the following:
So far as these departments are concerned: No answer.
In spite of election talk and election promises, Mr. Chairman, nothing has been done. I am projecting this matter into the debate today because this is one small industry that perhaps can be established in the Crowsnest pass area to take up some of the slack in respect of unemployment. The other thing that can be done, of course, if it is necessary to rehabilitate coal miners, is to move them to some other area and find employment for them there; but the situation is such today that almost every area in the country is experiencing the same problem in respect of unemployment.
I am aware of the fact, of course, that provincial governments have some responsibility in this matter. A few years ago, when the coal mining industry of Alberta reached the low ebb that it did, the Social Credit government of that province appropriated $100,000 for the rehabilitation of coal miners. Many of them left the area and became absorbed in other types of work.
Of course there is another solution to this problem, and that is to get markets for our coal. I am not saying that solution is an easy one, because we have been working on it for a good many years now. I will give this government credit for what I am about to say. What the result will be I do not know. Whether or not it will have a good result I do not know, but since coming into office this government has increased the subvention on coal for export to Japan. That is an admirable thing; but an increase in the subvention on exports of coal to Japan, while it is an admirable thing in itself, does not necessarily get the market for us. On the 96698-117i
Interim Supply
basis of the increased subvention I believe it is up to the government to go out and get markets in Japan for this coal.
There is a market in Japan for coal, and I want to emphasize that. I am told by the Dominion coal board-which is doing good work so far as their responsibilities are concerned and are at our disposal and will help us in any way-that the Japanese steel industry is in need of coal. They cannot produce enough coal themselves, and they must import coal from other countries. I am told that 20 per cent of the coal which they import now for their steel industry is imported from the eastern seaboard of the United States of America. About 2,880,000 tons are imported from the eastern seaboard of the United States. It is Pocahontas coal. I am told that the prospects for the sale of coal in Japan over the next few years amount to 12 million tons. They will need that much coal, but they cannot increase their own production, and they will have to import nearly 7 million tons.
I ask whether this business involving 7 million tons of coal is to go to United States coal mines on the eastern seaboard, or whether we have a chance to get that market. It is up to the government and the Department of Trade and Commerce to go after that market, because if we do not get it someone from some other country will go after it. I am inclined to think that if we can get that market for our coal it will help the coal mining industry of Canada to keep its head above water so it will not sink.
There is another industry in Japan that needs coal, namely the gas industry. They have imported a lot of coal from French Indo-China. French Indo-China is now in the communist orbit. We should be able to get some of that business now. The business that did go to French Indo-China perhaps should now go somewhere else. We have the opportunity to get that business.
The Japanese market for coal is highly competitive. They must have the proper quality of coal. In this respect I wish to say to the coal mining operators in the Crowsnest pass, or in any other place in Canada, that it is up to them to produce the quality of coal that will give the Japanese market the proper mix. In addition, the price must be competitive. When we are talking of a competitive price, might I suggest to the government of the day that they give every possible assistance to the establishment of bulk-loading facilities on the Vancouver docks. At the present time any bulk loading of coal or any other such material for export cannot be done at Vancouver.
This seems to me a strange state of affairs. Vancouver harbour is considered to be one of

Interim Supply
the best harbours in the world. Vancouver is, of course, a large city. If we want to ship anything by the process of bulk loading the material has to be taken by train to Seattle or Portland to be loaded for export. That should not be. A company has been organized which would like to establish a bulk-loading dock in the harbour of Vancouver so the coal mining industry, and any other industry desiring to facilitate itself in this manner, will not have to bear the expense of shipping the material to Seattle or Portland in order to export it. I hope they will be successful in this and I believe they will, but I do not know.
I could say a good deal more, Mr. Chairman, in respect of the coal mining industry, but I know we want to get along with this business. I appeal to the government now to look at this problem objectively and try to do the very best they can for this industry, which has been a big industry in Canada but in the last few years has been dying out. Do we want to have vast areas composed of ghost towns, or do we want to revive the industry to the point where it will employ a reasonable number of coal miners and keep those communities economically sound?
This is my plea to the government. I ask them to look into this matter and do all they can and do it quickly. I am not asking them to do it two or three years from now. Who knows whether they will be here two or three years from now? I am asking them to do it right away. Let us leave no stone unturned. Let us do all we can quickly to save the coal mining industry of Canada.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I was shocked this morning at the reference the Prime Minister made to the pensioned employees of the government railways in this country. This problem is one which I have brought to the attention of the house on other occasions. In Westmorland county there are thousands of pensioned employees of the Intercolonial Railway. Of course this railway has been out of existence for some time, since it was taken over by the Canadian National. This group is small, and in a few years the problem will solve itself because there will be no pensioners living.
When I was on the other side of the house I brought this matter to the attention of the government, as a reference to Hansard will indicate. Of course the Prime Minister may not have had time to read the speeches I made when I was on the government side of the house.


Mr. Cardiff:: Never knew you were here.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Probably you did not; you do not notice too much.

In addition to the plight of these men, there is also the plight of the people who were working for Canadian National Railways in Moncton and other centres and who have become unemployed. The capital projects that are proposed in that area, of one kind or another, are aimed at alleviating the conditions there. The Atlantic resolutions, which were signed by the Conservative candidates of the maritime provinces said:
We favour the immediate institution of an Atlantic capital projects program which will provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area.
This resolution is in line with the thinking of many organizations throughout the years. One of these projects that is of great interest today is the causeway that would be built from Westmorland county to Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he ask the unanimous consent of the committee to put all the Atlantic resolutions on the Hansard record? He will have no difficulty in obtaining the agreement of this side of the house. He has been reading them piecemeal throughout the session, and we would be delighted to see them all in Hansard.


Henry Joseph Murphy: The hon.
member has said that I have taken them up piecemeal. I have brought them to the attention of the house whenever it was possible, and I would remind him that the Atlantic resolutions were not signed by me. They were signed by the 33 Conservative candidates in the Atlantic provinces. It is the duty of those members to bring these resolutions to the attention of this house. As I stated on another occasion, there is one Conservative member in this house who has had the courage to put some of them on the order paper by way of resolution. I believe there are three contained in a resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Pictou.
Referring once again to the Prince Edward Island causeway, I may say that Prince Edward Island is one of the beauty spots of Canada. It is also one of the finest farming sections of the country. This causeway would be of great benefit to the people of Prince Edward Island in the movement of their products to the mainland. It would assist also in the development of industries on Prince Edward Island, because much of the transportation is done by truck.
We have within Westmorland county many stone quarries. In fact quite a number of the public buildings in Boston were built from stone quarried in Westmorland county.

I feel that these quarries could be reactivated and the stone used for the construction of an island causeway. I am not an engineer, but I have talked to some who are familiar with the shore line of Westmorland county and Prince Edward Island. They tell me that if this causeway were built it would soon be protected by sand dunes. We know this to be true, because one of the problems connected with wharves and breakwaters in the Northumberland strait area is that the drifting sands of Northumberland strait soon tend to gather around the breakwaters and the first thing we know we have a breakwater that appears to be on dry land. A great amount of dredging is necessary. I think this same condition would prevail if the island causeway were built.
We know the Prime Minister has taken a great interest in Prince Edward Island. In Charlottetown on April 29, as reported in the Ottawa Journal, the Prime Minister said when speaking of the money owed the federal government by Prince Edward Island:
Prince Edward Island will realize what $1,400,000 is. That amount will imprison this province. It will intensify financial difficulties. It will render a mockery of the concept of united Canada.
Farther on he said:
Prince Edward Island will become the poorest of the poor relations in Canada, unless you take action now.
The people of Prince Edward Island believed in the sincerity of the Prime Minister and sent four Conservative members, the entire number of members allotted to Prince Edward Island, to this parliament.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Next time New
Brunswick will do the same.


Mr. Habel:: Will those four come back?


An hon. Member:: No.


Henry Joseph Murphy: We will have to wait and see. Since there are four Conservative members from Prince Edward Island, we do not have that problem. The Minister of Public Works often makes reference in this house to the Liberal sea walls, and with this number of Conservative members from Prince Edward Island this causeway from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island could be a Conservative sea wall. I cannot hear all the interjections, but if hon. members wish to ask questions they should rise and I will give them the floor. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert has his own problems.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have not
made any interjection during the member's speech. However, I reserve the right to do so when he starts his inaccuracies.
Interim Supply


Mr. Gauthier (Portneut):: This is the first
time the hon. member has not made an interjection.


Henry Joseph Murphy: The hon.
gentleman will not have much time for that. When the Prime Minister was speaking at Woodstock, Ontario, on June 6 he was referring to the Liberal party. He went on to say they said they did not have money to increase old age pensions to the point to which he thought they should be increased. He went on to say that the Liberal party had money for culture. They had money for other programs, and then he laughed and said they even had money to build a road across the ocean.
I am wondering what the people of Prince Edward Island, who sent the four Conservative members here, would think if they knew that after being so sympathetic in Charlottetown the Prime Minister laughed at the causeway or road across the ocean, as he called it in Woodstock, Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Henry Joseph Murphy: No, but if you
wish to check the accuracy of that statement I suggest that you get in touch with the hon. member for Oxford, who was on the stage at that time.
There is another project that would assist in relieving the unemployment situation in our district. I refer to the elimination of grade crossings in the city of Moncton. I will not say it is the fault of the railway that the rails go through the centre of town. The rails were put there some time ago when Moncton was a very small place called The Bend, and the town has grown around the railway line. I understand there are plans now for the lowering of the railway tracks so that overhead passage for other vehicles can be built with greater ease. If this were done the trade and commerce section of Moncton would not be cut in two by the railway line, and the crossings would no longer be a menace to the lives of the people in the area.
Another suggestion has been made that the tracks be diverted, and that rather than go through the city they should pass through the west end so there would be no interference with the main streets of the city of Moncton.
I think either of these programs would be acceptable to the people of that area. I know a great amount of work would be created for the unemployed. This is the type of work that has a high labour content and requires a lot of men. I believe such a project would be of great assistance now.
Early this morning we received in our mail a newspaper supplement from Saint John,

Interim Supply
New Brunswick, about the Chignecto canal. It hon. members read it they will find what the Chignecto canal is. Briefly, it is a canal to be built on the border between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to allow vessels to pass from Northumberland strait to the bay ot Fundy. A ship going from Montreal to Boston would save approximately 400 miles. The canal would also be a water lane from Prince Edward Island and the north shore of Nova Scotia to the industrial cities of New England.
The Prime Minister has said, and I agree with him, that this is part and parcel of the St. Lawrence seaway. I would ask hon. members to look at the newspaper supplement on the Chignecto canal. I do not wish to be inaccurate in what I say about it. In that paper hon. members will find a statement by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. They can read exactly what he has to say, and they will see from what he says how strongly he is behind the project.
This project is one that was held out as an inducement to the maritime provinces to enter confederation. Hon. members will find that after confederation, when the parliament of Canada met, members and senators from the maritime provinces brought up the matter. One senator, Amos E. Botsford of New Brunswick, said the Chignecto canal had been held out by the conference at Quebec as an inducement to New Brunswick to enter confederation. Senator Dickey declared that at the conference it was distinctly understood that the canal should be constructed. John Burpee, then member of parliament for Sun-bury, now York-Sunbury, declared that if the people of New Brunswick had not been satisfied that the canal would be built they never would have consented to the union.
In the newspaper supplement it will be found that many others who were at the conference brought the matter to the attention of the house. The 100th anniversay of confederation will be about 10 years from now, and even if the promise is 100 years old it would be nice to see it fulfilled by that time. This project has twice been in the estimates of the House of Commons.
Having dealt with capital projects, I turn again to the question of the pensioners of the government railway who live in Moncton. I wish to say that I disagree thoroughly with the Prime Minister when he says that this is not an important matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not say that at all.


Henry Joseph Murphy: I asked him a question concerning legislation to assist these people, and he said this matter was of little or no importance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I think my hon. friend ought to be fair about this. The Prime Minister was asked a question by the hon. member this morning about placing this particular matter on the order paper, and the Prime Minister directed his answer not to the merits of the matter or its intrinsic importance but to the question of relating it to an already heavily laden order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
that a matter of no importance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter of the order paper is a matter of very high importance, as I think all hon. members will recognize, but I think it will also be recognized by hon. members that the question of bringing new matters in now is something that cannot just be tossed about each day, regardless of how important the particular matter under consideration may be. We must take account of the realities of the present order paper, with requests on every hand to advance matters one before another or to put more matters on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the minister does not think he can get the Prime Minister off that spot. He referred to the question this morning as being one of no importance.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor and that is the impression I, as well as many other members, got from what the Prime Minister said. It is nice to have the Minister of Finance tell us what the Prime Minister meant when he said it was of little or no importance. We are used to taking their words in the ordinary meaning, and if they mean something else to other people I think the people who are drawing these pensions will understand what I have just said about the meaning of "little or no importance". The Prime Minister was in the city of Moncton on May 4 and made an address at the Paramount theatre, as reported in the Moncton Transcript of May 6, in which he said these pensions were totally inadequate.
I have pointed out to the house that there are only a few thousand very old pensioners involved and that the problem will cure itself in a few years because they will all be dead. I have urged the house to consider this an urgent and important matter so these persons may be treated in the same way as the beneficiaries of other social legislation we have already passed this session, which was regarded as emergency legislation.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct a second inaccuracy we have noticed in the hon. member's remarks. It has to do with the statement I

made about the Chignecto canal. I should like to read an important paragraph from the article, because the hon. member has misconstrued some of the words I used with respect to the canal. I quote from the article which he held in his hand, and this is what I said before the last election:
Many organizations and groups of influence have pledged their support-
Of the Chignecto canal.
-hut so far the Liberal government has not shown the vision and leadership necessary to conduct even an up to date survey. John G. Diefenbaker, Q.C., the national leader of the Progressive Conservative party, on May 3, here in Saint John, discussed the merits of the canal and joined the long list of its promoters. I am pleased to associate myself with his remarks on that occasion.


Henry Joseph Murphy: If this is a correction, Mr. Chairman, I certainly would accept it as such. I note that this is the first time I have heard the hon. member for Saint John-Albert raise his voice in this house on this matter.


Mr. Palleii:: You have not spent very much time in the house, in that case.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let this opportunity go by without referring to the hon. member for Westmorland, who has just spoken and has twice complimented me on the resolution which I placed on the order paper of this house. It is very fine of him to do so, and in this regard I would say that as far as this and other Atlantic resolutions are concerned, I am sure I can speak for the other members from that area and say that we will certainly go ahead, put them on the order paper and see that they are carried out to the best of our ability. Furthermore, at a meeting of the Atlantic candidates in Moncton we certainly enjoyed the great hospitality of that city, although I do not think my hon. friend had anything to do with that.
However, I would just like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Macleod with respect to the coal mining industry. I would point out that in the area which I represent, the constituency of Pictou, a great deal of the economy is bound up in the coal mining industry. I will just briefly describe the history of that industry, which began with the old companies such as the General Mining Company, Acadia Coal Company and the Intercolonial Coal Company. It is easy to appreciate from what has happened in recent years that the coal mining industry has certainly been going down in that area. We have seen the closing down of mines in the town of Stellarton, the closing of the Alla shaft, Albion, MacGregor and also No. 79. There has also been a considerable reduction in the working force of the Intercolonial Coal Mining Company in
Interim Supply
Westville. Many delegations were sent to Halifax, to the provincial government of the time, and to the federal government in Ottawa without any help whatsoever being received.
As far as the town of Westville is concerned, which is an heroic town of some 4,200 people and which might be compared with Springhill in the neighbouring Cumberland county, it has for some years now faced a very bleak existence. The finances of the town are poor, as they have been for the last six or eight years, and this also applies to the town of Stellarton. In Westville there is what is known as the black diamond seam, a seam of coal which contains approximately 15 million tons of the best coal available. In this connection I would suggest that the subventions on coal which have been announced by this government will indeed have the effect desired in helping these mines, and I will certainly press for such a mine to be opened up before too long in order to assist that town.
These subventions announced by the government should, as I say, be of great assistance to the area, but my hon. friend from Macleod has stated that one way this government could help the coal mining industry throughout the country would, of course, be to encourage new industries. In this regard I would point out that these subventions will also help in the expansion of power plants in the province of Nova Scotia. There are, as many hon. members will know, some very active organizations in the maritime provinces, including one known as the Atlantic provinces economic council. This is made up of members from all over the Atlantic provinces under a very energetic president. The last place this organization met was, I believe, in the city of Charlottetown. APEC, as this organization is known, is not limited by political partisanship at all, but includes representatives from business, labour, educational authorities, and the various governments within these provinces. Certainly this organization is establishing a solid front in the maritimes.
I would just like to refer to an article in the Financial Post of September 28th last, as follows:
Maritimers are finding out through their Atlantic provinces economic council or APEC how much they can do by their own efforts to expand business and raise living standards. At a meeting just held in Charlottetown APEC studied trade promotion. Numerous constructive ideas were brought forward.
For example, the four provinces in APEC plan to establish an Atlantic House in London, England, very soon. Through this agency, as the experience of other parts of Canada shows, they might expect to attract immigrants, capital and orders for their goods.

Interim Supply
The Financial Post goes on to say:
In these current APEC reports there is a strong emphasis on local markets which may reflect the maritime sense of isolation. For instance, the Atlantic makers of footwear and apparel held a very successful show of their goods this year-but they held it in Halifax. They plan another for 1958-in Moncton or Saint John.
Why not Montreal or Toronto? It's by selling an exportable surplus outside their own borders, by competing in the Canadian market as a whole, and on overseas and foreign markets that the maritimes will ultimately share to the full a national prosperity.
An "operation bootstrap" of this kind is far better than wringing of hands, appeals to Ottawa or nostalgic longing for good old days.
What has been going on in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is what we might call "operation coaldust" or "operation kilowatt", or whatever you wish, but now the maritime provinces, through APEC, are showing that they are going ahead. I would like to refer briefly to a company which has been set up by the government of Nova Scotia known as Industrial Estates Limited. The purpose of this company is to attract new industry to the province of Nova Scotia, and I was happy to note from the issue of the Halifax Chronicle Herald yesterday that the first estate will be set up between the two towns I have mentioned, namely Stellarton and Westville, comprising 150 acres which have already been purchased. An option has been taken on a further 600 acres; and I believe that Industrial Estates Limited, which has many good and energetic men on its board of directors, will help to ensure a bright future for the province of Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally. I certainly hope that industry will be attracted to my own area.
Finally, I would like to refer the remarks of the hon. member for Macleod this morning to the effect that this government would not be here long if it did not do something. In my opinion this government has done more during this short period for my area and for the maritimes in general than has been done for many, many years. I might say that in the proud constituency which I have the honour to represent the future looks good, and I believe the whole of the maritimes are now looking forward to a prosperity which they have not known heretofore.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to say a few words Mr. Chairman, in support of the remarks made this morning by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I must take advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the government and this house the situation with respect to unemployment in my constituency, a constituency which is known for one of the highest rates of income per capita in Canada. I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am very suited

to deal with this question as I am with a number of other questions. As a suffering employer in the lumber industry, as a member of a miner's union and as a peasant farmer I can take a fully objective view of all these questions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the government has passed some legislation of value, legislation which will be of great assistance to numbers of persons including senior citizens, disabled and blind persons and war veterans. We were glad to see this legislation brought in and we supported it wholeheartedly. However, all this means, Mr. Chairman, is a minor redistribution of the diminishing production of this country. That is all this legislation means at the present time. The government of the day has not yet had to face head on, the major problems which have to be solved. I am not blaming the government for the situation which exists in the country at the present time, or for the situation which may continue to exist for some time to come unless some fundamentally different approach is made to this question.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that this question of unemployment and its related problems will not be solved properly until we have a different approach to our trade policies, some over-all planning, a different type of federal-provincial co-operation and different fiscal policies. We must also have a really national development policy which is the result of co-operation between the federal government and the provinces, and we must have a fiscal policy which permits the use of the national credit to give effect to the national development policy.
We in this group believe that these are some of the things which are necessary before we are going to solve, in the long run, these unemployment problems and the difficulties associated with them. However, we recognize that these things cannot be undertaken overnight and that they are unlikely to be undertaken by the Conservative government with its present philosophy, its present program and its current outlook, composed as it is of some hon. members who are so antiquated in their point of view that they would have made good parish councillors in the reign of George IV.
I want to bring to the attention of the committee and the government the situation in my own constituency, one which is unparalleled in recent years. I have in my hand a copy of the Trail Daily Times of November 23 in which is included the report of the manager of the employment offices for the latest monthly period. This is what he has to say:
Unemployment conditions in Trail and district are comparatively worse now compared to the same

period in 1956, J. T. Wilkinson, local manager of the unemployment insurance commission said today in his monthly review.
"There are now 505 males and 123 females unemployed", said Mr. Wilkinson, "a rise of 70 per cent over last month and a 125 per cent increase over last year. Thirty-eight per cent of the applications for aid were from Castlegar and Grand Forks area with the remaining 62 per cent from Trail.
Now the report goes on to refer to the various industries. I am very well acquainted with my constituency; I have seen it develop from pioneer days. Mr. Wilkinson has this to say with regard to the future:
The next largest industry reporting layoffs is logging and sawmill. This has increased considerably for this reporting period and is at least two months earlier than usual. Many sawmills and logging operations are closing down throughout the entire area with some remaining closed and others working at a reduced rate.
I may mention that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has had to lay off a number of men.
This condition, as reported by some, Is brought about by lack of sales.
Something about which I have very close personal experience. Then the report goes on:
Wholesale and retail trades are reporting business slow with few hirings. We expect some increase with the coming of Christmas but it is anticipated the demand for sales clerks will not be as great this year.
Dealing with forestry, the report says:
Little activity has occurred for this reporting period. The extra crews hired during the summer season have now been laid off.
Of mining, the report says:
No hirings have occurred for this reporting period with little hope of an early recovery expected. We are well supplied with workers for this industry, and an increase of transient miners requesting work has passed through our office.
Of manufacturing:
To date approximately 150 workers have been laid off from Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company Limited. This has caused a sharp rise in our unemployed figures for the present.
Of construction:
A sharp increase of skilled and semi-skilled workers registering for employment has occurred throughout the period, with contracts in our previous reports being completed or nearing completion. No new contracts have been let and it is expected the situation will become worse as present contracts are completed.
Then the report goes on to deal with veterans.
Our special placements files have increased over the month, due to those working at seasonal employment. The majority of applicants registered are of the age group class and employment is limited.
These are the people who sutfer the most, those who are unable to work in the mines, woods and mills. Then Mr. Wilkinson says:
Veteran files for October showed a slight increase over the previous month with the percentage of
Interim Supply
veterans against the total unemployed applicants being favourable with last year.
The women's division also reports increased unemployment, as does the executive and professional division.
Mr. Chairman, this represents a serious state of affairs in a constituency such as the one I have the honour to represent which produces such great wealth. It is one which presents increasing difficulties. The number of transients is increasing rapidly in both Nelson and in Trail, for the same conditions prevail in Nelson as I have mentioned. The city of Trail got all the agencies together and representatives from the organizations met, as a result of which the city has established a central agency for transients to be located in the city hall adjacent to the clothing centre and to be operated jointly by the Trail relief organization and the Trail welfare society. The decision to set up a central agency was taken at a meeting of representatives of interested organizations. Under the chairmanship of the city council's welfare chairman, Alderman F. E. DeVito, as reported in the Trail Daily Times, the talks were one in a series held to discuss the problem of growing numbers of unemployed transients passing through Trail.
Men out of work in other parts of British Columbia and, possibly, a good number of farmers who have ceased their farming operations on the prairies, come to Trail because it is known as a place where one can usually obtain employment. In discussing this question at the Trail town meeting Alderman Alex Brokenshire had this to say:
Things are rough and may get even rougher.
The whole tenor of this meeting was that the city was facing a situation with regard to transients which was only a reflection of the growing unemployment in other areas.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we believe we have to take a more fundamental approach if we are to correct this situation. Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others in this group I believe that something more could be done at this time to assist people to obtain employment. It is very easy to sit in this house, living a reasonably comfortable life, and fail to realize what unemployment means to the average head of a family and to the average mother of a family if it continues for any length of time, and I think we in this house should do everything possible regardless of party to promote a continual flow of ideas-and I am very glad to see the Minister of Labour nodding agreement-and proposals which will relieve the situation.
First, we believe that there should be in these circumstances not the formal and long

Interim Supply
distance projects that, perhaps, we have come to expect from provincial conferences. We believe the federal government should say to the provinces: "Come to Ottawa; here is an immediate situation and we want your cooperation. Let us sit round the table and do something to meet it, at least during the winter months, or the few months ahead."
There are things which can be done if we use our intelligence. It is not enough to sit back and assume that large numbers of people must go on unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance and that others must wander along the streets with no source of income except a handout at a soup kitchen. That is not good enough, Mr. Chairman, in Canada at this time, bearing in mind the production of which Canada is capable. There are things that can be done. As I have said, I have had a most interesting life experience including the time I have spent in this house in the last 12 years. I have had something to do with the construction of highways and bridges and piers and I am trying to do something today toward the production of the Conservative party, though how successful I will be in that work I do not know.
I think this government could ensure that there is a certain amount of work continued on the trans-Canada highway as a result of co-operation with the provinces, particularly a province such as British Columbia where you can carry on heavy rock cuts all winter long and construct certain types of rock fills and high level bridges and things of that sort under winter conditions. In addition to that there is a lot of material required for this construction which normally will be continued in the spring, in the way of lumber, steel and things of that nature. A little planning and co-operation would make it possible to keep some of the sawmills going and would assist the steel industry in operating, if only we would look ahead and place some of these orders for the future. In addition to that I believe there is an opportunity to promote the necessary building on the prairies.
If in the period of the hungry thirties when the former Conservative government was in power-I will admit it was not then called the Progressive Conservative party- we had used our national credit to build highways, houses, public utilities and things of that sort we could have given the people employment at reasonable wages and at the same time accomplished the building of the necessary projects at at least one-quarter of the price. If we had had sufficient faith in our country this could have been done.
I suggest some co-operation is necessary between the governments on a very sound

basis. I am all for getting people to work in order to earn their money rather than having them get it without work and I am sure a great majority of Canadians share that view. We could do something to improve the situation in the lumber industry by using the national credit to provide for the necessary buildings, home improvements and long-term loans for that purpose, and the construction of the granaries that are required to house the millions of bushels of grain which in some cases have to remain on the ground outdoors. These are things we can do and I have mentioned only a few but instead we sit around and mope and fail to take action.
In the first place this is not a party question. We should all be willing to co-operate for the sake of the people we are here to represent. In the second place we should use our intelligence and explore every avenue for the development of programs to create this necessary employment. That is something that could be done immediately. It has little to do with the political philosophy of any party in this house. Rather it is simply a reflection of ordinary Canadian common sense.
There is one thing we could do that would be of great assistance to British Columbia and it was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway; that is, to stop being stupid and recognize the government of China. We sent a trade mission in by way of the back door and although we do not recognize it we say we would like to do business with it. Let us recognize the government of China but do not recognize the form of government. Let us do something for the lumber, fish, mining and fruit industries in British Columbia and other parts of Canada.


Mr. Christian:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first to agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West in relation to his attitude in respect of the matter of unemployment. I, too, feel that this is a problem which should be solved by all of us on a non-party basis. The hon. member for Kootenay West and I hail from the province of British Columbia which consists largely of mountains and valleys. As a result of this in many places in that province we suffer considerably from the problem of river erosion particularly during the heavy runoff of river waters in the spring of each year when a large amount of farmers' land disappears into the rivers causing the farmers a considerable loss. In my particular area there are two rivers, the Similkameen and the Kettle, which carry large quantities of water and do considerable damage especially in the spring of the year.

The farmers are extremely worried about losing so much of their fertile land.
I have in my hand a letter in the form of a resolution from the British Columbia farmers' institutes of Grand Forks, British Columbia, which reads as follows:
Whereas erosion by rivers and streams continues to take a heavy toll each year of our best agricultural land, and whereas this loss is irreparable and is a net loss to the entire country, and whereas the British Columbia government has instituted a policy of investigation, survey and corrective measures whereby they would pay a maximum of 50 per cent of the cost of the required work, and whereas farmers and land owners whose land is being damaged cannot afford to pay more than a small fraction of the expense involved, therefore be it resolved that pressure be brought to bear immediately on the dominion government to work with the provincial authorities and assume up to 50 per cent of the cost involved in preventing further damage through erosion by said rivers and streams.
A number of months ago I personally obtained two petitions from farmers in the area who are of the opinion that the dominion and provincial governments should work out some equitable scheme for sharing the costs in order to prevent further damage by rivers.
One hon. gentleman who preceded the hon. member for Kootenay West mentioned that more was done in his constituency by the Conservative government than had been done by any other government but as far as my own constituency of Okanagan Boundary is concerned I am not in a position to say that because to my knowledge at the present time there is no works program or any substantial benefit that has been extended to that area.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I think you will find that he made reference to the maritimes and not to his own constituency.


Frank Claus Christian: Well, thank you very much; that may be the case. In any event I do not feel that preference should be shown to any particular constituency whatsoever. After all, we live in Canada and the work should be proportioned throughout the whole country as equitably as possible.
I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the matter of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I personally feel the act was not properly named and that it should be called the Canadian farm rehabilitation act and its provisions applied and extended throughout the entire nation. I recently examined section 4 of the act which reads:
The advisory committees shall consider and advise the minister as to the best methods to be adopted to secure the rehabilitation of the drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and to develop and promote within these areas systems of farm practice, tree culture, water supply, land utilization and land settlement that will afford greater economic security, and to make such representations thereon to the minister as the advisory committees may deem expedient.
Interim Supply
I fail to see why an act of such great importance should be limited in its application to three provinces. I observed not so long ago that the federal government intends to endeavour to assist the British Columbia fruit lands irrigation projects to the extent of some $200,000. As I understand it, this amount has already been earmarked by the federal government to assist this project which is located near the city of Kamloops in the province of British Columbia. The entire cost of the project will be $600,000. The provincial government is to assume one-third of the cost, or $200,000, and the balance is to be assumed by the local residents and I believe there has been a bond issue in that area. Veterans are affected by this project and the money contributed by the federal government is authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act. I am all in favour of helping the veterans in so far as this project is concerned.
I should also like to mention certain other projects throughout my own province of British Columbia. There are a number of irrigation districts in the province of British Columbia which are having a difficult time with their financing. Quite a number of them have barely enough money to meet the current expenses of the irrigation district, and when it comes to a question of various capital renewals, in so far as irrigation systems are concerned, they just have not the money to do it and they are in a very serious state. In some of these particular irrigation districts there are veterans who are actually on those properties. I personally do not think you can justify the expenditure of $200,000 by the federal government to help veterans-I am in favour of helping them- and yet not extend the same relief and benefit to other irrigation districts throughout the country. I personally know of a number of them in British Columbia. No doubt there is a large number of others throughout the Dominion of Canada, but I believe we should treat all those irrigation districts in the same way for the benefit of all Canadians.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend's speech but the practice has not been in the past for speeches, which would normally be made on estimates, to be made on motions for interim supply. These motions in times past, as hon. members opposite will recall, have been dispatched very quickly. The whole purpose of any minister of finance in giving to the house the assurance that all rights of members of the house to discuss any item on the estimates will be preserved is just to assure to hon. members that they will have an opportunity later in the session, when the estimates of the departments are

Interim Supply
before the committee of supply, to make whatever speeches are relevant and pertinent to the estimates of the department. But, Mr. Chairman, what we are having here today is a discussion of estimates or the equivalent of a debate on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply. This is a far departure from the practice of the house on motions for interim supply. It is utterly profitless for a minister of finance to give hon. members assurances that their rights to discuss any matter that is pertinent to any items of the estimates shall be preserved if we are to have a debate on these matters today and then a debate on the same matters when the estimates are before the house in committee of supply.
Now, we have had complaints today, a good many of them, about delay of items on the order paper. Mr. Chairman, with all respect, we are just going to be that much more delayed in reaching those items on the order paper, many important items, many pressing items, if we are to have two debates, one on the motion for interim supply and then again the same thing on the estimates of the various departments. I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that the time-honoured practice of the house should be observed on motions for interim supply.
I think I can recall only one occasion prior to this session where there was anything like a discussion on a motion for interim supply. Ministers of finance who have preceded me in every case have pressed and insisted, because of the preservation of the rights of members to bring their matters up on the estimates of the various departments, that there should not be extended debate on a motion for interim supply; nor should a wide variety of matters be introduced under the heading of grievance, or anything of that kind. Such a debate as is now proceeding, it seems to me with great respect, is not at all proper on a motion for interim supply.


Mr. Quelch:: On the point of order, when the leader of this group spoke he pointed out that we were quite prepared to co-operate and let this motion go through with very little debate. But what has happened? Speaker after speaker from different parties has risen in his place and discussed the question of unemployment. If the minister considered it necessary to object, why did he not object when one member from his own party was speaking at some length on this particular question? This is only our second speaker. When the question of unemployment is discussed by member after member have we to sit in this corner and say nothing? If the minister wants to object, let him object at the proper time and not wait until 
a member from this group rises for the first time in the debate. He should have raised the objection right at the very start when the debate on unemployment started and when a member from his own party spoke on it at some length.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is quite obvious to most hon. members that when in a situation like that arising this morning, when we were told by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that several of his members wished to speak but briefly, any minister who is offering a motion for interim supply sits back and says, it may be they will be brief but, as happened this afternoon, we have just gone on with the speeches growing longer and longer. It is quite apparent, I am sure, to the hon. member for Acadia, being the reasonable man that he is, that we are now hearing a speech on irrigation. We have been everywhere today. We have had speeches on the recognition of the Chinese communist government and we have had some speeches on unemployment. We have departed far from the simple indication that we had from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he spoke very briefly this morning.
What is the situation? I have given to the hon. member who has been speaking the assurance that he will have full opportunity to make his speech on irrigation on the proper item in the estimates of the department that is concerned; but, Mr. Chairman, we are just going to have duplication of debate and hon. members will just be faced with the situation of which they are complaining, namely that they cannot reach some later item on the order paper. We will not be able to begin the discussion of the later item unless we have some regard for the practice and the true purpose of discussion in regard to motions for interim supply.


Frank Claus Christian: I will be glad to co-operate in this respect, as I always wish to do. However, I would say this. As I sat here I could see that some members were speaking about coal and others were speaking about unemployment, and I followed the practice of the day. I think I have a reasonable attitude, Mr. Chairman. However, I will cut my remarks as short as possible. The only point I was trying to make was that I felt that as between irrigation projects in Canada there should be no such thing as discrimination. There is a great need for the dominion and provincial governments to co-operate and help some of the unfortunate irrigation districts, particularly in the province of British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, since the estimates of the Postmaster General will not be discussed I have a burning question. I will take only about three minutes. We have had a daily mail-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I tell my hon. friend that there are a couple of items of further supplementary estimates of the Post Office Department that have yet to come before the committee of supply.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I could have been through by this time.
(Translation);


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, mindful of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has said I will try to be as brief as possible. However I do wish to offer some remarks on the situation of the textile industry in this country, more particularly in my constituency, which includes the town of Drummond-ville where about 80 per cent of the people depend upon that particular industry for their living.
The government is well aware of the importance of this industry in the nation's economy. According to a report of the Primary Textile Institute 80,000 people are employed in this industry which ranks ahead of the iron and steel industry which employs
29.000	people and the pulp and paper industry which employs 62,000.
Besides the fact that its capital is 84 per cent Canadian, the textile industry also pays the highest wages in this country, averaging $1.20 an hour whereas in 1954, in Great Britain, the average hourly wage was 44 cents, as against 15 cents in Japan and 12 cents in India. The industry is further handicapped by competition resulting from British preferential tariffs.
At the present time, the Canadian textile industry supplies approximately 46 percent of the needs of the domestic market whereas last year the corresponding figure was 56 per cent. This 10 per cent decrease represents work which could have been carried out by our Canadian workers and, consequently, explains the present unemployment.
Comparing the present figures to last year's we find that the textile industry now employs
3.000	fewer people than it did then, which means 3,000 more unemployed. If we look at the situation in the Dominion Textile plant in Drummondville, we find that on November 2, 1957 there were 210 employees less than on November 3, 1956, a figure which must be considered in the light of the fact that that industry employs 1,000 people. There is unemployment therefore in Drummondville, as in every other community with
Interim Supply
a textile industry. That is why I felt that I should call the government's attention, this afternoon, to what, in my estimation, is a rather serious situation.
Two suggestions have been made in this connection by the Canadian association of textile manufacturers. To begin with there should obviously be a change in the definition of the word "dumping" which favours export of American products to Canada below cost price.
The Templon Spinning Mills Company, of Drummondville, sent a letter recently to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). Here is one paragraph from that letter:
(Text):
We suggest that an investigation of the declared price of American yarns being imported into this country be started. Templon Spinning Mills (Canada) Limited are prepared to provide your department with American orlon prices now in force in the United States, and we are sure that the rest of the Canadian synthetic spinners will be glad to supply similar information from their sources.
(Translation):
This clearly shows that the government must take action to correct the situation. If I felt justified in taking part in the debate this afternoon it is because I feel the matter to be urgent. I would have liked to speak at greater length but I will close now by asking the government to act as soon as possible.
(Text):


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Had it not been for the recent remarks of the Minister of Finance I might have been disposed to remain silent and not utter the thoughts that crossed my mind this morning when he was giving us this usual solemn assurance about reserving the right to the committee to full discussion of the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, on the estimates.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: However, having listened to his recent remarks I must remind him that at least two of his colleagues, namely the Prime Minister and the house leader, have been making very strong suggestions to us that they expected us to have completely dealt with the estimates prior to the Christmas recess. They have also been taking some steps to foreshorten the normal opportunities in this house to discuss some of the problems of the Canadian people under motions for supply. I feel, therefore, that perhaps it is not inappropriate that we should seize this occasion to raise such matters as have been raised by hon. members like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Having said that, I assure the Minister of Finance I am going to express what I have to say as briefly as possible.

Interim Supply
My colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, attempted to offer some constructive suggestion as to how the immediate unemployment situation that has developed in some areas of the country be handled. I have a matter which I might normally have raised as a matter of departmental policy on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, but in view of the urgency of the unemployment situation as described by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kings-way I feel it can very appropriately be related to the remarks that were made by him, by the hon. member for Kootenay West and others. On two recent occasions I have made some mention in the house of the fact that on Vancouver island and in other parts of British Columbia there are more than the usual number of unemployed loggers as well as a large number of qualified construction workers who are now without jobs and seeking work. For that reason I should like to mention this as part of the national development policy about which the party to which the Minister of Finance belongs have been having quite a bit to say.
The Minister of Finance may or may not know that along the coastal area of British Columbia we have several hundred streams which are used by our Pacific salmon for spawning purposes. Some of these streams are in the more rugged and undeveloped parts of the Pacific coast. One of the facts that has often been brought out in reports by the federal Department of Fisheries is that, as a result of these streams being in undeveloped areas, nature continues to take its course so far as the facilities of the salmon for spawning are concerned. 1 have discussed on former estimates of the Department of Fisheries the reports that have been made that flash floods cause a loss of a good deal of the potential future salmon runs. In view of the unemployment situation amongst loggers and construction workers, now would be a very good time to undertake on a much larger scale than has heretofore been undertaken the development and improvement of our salmon spawning streams along the Pacific coast. This is the type of work for which the unemployed loggers and unemployed construction workers would be particularly suited. Much of this work could be done at low levels where there would not be any great difficulty in carrying on work during the winter, even though it might not be the most pleasant time of the year to do it.
The whole question of carrying on a development program which would have the effect of decreasing the damage caused salmon streams as a result of logging activity

when it is going at full blast is something that could be considered in a program of this kind.
As I said to the minister, Mr. Chairman, I intend to be as brief as I can in stating this point. But I do feel, in view of the unemployment situation which has been brought to the attention of the government and which probably will be brought to their attention to an increasing extent as the days go by unless something is done, that this is a practical sort of suggestion which could very well be carried out at this time. It is not the sort of thing which, as the hon. member for Kootenay West said, need divide us on partisan political lines but something which, as far as I can see, is a genuine suggestion to meet the immediate situation and provide employment opportunities to some of the people of British Columbia who at the present time have not got those opportunities.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I notified the Minister of Finance that I wanted to discuss the earlier vesting of pension rights. It would take me about ten minutes to do so but I am willing to co-operate with his request in order that the work of the house may progress. I think I can deal with the matter later under his estimates.


Mr. Irwin:: Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate the attitude of the Minister of Finance. Being here under the conditions I am and having regard to the position I occupied previous to coming here I suppose I should be one of the last to break either the rules of the house or its precedents. I do not intend to do that. So far as interim supply is concerned, I am quite willing to let the minister go ahead. Let us get on with the job, but there is one thing I should like to point out to him. I must protest the action he takes when he brings an interim supply motion before the house and does not give all members a list of what he proposes to do. He may say, of course, that he has not had time to prepare a list but I noted that he provided one for the leaders of each group and I suppose for each member of the cabinet. If that is possible, I suggest to him it is equally possible to mimeograph it and let all members have it.
After all we are not mind readers and when it comes to relating one-twelfth of an item that is in the blue book, plus the supplementary estimates, I put it to him that it requires quite a feat of mental acrobatics in order to be able to relate the one to the other. When he gets down into cents and tells us that one amount is one-twelfth of another amount of money it would be helpful if we could compare the two and make sure he is correct because, after all, we are policemen

so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned and we want to carry out our duties. I suggest to him that when he brings interim supply before the house in the future, as he probably will do, that he take steps to have all members provided with a list of the things that he proposes to do so that we will at least know what we are talking about.
(Translation):


Mr. Begin:: Mr. Chairman, I feel I should take this opportunity provided by the motion for interim supply, representing one-twelfth of the total estimates of those departments which have not as yet been adopted, to bring to the attention of the house the acute unemployment situation in the city of Quebec and, more particularly, in the constituency of Quebec West.
If unemployment is now on the increase, it is due primarily to the Canadian people's lack of confidence in the present government. Another cause is the fact that the government has no definite policy but prefers to drift along and to attempt to take advantage of opportunities most likely to strike the voters' fancy.
(Text):


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, again I must rise and appeal to my hon. friend and to the house. My hon. friend has indicated he is going to make a speech relating to a matter that can properly be raised on the estimates. Again I respectfully remind him that I have given to the house the assurance that these estimates will be open for discussion. The ministers of the various departments will be before the committee of supply with their estimates throughout the session and any speech that is relevant to any item of the estimates can be made. But, Mr. Speaker, we are just going to have duplication of debate if we are going to go on as we are today-just duplication.
(Translation):


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I have listened fairly regularly to the speeches which have been made since the beginning of this debate on interim supply. As members have spoken on just about everything, I do not see why I would be discriminated against and prevented from making a few remarks on the subject of unemployment.
At one time the western farmers could not sell their wheat so the house voted an amount of $150 million for cash advances. But what does the government propose to do about our unemployed? Is it planning to set up 20 cents a day camps again, as under the Bennett administration? What amount is the government planning to spend during the next four or five months? The government should not
Interim Supply
concentrate all its attention on the next election, but should be providing for women and children who will suffer from cold and hunger this winter.
The people in my constituency have done their share; when our country was threatened, they agreed to all the sacrifices called for by the authorities. Today the workers' families are facing the threat of unemployment, and it is our duty to help them in their hour of need. When our country was threatened, all our resources and all our wealth were drawn upon. Well, for goodness sake, let us do something for the worker's family!
In Quebec city, there are considerable and urgent works to be done, but unfortunately, the municipality cannot afford to undertake them. However, since there is very serious unemployment there, the federal government not only can but must carry them out as soon as possible.
There is first the cleaning up of the Lairet river and the dredging of the St. Charles river, two projects which were mentioned more than once in this house. The shores of the St. Charles river could be finished with ornamental stone in some attractive way, as was done in many other cities. This river runs through Quebec city and such works would greatly help beautify the city and would also help solve the unemployment problem.
May I also point out that the building of a post office would provide jobs for large numbers of workers. The government should urge the Canadian National authorities to settle this problem once and for all and then call for tenders at once.
It might be advisable to take again under consideration the proposal that old age pensions be payable at age 65 instead of 70. Workers forced to retire at 65, as happens in most cases, would thus have some means of support even if they were unable to lay anything aside while they held jobs. We all know that at the present time it is just about impossible for this class of people to find jobs. The old age pension should therefore be made universally payable at 65.
Also located in my constituency is the Savory Park hospital, in the municipality of Quebec West. Well, that institution even lacks an auditorium where patients could be entertained. There again, the works could be carried out during the winter. Among the patients are Hungarians and Eskimos, and it seems to me that we should provide them with recreational facilities which could not fail to relieve some of the bitterness they certainly feel in their heart not only as patients but as expatriates. Moreover, the northeastern side of the hospital is only

Interim Supply
a few feet away from houses which the department of national health and welfare should expropriate so as to give the patients something better to look at, namely the city of Quebec.
In closing, I make a very special invitation to members of parliament to visit Quebec city during the winter carnival. This would be another way of helping solve the unemployment problem in Quebec. I should first mention that Quebec city is the centre of a magnificent winter carnival. So, it would be a great pleasure for me if all members of the house made it a point to visit our beautiful city and take part in the merry-making of the winter carnival.
(Text):


George Hugh Castleden: I only wish to take a few moments of the time of the house to discuss a matter of urgency in the particular area of Canada from which I come, namely the prairie provinces. This really is a matter of urgency. We have heard a considerable amount of reference this afternoon to the subject of unemployment from members from all parts of Canada. It is a good thing for Canada, I think, that we are hearing these stories. It seems that the procedure of parliament is a little better than it was a year ago when we did not hear so much about conditions in the maritimes, particularly on the coast.
Of course we have been hearing stories of the emergency situation in the prairie provinces for a good many years. I cannot say that people in the prairie region are unemployed; they are busy and they have been busy. They have produced some tremendous crops; the only trouble with us is that while the men have been working, they have received no pay. Perhaps one of the causes has been the heavy crops and that Canada is not delivering its grain and has not been able to sell sufficient of its farm produce. The government is not getting rid of the grain, and as a result there is a backlog in the storage of grain in Canada today which is the greatest in the history of this country. The records will show that there is overstorage in the elevators, at the terminals and in the interior of the country; in almost every place in the prairies we have storage elevators filled to capacity.
The farmer in the past few years has not been able to deliver sufficient grain to pay his operating expenses; I would say not even

60 per cent of his operating expenses. Over the past four years we have been urging the government to undertake a job of building storage facilities in Canada which will take care of the grain left on the farm, grain which under the present conditions is spoiling, but the government has not seen fit to undertake such a program.
I would suggest to the government this afternoon that they could well undertake such a program of grain storage which would benefit a large number of people. However, first of all it would benefit the farmers who are unable to deliver their grain. At the present time the farmer is forced to try and make storage available, but in many cases he is unable to afford to do so. As anyone who has travelled across the prairies during the fall in the past few years will have noticed, there are piles of grain stacked in millions of bushels because there is not sufficient storage space for it. Grain piled in the open on the prairies or put into open bins because the farmer is already loaded to capacity cannot be left in such a way without a certain percentage of spoilage. The farmers' own bins are inadequate and there is a lot of spoilage due to the moisture leaking in at the sides.
This is a criminal waste in the first place, especially in a world where there are two billion people going hungry and it is a waste which should not be allowed to occur. Under the present circumstances the farmer has to take the loss in the form of spoiled grain which he cannot use and which is probably thrown away. He may be able to use a certain portion of it for feed but I am sure I am safe in saying there are millions of bushels each year wasted on the western prairies because of the lack of storage.
The providing of these facilities would do a lot of good; it would provide work for the unemployed and it would provide a use for our lumber. It would be a good thing for Canada generally because the figures show that as a result of improved efficiency more and more grain could be produced. Our average production over the years is increasing but there is a decline in the quantity which the country is able to sell.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to questions this afternoon indicated that the government has no program for disposal of surplus agricultural products to undeveloped countries where the people need it most. This is because these countries have no dollars with which to buy this food. Well I suggest to this government that the country should have a surplus agricultural disposal

policy which makes it possible to get rid of our surplus agricultural products.
If we in the democracies wish to show that we have something better than guns to offer to the world it would be a good thing for this country to formulate such a policy and undertake a program of such disposal to these countries. Give it to them. Today the farmer is losing it anyway; a lot of it is just wasted. It would be much better to give it away than to leave it where it is.
The government could undertake a program of giving to these countries which have no Canadian dollars the food they need to prevent them from suffering the starvation which faces them every day. We would, after all, be giving to those who need it a commodity of which Canada has so much. Aside from the humanitarian aspects of the situation, at least it would be better than letting it spoil.
On the other hand, if we had at least another 200 billion bushels' storage space in this country it could be used to capacity, and this would certainly relieve the situation as far as the farmer is concerned. The farmer is now forced to bear the brunt. As I say, he is employed all right but he gets no pay for his trouble. If he can sell another 300 million bushels this fall that would also relieve the situation considerably.
These farmers are in desperate straits with about 80 per cent of them hanging on the ropes and about 10 per cent having given up and left the farm. I urge this government to look deeply into this matter and they may find they can solve a number of problems. First of all they could provide some employment; secondly they could ease an industry which today is in desperate circumstances. I could tell stories of farmers who are trying to operate their farms, but because they have not been allowed to deliver their grain they have no money with which to pay their taxes. This has meant that the farmer has left the farm in the winter, leaving his wife and probably a couple of little children and the wife has had to feed the cattle and take care of the home while he goes to the bush or out to Kitimat to try to earn some money to keep the family going. He comes back in the spring and again puts in his crop in the hope that he will be able to hang on and deliver his grain and make a living out of the agricultural industry.
Surely it is not wrong that a farmer should be growing grain when the world is hungry. Surely Canada can play its part in seeing that these grain crops go to the hungry people of the world. The government knows that the present program of the Colombo plan is not enough. Other countries can
Interim Supply
get their surplus agricultural products out to the world; Canada should adopt a policy whereby she could take at least a portion of these surpluses and feed these people. Surely the government should be willing to undertake part of such an expenditure. I maintain it would be good defence for Canada to earn friends among the underprivileged nations of the world. We can waste billions of dollars on defence, upon armaments which are obsolete when delivered. Surely a portion of that money could be directed into the agricultural field to introduce a disposal program of our agricultural surplus products, and help to do away with the injustice which exists today in agricultural policies, and provide Canada with a food bank which may be useful in the years to come.
The former government made the mistake of constantly telling the house that everything was all right, that this was merely a temporary condition. I pointed out to the then minister of trade and commerce on more than one occasion that because of the conditions existing in the world today and because of the difficulties of our foreign markets the farmer was in a position where he was less and less able to deliver the grain he grows; and today grain deliveries are gradually resolving themselves into a mere trickle. I can show the committee farmers in the west who have to store grain grown three years ago. Today the grade is down because of the long period of storage. Who is taking that loss? Feed companies go around and offer farmers 60 cents a bushel for No. 3 wheat so they can make feed out of it within the province where the transaction does not come under the wheat board act. Again, the farmer is taking the loss. I do not know any other industry in which the cost-price squeeze has closed out the little fellow to the extent it has done in agriculture. What I have been suggesting is one way of making it possible for these people to carry on in the great work we are doing, the constructive and necessary work of growing food for a hungry world.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think we have something like 20 items of legislation already slated to be passed during the current session, and I believe a suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Rosthern which the government should consider very carefully, that is, referring the estimates of some of the departments to various committees for consideration. One obvious example which comes to my mind is the setting up of an estimates committee to which the estimates of certain departments might be referred. I think the estimates of the Department of Agriculture

Interim Supply
could be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. I firmly believe that if the government were prepared to adopt this suggestion it would first of all enable a more thorough scrutiny by the members of this house and, secondly, it would facilitate the dispatch of business in this house.
I think I can say for the members of this group who have taken an interest in agriculture over the years that if our members on the agricultural committee had an opportunity of going over the estimates of the Department of Agriculture that would very materially shorten the length of time taken in this house in discussing the estimates of that department. I think the members of this house in the opposition parties are prepared to facilitate the business of the house.
It would seem to me that the attitude of the government is to pile more and more legislation upon us without giving us an opportunity to deal with the legislation. It is doing that by listing the estimates as a major part of the work in any week. This would seem to me to be the manoeuvre which the government itself is adopting; one which is making it very difficult, if not impossible, for members to deal adequately with all the measures and with all the estimates that are being placed before this house. I suggest to the government that if they are sincere in wanting the legislation which they have now placed on the order paper passed at an early date they should refer the estimates of some of the departments to various committees of the house. By so doing they would facilitate the business of the house, the passage of the estimates and the passage of the important legislation that has been placed before us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How do we get interim supply through?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am going to deal with the hon. minister later on. He might save his interjections until then.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will have some more then. How do we get interim supply?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the attitude of the government is confirming, as the days go on, some of the things one hears around this building from members of the press and hon. members in all parties, namely that the government does not intend to bring in a budget before the next election, and that it is following a very deliberate policy of making certain that it shall not present a balance sheet to the people of this country. We know that the government is committed to heavy

additional expenditure. We hear it suggested that there may be certain reductions in taxation, and the government has, in fact, promised that these reductions will be made. So there is a growing feeling that the government, if it did present the budget, could do nothing but come up with a very substantial deficit. But rather than face the need to bring a strict accounting of government expenditures before this house and the people of Canada by way of presenting a balance sheet, this government is taking a roundabout method of piling legislation before us and listing departmental estimates as the order of business for a large part of the time with the possibility in mind that when we get some weeks further on and, perhaps, the national convention of the Liberal party is out of the way, by their own manoeuvre they will be able to say: there is a lot of legislation which is not passed, legislation we have not been able to get passed; there are a lot of estimates which are not through, estimates we have been wanting to get through; we are being obstructed; now is the time to call an election, a winter election.
As far as I am concerned the people of this country feel it is the duty of the government and of parliament to deal with the legislation and to pass it, and I believe it is the government, and not anybody in the opposition which is attempting to delay the passage of legislation and the passage of the estimates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have some legislation before you right now. Sit down, and let us get on with it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest it would be better if the government adopted some of the things they suggested while in opposition with regard to sending these matters to committees for full discussion. It would expedite the business of the house and allay this growing belief that the government is jockeying itself into a position where it can, by way of a phony excuse, pull the plug and have an early election. It seems to me that the government, the members of the cabinet and the government supporters who go out and make speeches in the country have one common theme, and that is the imminence of a general election.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you like one?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been interrupting and he seems much more anxious to place comments on the record when someone else has the floor

than when he is questioned in the house. I think the government would gain support among agricultural producers in this country if it brought in its own legislation to provide price supports.


Norman Platt Lambert: Well, let us get to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: We have been campaigning since the government announced its legislation on October 31 to have* this particular legislation called early so it could be dealt with by the house. I am informed now that in the interim period an emergency meeting has been called by the board of the Canadian Confederation of Agriculture which will be held on Thursday and Friday of this week. It is my belief that the government had no intention whatever of showing this bill to the people of this country at this time whether or not we had dealt with the resolution.
I directed a question to the Minister of Finance yesterday as to news reports to the effect that the cabinet in the United States had asked that a further $H billion vote be given by congress to carry on and extend the United States surplus disposal program and the Minister of Finance referred that question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for an answer. We received from the latter gentleman what I thought was a very off the cuff answer, one that had not been particularly well thought out, when he said he did not see any danger in this further appropriation because he did not feel it was interfering with Canadian markets.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: You can check the record and confirm it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said it constituted no danger with regard to the assurances they gave us concerning it.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right, it constitutes no danger in the light of the assurances they gave you. I think from recent events that the chance remark by a high official in the United States that hit the press, "We fixed them", is becoming more and more significant because these news reports-the minister can correct them if they are wrong-say that this money will be appropriated for the purpose of selling, bartering or giving away additional produce. I therefore raise the question, has the government an assurance that this proposal that is being placed before congress does not provide money for a continuation of the United States barter program? The news item to which I referred appeared in the Globe and Mail on November 18. I have another one saying
Interim Supply
much the same thing taken from the Manitoba Co-operator of November 28. That report reads:
Mr. Benson also said he would ask that at least an additional $1 billion of surplus farm commodities be shipped abroad to be sold, bartered or given away.
The United States proposal to congress is definitely for an expansion in the United States surplus disposal program and that program will mean an increase in the shipments of United States agricultural products to many countries in the world. I ask this government what its policy is for Canada to ensure that Canadian producers will enjoy their fair share of the world market in food. In many of its policies the United States is doing laudable things. Unlike this government the government of that country has adopted the position that surplus food in the United States should be made available to feed the people of the world but this government apparently is content to allow the grain to continue piling up. It has not announced any new policy that will mean a larger expansion in the sale of Canadian agricultural products. The government has turned its back on the many suggestions that have already been made to expand the sale of Canadian agricultural products and improve the income of agricultural producers. As a matter of fact, the record of this government to date as far as the Canadian agricultural producer is concerned is a tragic one. Until this time in this session the agricultural producer has been forgotten and despite the fact that members of this government were loud in their statements that they had policies to deal with falling farm income we have not yet heard what those policies are.


Mr. Dupuis:: Promises for the next election.


Hazen Robert Argue: As the days go on the farm
organizations in this country are expressing more frequently their concern that the government is in fact floundering and has not a policy to deal with this situation. I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce this morning whether he had made the statement reported in the Regina Leader-Post which I quoted from memory to the effect that the government did not believe that the wheat producers of this country should be subsidized.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I never said that. You can keep on quoting it but that will not prove I said it. You can quote it all over the country if you wish.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not quoted it yet so just contain yourself until I get around to quoting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I tell you I did not say that.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says he did not say that.

Interim Supply


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I did not say it but I
know you will keep repeating it and attempt to make people believe I did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Very well, I will quote it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right, quote it right across the country; yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: There have been many comments made by the minister which he would like to withdraw. During this session we have already seen the minister rise on more than one occasion to amend things which he said. In fact, I think he did so today in reference to the list of the personnel who were in his own trade delegation. Interestingly enough, he corrected it only after it had been brought to his attention; he did not discover it himself. The minister made an extremely ridiculous statement in a speech in the month of September and I am not going to attempt to quote it to him at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why not? Keep on with your unfair statements.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister made a ridiculous statement in suggesting that the acreage in wheat should be reduced in the long-term policy and livestock production increased-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and I do not think that any member of the cabinet since the government was elected has burnt his fingers on any statement like the Minister of Trade and Commerce did with regard to that statement because it is something that has been quoted and referred to in editorial comment in the main farm papers of the nation. There is not a farm organization of which I am aware that agrees with the statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Except that there are resolutions passed by the interprovincial farm union council along the same lines.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think so. I do not think any farm organization suggests there should be a further reduction in the acreage of wheat. There has been a substantial reduction in wheat acreage in the last three years and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has suggested that there should be an increased production of livestock, looking to the future.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You bet. There will be a population of 40 million in Canada some day.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says he did not make the statement that is reported in the Leader-Post but I will quote it anyway.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, quote it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, I will put it on the record. This statement was taken from the Regina Leader-Post of November 15, 1957 at page 3. The headline reads:
No Need for Wheat Subsidies to Growers
The body of the article reads:
Government subsidies for Canadian wheat growers are not needed at present is the opinion of trade and commerce minister Gordon Churchill.
Interviewed Friday by the Leader-Post in Hotel Saskatchewan where*he later spoke to delegates to the Saskatchewan wheat pool annual meeting he said:-
The following is in quotation marks:
"We haven't yet reached the stage where we have to subsidize the wheat grower."
And further on:
Subsidizing Canadian wheat growers at present would only, in the long run, aggravate world trade conditions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member for Assiniboia has made the statement in this committee to the effect that I said something which he has read from a newspaper. I have already said that I did not make that statement. The normal custom of this house, I submit, is to accept the statement of a member; in fact, the rules bear it out but my hon. friend apparently is not acquainted with that fact.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will accept any statement or any correction.


William Moore Benidickson: On the point of order, in this debate I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce can speak for 30 minutes as often as he wishes in reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not a point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the minister should contain himself until I have completed quoting from this statement. If he wishes to rise afterwards and say that the Regina Leader-Post reporter who took this statement, apparently in an interview, so it says, in the Hotel Saskatchewan some time before the minister addressed the annual wheat pool convention, misquoted him, of course it is his right so to do and I shall accept any further interpretation or any change or any denial he makes with respect to this statement; but I would like the right-which 1 think is my privilege-to go on and finish quoting from this article.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am glad you are accepting the explanation, though.


Hazen Robert Argue: I quote:
He believes Canada has a good chance to recover the proportion of sales of wheat on world markets which she lost recently, that sales will remain at the average over the past and that prices will be maintained.

Subsidizing Canadian wheat growers at present would only, in the long run, aggravate world trade conditions.
If the minister does not think that subsidizing wheat at this time would further aggravate world trade conditions, according to the report of the interview he gave, he should say so. If the minister has not said that the farmers should not be subsidized, then he should stand up and say that the farmers should be subsidized, that it is the policy of the government to provide deficiency payments, because he cannot have it both ways. But I can tell him that the annual wheat pool convention to which he spoke was anything but satisfied with the presentation given to them by the minister, and they are anything but satisfied with the record of his own department and the record of the government in this field. I say that because I am informed, and I believe reliably informed, that not too long after the minister had made his speech and had left the annual meeting a very important resolution was passed. Again I am informed from what I believe are reliable quarters that the resolution passed without a dissenting voice and without a dissenting vote. The resolution said that the Saskatchewan wheat pool organization should organize, unless there is an immediate change in government policy a mass delegation of people from Saskatchewan to Ottawa to interview the government and try to get it to change the disastrous course it is now following. The minister can rise in his place and he can contradict this statement and he can defend his position, if he can, but the fact is that in the present crop year as compared with the period in the crop year one year ago, about which his party complained so much, combined exports of all grains are down; prices are softening and the farmer's cost of production is going up.
The point is that the Saskatchewan wheat pool, a responsible organization, and one of the most important farm organizations in Canada and a very important part of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, was so displeased with the government's record in this field that they are considering the organization of a mass delegation to come to Ottawa. I believe the last time the Saskatchewan wheat pool organized a mass delegation was in 1942, when a delegation of some 400 farmers and businessmen came from the prairies to interview the government of the day to protest conditions at that time. The cycle is now apparently about complete. Unless this government changes its policy which today threatens the very existence of the agricultural industry in all parts of Canada, unless it does something to stabilize prices, as far
Interim Supply
as the agricultural industry is concerned, farmers are so dissatisfied that they are prepared to take the kind of action to which I have referred.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I correct one of the inaccuracies in the hon. member's speech which was filled with inaccuracies. I hold in my hand the dominion bureau of statistics report, dated November 6, 1957, which shows Canada's exports of wheat for the month of September, compared with the month of September last year. The figures show that for the month of September this year the export of wheat exceeded the export of wheat last year and the hon. member would find that the same thing is true for the month of August.


Hazen Robert Argue: To show that I was not inaccurate, Mr. Chairman, and the minister was not correcting any inaccuracies, I did not mention any two months. I said that in the current crop year to date the exports of all grains from this country is less than it was in the same period a year ago, about which the members of the opposition at that time complained so bitterly. I repeat that statement, and it is true. I have the last figures here to prove it. They are taken from the board of grain commissioners for Canada statistics, annual Canadian grain position, close of business, Wednesday, November 20, 1957. Let us take wheat. To date, from August 1 to November 20, exports were 78| million bushels. A year ago exports were 85.9 million bushels. There is a drop of some 7 million bushels. Therefore, wheat exports have worsened by 7 million bushels.
We now come to oats. This is the commodity that the government is proud of. It says the exports are increasing. It is a great record, so the minister said to me on a previous occasion. A year ago the exports in that period were .2 million bushels. This year they were 1.2 million bushels. Therefore, there is a marvellous increase of 1 million bushels.


William Moore Benidickson: Not dollarwise.


Hazen Robert Argue: No; oats, of course, is a cheap commodity so far as grain is concerned. In barley the exports a year ago were 22 million bushels in that period, and under the aggressive sales policy of the minister, under the policy that the government is now following to correct the position of the agricultural producers of this country, exports of barley have fallen from 22 million bushels to 7 million bushels. I could go on and give the exact figures for rye and flaxseed but the total for all grains from August 1 to November 20 a year ago were 112 million bushels. The exports of all of these grains for the same period this year have fallen to 90i

Interim Supply
million bushels, or a drop of almost 22 million bushels in that period. Thus the government's export record is a dismal failure. Agricultural producers are finding that their income is falling.
The hon. member for Kindersley has also placed on the record figures to show that marketings in this year to date are just over half of farm marketings on the average for a 10-year period. I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, rather than claiming inaccuracies in the statements that do not exist, would be making far better use of his time if he gave his talents to bringing forward a policy in his department which would expand Canadian exports and increase the income of agricultural producers and, above all, correct the very serious price-cost squeeze that today is bankrupting tens of thousands of farmers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Canada's exports of wheat are increasing, as the hon. member knows.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have witnessed today, I think, an extraordinary exhibition. A motion for interim supply, as hon. members who have sat in previous parliaments well know, has almost invariably been dispatched in a matter of about 15 minutes. In the 12J years I have been in this house I recall only one occasion where any discussion arose on a motion for interim supply, that is until this new parliament was elected and met in October. The position taken by my predecessors, three of them, who sat here in that time, has always been that the purpose of a motion for interim supply was simply to give the government the means necessary for carrying on for a limited period, usually one month. So far as discussion is concerned, the rights of all hon. members to say whatever may be pertinent or relevant under the rules of the house about any item are carefully preserved in the undertaking that the Minister of Finance always gives to the house. This is the assurance the house has that there will be no trespassing upon or diminution of the rights of the house to discussion.
It is for this reason also, Mr. Chairman, that ministers of finance have said that matters such as would be in order on a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply or would be in order in the consideration of the items of the estimates in committee of supply ought not to be discussed on a motion for interim supply. What did we witness today? The hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the financial critic of the official opposition, spoke and indicated that the official opposition would support the motion and would not extend the discussion. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, speaking as it appeared for the C.C.F.

group in the house, said that his group was supporting the motion because they realized the government must have something with which to meet expenses. He was extraordinarily brief and said, as he sat down, that there were three members of his group who would speak very briefly on individual matters.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: He said no number at all; I was here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I heard him say something which sounded in my ear like a number.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: He said a number of members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since October 31.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government measures that the government wished to bring before the house today and yesterday were announced. It was the hope of the government that we would dispatch these other items in the customary way and we would deal with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture long before this. The Minister of Agriculture has been in and out of the house all day trying to ascertain how we were getting on with the business and when he would get on with his resolution.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My notes are getting dogeared from carrying them around.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, we had these C.C.F. members standing up and making a completely empty and fictional assertion that the government does not want to bring this measure forward. We are doing everything in our power to bring it on, and to bring it on today. These same members, by going on abusing the rights of the house and trespassing on the rights of other members, are doing everything that they can to delay the house in approaching that measure and dealing with it today.
It is time that the facts in this regard were stated.


Jean Lesage: Just wait for a few moments and I will give you a few examples of your speeches on interim supply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did recall one occasion-


Jean Lesage: I have the references here, two this year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This year?
Interim Supply


Jean Lesage: This year, two occasions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend will find nothing to compare with what has occurred here today-


Jean Lesage: I will give you the number of pages in Hansard immediately.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -or what happened on the occasion of the last motion for interim supply about five weeks ago. There has been nothing like it.
There has to be a choice made in this matter, Mr. Chairman. If the house wishes to go on with this kind of debate on interim supply and later on, on the estimates as well, then the leader of the house in planning the business of the house will have to take account of that fact and be guided accordingly. There is no use in hon. members complaining that they are not getting on with later matters on the order paper today if they are going to spend endless time in talking the way they have talked here today. All of these matters on the order paper are urgent. The hon. member for Rosthern today complained about some items being taken before others. I appeal to the house in the name of the sound dispatch of public business to get on with all these measures. They are urgent in the eyes of everyone. I am sure no one can deny the urgency of any of these matters on the order paper today.
There are a couple of things, sir, that have been said here today about which I wish to say a word by way of answer, and answer only. First of all, we heard the hon. member for Westmorland asserting that the Prime Minister had this morning, in reply to a question, treated the claim for increase of pensions of former government railway employees as a matter of no importance. The Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, said no such thing today and it is not his opinion and any who have followed the discussions in the house in times past and recall what the Prime Minister has said on this subject will well know that there was no truth in that assertion.
What the Prime Minister said today was that unless less time is taken on the orders of the day with questions of little or no importance there just is not going to be time at a session like this to deal with matters that are of serious moment. He did not make any comment on that particular subject or its intrinsic merits. In speaking about important questions or unimportant questions, he was drawing attention to the fact that unless members are going to be prepared to exercise some forbearance we are not going to be able to proceed with the dispatch of the

Interim Supply
urgent business on the order paper as the government is asking the house to do.
I was asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, why it was that copies of the present resolution had not been circulated to hon. members. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this session something has been done which has not been done before, that is to say, a precis of the amounts, items and fractions which are involved in the resolution has been placed in the hands of all parties in the house. There is nothing secret about any of this. The only question is as to the items and the fractions. The amounts are simply worked out on that fractional calculation and it never has been the practice to circulate copies of a resolution on interim supply in this house. Members are being given more information this session in this respect than they have ever been given before. In the time-honoured practice of the house on matters of interim supply, as long as the leaders of the parties are satisfied the vote has gone through without interminable discussion.
I was asked today about the intentions of the government with respect to the items that are to appear before the house in committee of supply in due course. Reference was made to what has happened already on the estimates of the two departments that have been before the house in committee of supply. Here let me very briefly draw attention to precisely what happened. On November 20, when the estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State were before the house the Secretary of State, when asked whether the house was to be asked to vote in full the amounts of the estimates of her department, said, as found at page 1340 of Hansard:
-having regard to the commitments which have already been undertaken by the department, I think that in so far as my own department is concerned it would be advisable to ask for the votes as they stand and then effect what economies we can rather than try to cut regardless of the requirements of the department and then be forced to ask for some of that cut-back in supplementary estimates at a later date.
Let it be remembered that all the items involving salaries in that department have been increased by reason of the general increase in salaries in the civil service and even with that the Secretary of State is pointing out that she is managing to finance on the estimates without making special provision for additional supplementaries.
When my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, brought his estimates before the house on November 21 he prefaced his statement on that occasion by referring directly to the matter of reductions in

the items in his department, and he said, as recorded at page 1380 of Hansard:
Since the date of my appointment as minister of this department I have carefully examined these estimates, together with my officers, and as a result it has been found possible to divert approximately $500,000 to other requirements which were not foreseen at the time these estimates were prepared. Specifically, about $250,000 was used to help defray the cost of the general salaries revision of May 1, 1957, and a smaller amount was used to assist in settling accounts resulting from the grounding of the C.G.S. Baffin in July, 1957. Hon. members will appreciate that had this action not been taken it would have been necessary to request additional funds by way of supplementary estimates in order to cover these items.
It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that the ministers have been dealing with this matter of effecting reductions in the estimates of their departments where that can be done without sacrificing any essential service and the house has been acquainted with the results. That practice will be followed as the estimates of succeeding departments are considered by the house in committee of supply.
There is one matter that was raised by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet today and was also touched on by two other members. It was the position of the textile industry. I am not going to say anything more than is strictly required in reply to what was said by these hon. members. The textile industry has been faced with difficult conditions in recent years. This matter is raised by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet today as though he had made a new discovery.


Jean Lesage: It is the first time that the mill at Montmagny has closed down for lack of work.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can tell my hon. friend-


Jean Lesage: Under a Tory regime.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the matter has been a subject of very keen concern to those of us who are now sitting on this side of the house for a long time, and while one will have the greatest concern about the closing of any mill I am glad to see that some hon. members opposite have now discovered for the first time that there is this problem in the textile industry. I can well remember when I was on the other side of the house raising this question time after time after time and pointing to the difficulties of the textile industry. Did we receive any support from the hon. members who now form the official opposition and who spoke today? Never a word, Mr. Chairman; never a word did we hear from them, never an indication of concern.
But now they are beginning to discover the problem. This is a problem that is giving the government concern as it gave members now

sitting on this side of the house great concern when they sat in the opposition and when it gave the former government no evident concern.


Lionel Chevrier: It did very much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government of that day made a reference to the tariff board of the woollen items in the tariff. That was done three years ago, and what did they do? It was a truncated inquiry that they directed the tariff board to make. They told the tariff board not to make any recommendations. So the tariff board simply made a review of conditions in the industry so far as woollen textiles were concerned and made no recommendations, and to this day we have had no recommendations.
What the new government did in the face of the problem was to direct the tariff board to proceed with an inquiry into the whole textile industry embracing all the textile items in the tariff. The tariff board has proceeded with the inquiry with respect to the woollen items. They have completed their hearings and they are working on their report now. I shall be very interested indeed to see what kind of reception the recommendations of the tariff board in this respect, whatever they may be, receive from hon. members opposite when they come.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that must be mentioned here in the light of statements that have been made today, principally by the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet and the hon. member for Essex West. Apparently they are seeking to create the impression that the government trade mission now in the United Kingdom is seeking to make purchases which are going to have the effect of depriving Canadian workmen of jobs. Let us scotch that ugly apparition right now. It has been made clear by the government from the outset that the policy of seeking to divert purchases to Britain applies purely and exclusively to purchases of goods now made elsewhere outside Canada.
Let it not be pretended by hon. members opposite that in this trade mission or in its purpose there is any threat to the jobs of Canadians. That fact appears to have been realized by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when, on the eve of departure of the trade mission for the United Kingdom three weeks ago, that hon. gentleman wished them well and spoke-as we thought-for all members of the official opposition in applauding their efforts and wishing them success.


Jean Lesage: Nobody thought they would buy textiles.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There were also some statements from the two other groups in the house
Interim Supply
wishing the mission well, applauding their efforts and wishing them success. What has happened now? The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet says that the presence of several Canadian textile manufacturers in the trade mission-


Jean Lesage: Oh, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -seems to give rise to the suspicion that the mission is going to be engaged in the purchase of textiles over there which could be purchased in Canada. Mr. Chairman, did you ever hear anything quite so far-fetched? I would have thought that the best guarantee that there is going to be no injury done to the jobs of any Canadian textile worker or to the interests of any Canadian textile mill lies in the fact that there are Canadian textile manufacturers in the trade mission.


Jean Lesage: No there are not. They are importers not manufacturers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were told-


Jean Lesage: Look at the list.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were told this morning that there were representatives of the textile industry in the group.


William Moore Benidickson: Garments manufacturers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should think that by looking at the composition of the trade mission and if the hon. members will only hearken back to what their own leader has said, they will have ample assurance that there is nothing in the activities of this trade mission which need give concern to Canadian industry or Canadian workmen. It has been made clear by the government from the very outset -and the facts should not be misrepresented now

that the policy of diversion applies purely and simply to goods now being purchased in other markets abroad.


William Hector McMillan: Would the hon. minister permit a question? In view of what he has said, what about the purchase of generators and other electrical apparatus announced by Mr. Duncan, the leader of the mission?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sorry I did not hear all of my hon. friend's question.


William Hector McMillan: How about the announcement of the purchase of electrical apparatus made by Mr. Duncan, the leader of the mission? There was to be $10 million worth bought in Britain.


William Moore Benidickson: $10 million worth of generators purchased in Britain by the Ontario hydro.

Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know the details of the particular purchase referred to, but I do know that the Ontario hydro electric power commission has previously made purchases in the United Kingdom of heavy electrical equipment not manufactured in this country, and I expect that Mr. Duncan has proceeded on that basis. I put it to the hon. members opposite that if the words of their leader uttered in this house on the occasion of the departure of this mission represent the feeling of the hon. members opposite, then these statements which have been made today obviously are hollow and have no place in the language of the official opposition. On the other hand, if the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was not speaking for them when he wished the mission well three weeks ago then, in fairness to him and in frankness to the house I urge them now to declare it.
I did not intend to review these matters; I have spoken as I have simply to put the facts straight in the light of a number of statements made here today. I deplore the fact that these matters have been raised at all on a motion for interim supply and I appeal to the house-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Appeal!


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to address our efforts to the purpose of the matter in hand. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters when other business is before the house. The undertaking has been given that the rights of hon. members to discuss these matters and any others relative to any items in the estimates will be preserved and surely the matter can rest there.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I would like to address a question to the minister as to whether he is stating government policy or whether that policy was stated this morning by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I ask this because the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated repeatedly this morning that there were no restrictions whatsoever upon this particular mission as to what they should purchase so far as the government was concerned. The Minister of Finance is saying the very opposite at this time. Who is speaking for the government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is not saying the opposite to what was said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce but is saying something which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said before and which is government policy shared by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and myself, as it is by all other members of the government. I think my hon. friend knows that.


William Moore Benidickson: I would like to ask further to the question raised by the hon. member for Dauphin, are the members of this mission honour bound to discuss while they are overseas on a trip at the expense of Canada only the purchase over there of commodities that would be in the diversion field rather than those which are of domestic availability.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, surely there will be a proper opportunity to go into this whole question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Lionel Chevrier: You invited this.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -will probably be before the house at the end of this week because the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be returning, as he indicated in his statement on Tuesday, to the United Kingdom to complete the work of the trade mission. His estimates will be before the house and surely that is the proper place to raise these questions and go into them as fully as any hon. member may wish.


An hon. Member:: You raised it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not raise it. 1 was setting the facts right as I made clear to the hon. members in view of the statements which have been made here and which were at variance with the facts. Conclusions have been reached and inferences drawn which the facts do not warrant. These were all contrary to the position taken by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and I was speaking in an effort simply to put the record straight. As I have said, I deplore the fact that a discussion of this kind had been obtruded into a debate on interim supply.


An hon. Member:: You are delaying interim supply.


William Moore Benidickson: I was sure the hon. minister had suggested that the occupation of the delegation was simply that of trade which had the purpose of diversion from the United States. Discrimination against the United States.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I would like to put the record straight too, Mr. Chairman, in one particular. No minister of the crown can sit over there and threaten us in any way whatsoever but if there are to be threats we can threaten just as well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no question of any threats.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If so, he is
guilty of acting with calculated insolence. If he is querying our rights to speak here whenever we want to do so, he had better have a change of mind because I recall when the hon. member sat on this side of the house he spoke talkatively, loquaciously, verbosely, wordily and with much repetition, boring us all to death with his long speeches. Now he has the impertinence to ask us to simmer down, to calm down. He wants us to exercise forbearance with respect to his party's policy. Not likely. We are not prepared to exercise forbearance with growing unemployment as it exists in this country and with the situation as it now exists, where thousands of farmers are being dispossessed of their farms and their homes because of a lack of policy on the part of this government. Furthermore, I did not like this other threat that if we did not cooperate-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Certainly, ask any questions you like.


William Joseph Browne: How are you
assisting the passing of the legislation to help farmers or to help unemployment problems to be solved by continuing this unnecessary discussion?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We assisted in passing unemployment legislation by putting it through in less than one day. When we talk about assisting in legislation, if this farm legislation is as important as the government thinks it is, why, then, did the order of business include the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act? Why the Export Credits Insurance Act, if the farm legislation is so urgent? Why the Hamilton harbour commission measure if the farm legislation is so important? Why the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act if the farm legislation is so important?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is employment involved in very one of these measures.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Why has the
government been stalling for over a month on this matter, and why does the Minister of Finance then tell us that if we do not cooperate the leader of the house will be guided accordingly? I do not like these threats, nor do my colleagues and we are not prepared to take them from anyone. We are here today to do a job as we see it, though perhaps we do not see eye to eye with the government, and when any of my colleagues want to speak in this house they will do so.
96698-118i
Interim Supply


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then let us have no talk about delaying matters.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: When the Prime Minister was on this side of the house we used to hear how interested he was in freedom of speech, but now he is Prime Minister he wants to act the part of R. B. Bennett and clamp down upon discussion, and we are not prepared to take it. The Minister of Finance said that the house was going to be in session for a long time. Well, we are paid to be here, and the hon. minister is paid to be here; we are going to be here as long as he will be, and in all probability longer. May I give this advice to the hon. gentleman: if he wishes to facilitate the business of this house, let him stop making these threats and speak more courteously and with greater regard for the rights of hon. members of parliament.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, the minister spoke for some considerable time, and the last part of his speech, in which he was answering questions, was, I think, quite acceptable, though he did enter into debate on those things which he claimed were taking a lot of the time of the committee.
But in answering these questions he did not answer the question I asked him and which, I thought, dealt with an important matter. I asked him what estimates he thought might be withdrawn, because that is pertinent to debate. One reason I spoke on the coal mining industry during this debate was because I anticipated that the estimates in respect of the dominion coal board would not come before this parliament, and I had to take the opportunity to speak on that subject when it was presented to me. I asked the Minister of Finance to tell us what estimates would be withdrawn or curtailed; and while he is on his feet, would he care to answer me with respect to my speech? He has referred at some length to speeches which were made in respect of the trade mission. But to me and to my people the coal mining industry is more important than that, and I should like the minister to tell me what the government proposes to do to assist the coal mining industry in its present difficulties. The other question I asked was whether the minister will tell us what estimates may be withdrawn or curtailed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with that subject in the course of my remarks and I referred to the practice which had been followed already by the two ministers whose estimates have been before the committee of supply and passed, and I said that this would be the practice followed by each minister as he places his estimates before the committee

Interim Supply
of supply, namely that he would indicate what particular revisions he thinks could be made in his estimates. I can assure the hon. member that he will have ample opportunity to discuss the important subject he has raised on the estimates which are still to come before the house.


Jean Lesage: I have just one word to say. A few moments ago the Minister of Finance, when he began replying to the various speeches which had been made, introduced his remarks by saying that a discussion of more than 15 minutes on interim supply was something quite out of the ordinary; that in the 12 years he had been in the house, only once according to his memory had a debate gone longer than about 15 minutes.
I can assure him that the debates on interim supply have been longer than his memory. His memory is very bad, and I am really concerned for the finances of the country if his recollection cannot do any better than that, because not later than last spring there were two instances when there were protracted debates on interim supply. On April 11, 1957, the then minister of finance moved interim supply. The present Prime Minister spoke at considerable length- as a matter of fact his speech covers a number of pages of Hansard-and it was only on the following day at six o'clock that the interim supply motion was adopted. In that same session, on March 29, 1957, interim supply was moved by the former minister of finance on a Friday morning at 11 o'clock and it was only around five o'clock that the motion was approved. On that occasion the present Minister of Finance in his capacity as the hon. member for Eglinton made a long speech, of the character which was described by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, on the subject of the C.B.C. For 40 minutes the hon. member spoke on the C.B.C. and his speech covered seven pages of Hansard.


Frederick George Hahn: What page was that?


Jean Lesage: Page 2022 of Hansard for the first session of 1957.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Did it happen in any other year?


Jean Lesage: I did not have time to check, because it is only a few moments ago that the Minister of Finance said it had happened only once-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Once in 12 years.


William Moore Benidickson: He said it had never happened.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Once in 12 years.


Jean Lesage: I did not have to go any further back than the spring session to find

that the Minister of Finance had participated in a protracted debate on interim supply.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Once in 12 years.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the Minister of Finance that the lecture he delivered to the house a few moments ago has not intimidated me in the least with regard to saying the few words I have to say at this time.
I feel I am not abusing my rights and privileges if I speak at this time, and while I certainly appreciate the suggestion of the hon. minister that we will have an opportunity during the discussion of the estimates at a later date to bring up our several grievances which have been mentioned here this afternoon, the minister did not say when the estimates are going to be brought up and as I have something to say relevant to the problem of storage I feel I am perfectly within my rights at this time in airing that grievance. On the other hand, if the minister will assure me now that he will bring before this house the support price legislation tomorrow or the next day I will resume my place immediately and say nothing at this time.


An hon. Member:: Now who is threatening.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member is well aware of the order of business which was announced by the leader of the house last night, and he is well aware that this agricultural price guarantee legislation is among the items announced last night for today. It was our expectation on this side of the house that we should have been about that business by this time.


Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Now you
are reneging on the problem.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabour the point except to say that on a number of occasions hon. members in this corner of the house have pleaded with the government to dispense with relatively unimportant legislation in order to facilitate the bringing forward of important legislation including the price support legislation. Neither this morning nor this afternoon did the minister suggest that members of the government should not participate in the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only one member on the government side of the house spoke, only one.


William Moore Benidickson: You made a long speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When?


William Moore Benidickson: Now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I spoke only five minutes this morning.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I would like to say a few words concerning the serious problem that was raised by the hon. member for Yorkton. I am not going to abuse the privileges extended to me by quoting figures concerning storage because they are as well known to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to anyone else but I would like to deal with one aspect of the problem which heretofore has not been brought to the attention of the house. I am sure the minister is as anxious as anyone else to do everything possible for the agricultural industry of Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Thank you very much.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The minister has made many statements to that effect although I must admit that we have not seen too much action to date. On one occasion I recall he said in effect he did not believe producers should be asked to carry the entire burden of the surplus grain problem and on another occasion in this house, as I recall it, he said in effect that the government was prepared to consider any reasonable plan that would help alleviate many of the present problems of the agricultural industry. And so, believing that, I would like to bring to his attention one such problem, namely storage, which could be assisted somewhat by using one piece of legislation that is presently in force in this country.
I would point out to the minister that there already exists a policy which if it were extended would go a long way in at least attempting to solve the grave problem of grain storage. I understand that there has been no off-site storage approved since approximately June 25 of this year but since that date on-site or on-track storage has been approved, which of course is something entirely different.
On November 18 I asked the minister a question to the effect that if a group of farmers or an individual farmer constructed approved on-site storage at an elevator point would he be eligible to have that storage approved in effect by the Canadian wheat board which operates under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The minister's answer to me as reported at page 1231 of Hansard of that date is as follows:
The board of grain commissioners will only accept applications for on-site storage from licencees of the board.
Interim Supply
Later he added:
In other words, such on-site storage is regarded as an annex to the elevator licensed to receive grain at that delivery point.
It is evident from those statements that the question I asked the minister on that occasion was answered in the affirmative. The only result of that policy that I can observe from having investigated the situation quite carefully is that in certain areas businessmen who are constructing approved or already have approved existing storage make a deal with an elevator company and in turn are paid storage charges on that grain. I am not at all critical of any businessman who provides storage for housing grain because I think it is most admirable, nor am I critical of the wheat board or this government for approving that type of storage but I do condemn the government for not publicizing as widely as possible the existence of this scheme and the fact that farmers can take advantage of the plan.
How does this plan work? I will give a concrete example concerning a situation that is well known to me. A businessman has storage capable of housing 100,000 bushels. He goes to an elevator company and makes a deal which is perfectly legitimate under which he will store grain on their behalf and in return he is paid something in the neighborhood of three-quarters of a cent per bushel. It is understandable of course that he could not qualify for the full cost of storage because the elevator company must deduct handling charges which amount to about one-quarter of a cent per bushel. That is all very well and it means that at this point farmers have an extra 100,000 bushels of storage capacity but it would be much better if the government would publicize this scheme in order that farmers could take advantage of this scheme.
I have it on the best authority that there are elevator companies who would be very happy to enter into such an arrangement. Farmers could undertake to arrange on-track storage and build their own storage to store their own grain as the quota became available. In this case they would be paid storage just as the businessman is paid storage today.
What would be accomplished by this? It would accomplish three things, all of them desirable. First of all, because there would be greater storage at that point, the quota could be raised which in turn would mean that the farmer would be able to market more grain at that point. He would be able to haul his grain and put it in his granary without fear of the elevator being plugged. You must remember that simply because a quota is opened at any point it does not mean that every farmer will have an opportunity

Interim Supply
of getting his grain into the elevator. In many cases there is difficulty because of weather conditions and so on and the elevator space is plugged before the farmer can make his delivery. This would eliminate the second problem.
The third thing it would accomplish would be to give the farmer an opportunity to deliver grain to the elevator of his choice. For example, if he hauls it to a pool elevator he eventually gets the benefit of the dividends that are invariably paid which would be of great assistance. I suggest it would be much better for ten farmers to have 1,000 bushels apiece in their own bins on-track than to give that amount of storage to one man thereby putting him in the position of being able to collect the storage on all the grain.
Possibly the government feels that if this policy were widespread and expanded it would not be able to carry all the charges that would have to be borne. Of course the government has agreed to pay all the storage charges on what it considers to be over a normal carryover, 178 million bushels, but it is understandable that if this policy I am outlining now became widespread that it could conceivably amount to a vast quantity of grain on which the government would have to pay storage. In spite of that I think the plan is valid because the farmer is already carrying storage on the grain that is stored on his own farm but he is never sure he is going to be able to deliver when the quota does open up. Therefore I feel this policy should be expanded and the plan made widely known through the grain growing portion of western Canada. I know the government is not going to build permanent storage, I would suggest that as an alternative, and in the meantime they should give very serious consideration to allowing farmers the opportunity to build on-site storage wherever it is possible to do so.


Mr. McCullough:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that hon. members are very anxious to get these interim estimates through.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We were, but not now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edward George McCullough: I hear a lot of laughter from across the way, but I want to assure you, sir, that neither I nor my colleagues will be intimidated by any laughter. I listened to the prolonged and verbose circumlocution of the Minister of Finance. I have a problem to bring to the attention of the government and I intend to do so in the remaining few minutes. If I do not get too many interjections from hon. members opposite, I think I can do it.

This problem, Mr. Chairman, applies perhaps more particularly to my own constituency. It has to do with the administration of two acts, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I bring this to the attention of the government because I believe it involves interdepartmental arrangements for carrying out the regulations of the two acts.
As hon. members know, under the Unemployment Insurance Act, unless a person is an industrial worker and within the two years prior to application for unemployment insurance benefits has paid a total of 30 weeks into the insurance fund he is not eligible for benefits. I bring this to the attention of the government because in my constituency we have a large group of people who are engaged in the oil industry because that area of the province of Saskatchewan is perhaps the largest oil field in Canada at the present time. Whether or not this is due to the new policy and the failure to take proper steps to give assurance to the industry and the oil companies that the future holds something for them in the way of further investment I am not sure, but the committee will recall that I asked the Prime Minister to give information to the house on the outcome of the visit of Premier Manning to the Prime Minister in respect of the oil situation in Alberta.
In addition to this, sir, we have the cost-price squeeze facing our farmers. Owing to the cost-price squeeze, and the lower return to farmers, many of them have gone into the oil fields and some of them are also working in the coal mines. For the information of the committee I might say that approximately half the coal of Canada is produced in my constituency. The problem is this. People who are employed part-time in the coal mines and in the oil industry and who have not completed 30 weeks of employment in either of those industries in the last two years are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. At the same time we have the anomaly of people who are part-time farmers and who pay into the Prairie Farm Assistance Act through deductions on the sale of their grain. Such people are not eligible under the regulations of these two acts for compensation under either one of the acts. I should like to bring this to the attention of the government. Owing to the peculiar circumstances these people are not eligible under the regulations of the two acts. I hope the minister will bring it to the attention of the proper authorities that we have people who are paying into both the unemployment insurance fund and the Prairie

Farm Assistance Act but, owing to the regulations, they cannot qualify as industrial workers and are not eligible for payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They do not receive any compensation and they cannot qualify under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act because they are not classified as bona fide farmers. They are not eligible for awards under this act.
I would suggest to the government that a great deal of leniency be shown in the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so that people who are trying to supplement their incomes and find it very difficult to carry on, but are doing what I think all of us want them to do, namely try to find work to provide for their families, shall be eligible for payments and awards made under one or the other of those acts.
I think it is a real problem. I appreciate that the administrators of the Unemployment Insurance Act are trying to do the best they can. I think those who are carrying out the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act are very sympathetic, and I do hope that my plea this afternoon will be given serious consideration and that people in this category will receive the proper consideration because in most instances it is a real problem in my constituency.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953, the sum of $281,607,101.16, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this date in the committee of supply.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming thereupon moved for leave to intrdduce Bill No. 198, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1958.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Insurance Companies Act AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming for the second reading of Bill No. 169, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of yesterday's sittings the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had finished his explanation of the reasons for this bill. With the background for the bill as he outlined it I have little dispute. I think the minister himself would probably be quite willing to acknowledge that much of the investigation and preparation for the bill had been done and was ready for him when he assumed office because I know from my personal experience, having been parliamentary assistant to the former minister of finance, that this matter had been given study by the previous minister and a draft bill had even been prepared.
However, the last session, as we all know, was brought to a conclusion sooner than some other sessions by reason of dissolution. My remarks will be brief not only on that account but also because the minister has assured the house that the bill will be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. I should like, however, to join with him in acknowledgment that the bill is of considerable importance.
The insurance industry is an important one and, as the minister himself stated, the welfare of a great number of Canadians in a very important way is dependent upon our insurance industry. My understanding is that there are some 28 insurance companies operating in Canada which have jurisdiction by reason of incorporation by parliament and those companies, for whom we are legislating in this bill, write some two-thirds of the insurance that is written in Canada for Canadians. That totals some $26 billion or $27 billion and that, of course, underlines and emphasizes the security element that was referred to by me and by the minister last night.
Of the 28 companies I believe that 22 are companies with capital stock and these are the companies to which the element of mutualization in this bill has particular reference. I also believe that these companies with capital stock underwrite about 85 per cent of the business in this country.
[Stage Direction]
Insurance Companies Act
Another factor that I think will be kept very much in mind by members of the house is the fact that it is not easy today to enter afresh into the business of insurance. I think only one company has entered this field of business in the last 25 years. The minister also indicated very properly last night that the funds of shareholders are relatively small in relation to the funds that are available to these insurance companies from the premiums that are provided by policyholders. The last time I have a recollection of looking at these figures I believe that the assets available to these companies were in the neighbourhood of $6 billion and this in turn can be related to paid up capital stock approximating $14 million.
I think the chief item in the bill of particular interest is the opportunity to facilitate mutualization. In that respect the bill is not proposing something that is particularly unique because in the United States they have developed something along the lines proposed in the bill. The two largest United States companies in the insurance field, the Metropolitan Life and the Prudential Life, were originally stock companies but they too, as is provided in this bill, became mutual companies by reason of an opportunity provided to purchase the capital stock of their companies. In addition, other United States companies formerly stock companies have been mutualized, including the New York Life and the Equitable Life. A similar trend has also been noted in the United Kingdom.
I think the bill provides a share of supervision on behalf of the public by reason of the reference in the bill to the jurisdiction of the treasury board. I think this will commend itself to most members of the house. There is another important element in the bill, the direction that the majority of directors must be residents of Canada. Up to now the direction has simply been that the shareholders' representatives on the boards of directors where there is participation, shall be residents of Canada, but this will apply now to all classes of directors. This again is not unique in legislative action because it is similar to the direction that is made with respect to the directors of our Canadian banks.
The third item that I think is of interest is the provision affording the opportunity for the boards of directors of our insurance companies to refuse share transfers to nonCanadian residents under certain circumstances. This, I think, is a matter that has given considerable concern to a number of Canadians in the past. I know the superintendent of insurance has directed the
attention of the house to this problem. In his 1955 report he had this to say:
One may, perhaps, feel less concern in contemplating these two transactions-
He was referring to certain transactions respecting sales of shares in insurance stock companies to non-residents.
-than would be the case were there to be a transfer of ownership of one of the major Canadian companies.
The Minister of Finance referred to certain control that has already passed from this country.	The superintendent of insurance
went on to say:
The transactions serve to emphasize the continued interest of foreign investors in Canadian life insurance companies and the desirability of seeking some legislative procedure that will enable the ownership of Canadian life insurance companies to be retained in Canada.
This problem also received the attention of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, and in paragraph 20 of the preliminary report of the Gordon commission the following was stated:
Foreign ownership of the stocks of the Canadian chartered banks and of life insurance companies, which are incorporated under Canadian law, is not particularly large at the present time. It is desirable that Canadian control of these institutions be maintained. The commission suggests, therefore, that appropriate action be taken to prevent any substantial measure of control of the chartered banks and of the life insurance companies from coming into the possession of non-residents. One way in which this might be accomplished would be to provide by statute that any shares in such institutions which were acquired by non-residents of Canada in the future would be ineligible to vote.
That of course is not the actual procedure adopted by this bill. I think it is not generally understood, however, that the provisions of the bill simply provide discretionary power on the part of the board of directors of an insurance company to refuse the transfer of shares to a non-Canadian resident. In addition, it is probably not understood that the bill does not provide that shares, once in the hands of a non-resident, can be transferred to another non-resident; not only at the present time but that this will be also possible in the future.
The fourth element of the bill referred to last night by the minister relates to the fraternal societies which effect insurance and I think there will be no quarrel with respect to that because it is generally recognized today that the unusual mortality rates which applied years ago to juveniles are not now prevalent. I think this bill should commend itself generally to the members of this committee; it seems to have general acceptance, so far as I know, by the members of the official opposition. Certainly such small differences as do exist can be discussed and the bill
[Stage Direction]
itself will be given very careful examination by the committee on banking and commerce.
Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, subject to further inquiry on our part in the committee on banking and commerce, we accept the principle behind this bill. Therefore there is no need for extended debate on the part of any members of our group. We are only too prepared at any time to facilitate government legislation of this kind so long as we can get to this agricultural legislation which has been promised us.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go a little further than the member for Winnipeg North and say that this is good legislation and legislation pointing in a good direction in that, on the one hand, it seeks to help bring Canadian companies under Canadian control and, on the other hand, it enables Canadian life insurance companies to convert themselves into mutuals. This of course means that they would be owned and controlled by their own customers and that is a good direction in which to move. That is a socialist step and I congratulate the Conservative party for taking it. Of course, these are slow, halting steps even though they are in the right direction, but I hope the Conservative party will persevere and see to it that these principles in which a company should be in the hands of and controlled by those it serves, will have general application among other Canadian companies; not only those under United States control at the present time but also some companies under Canadian control.


An hon. Member:: The pipe line too.


Alexander Barrett Macdonald: And the pipe line as my hon. friend has suggested, but I suggest the Conservative party's direction is good in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase from one hundred million dollars to two hundred million dollars the total liability that the corporation may have outstanding at any time under contracts of insurance which it is empowered to enter into under section 21 of this said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
Export Credits Insurance Act


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister not a statement to make?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I have a statement but I was not sure whether the house wanted to hear it.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: It is so interesting.


Mr. Stick:: You were trying to sneak out of it but you did not get away with it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, I was not trying to sneak out of it. I will face up to anything that happens in this house or anywhere else.


Pierre Gauthier: That is an
improvement.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The purpose of this amendment, is to increase the effectiveness of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation by giving it the necessary authority to take on liabilities of an additional $100 million, under section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act. Contracts of insurance issued under section 21 of the act are those which are considered to be in the national interest but which, in the opinion of the board of directors of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, would impose upon the corporation a liability for a term or in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one contract, exporter, commodity or country. All moneys required by the corporation to discharge its liabilities arising under any contract of insurance entered into under this section are to be paid to the corporation by the Minister of Finance out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
Section 21 of the act as it now stands limits the corporation's liability to $100 million. At the present time, liabilities under policies of insurance actually written plus commitments currently outstanding total $98 million in the aggregate. It is obvious that in order to have this section of the act continue its effectiveness, and to allow the corporation to insure additional business, it must be authorized to assume further liabilities, and I am therefore proposing that the amount of such liabilities be established at $200 million.
Through the operations of section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act an increasing amount of export trade has been insured and a considerable portion of it would not have materialized had it not been possible to have it insured. One hundred and six policies of insurance have been issued under this section covering exports amounting to $206 million. Insured export shipments which have been concluded and paid in full amount to $97 million. Insurance premiums paid on this business have totalled $1,659,191 of which $1,245,488 has been turned over to the

Export Credits Insurance Act receiver general and the balance of $413,703 retained by the corporation to meet its expenses and overhead arising out of the contracts of insurance issued under section 21 of the act. I am pleased to report that as yet there have been no losses.
Shipments insured under section 21 have consisted of electrical goods valued at $4J million; milk powder valued at $4 million; aircraft and parts, $80 million, and wheat, $118 million.
In connection with the insurance of aircraft and parts amounting to $80 million, the corporation has assumed a liability of only $22 million. This has been brought about through the very favourable payment terms established in the contract of sale whereby it has been calculated that the maximum possible loss could not exceed the $22 million established as the liability. With respect to payment terms for other commodities insured under section 21, it is usual procedure for the exporter to receive some cash with the order, or at the time of shipment, with the balance payable over some months or years after shipment. Terms of payment for wheat sales insured have called for a cash payment of from 10 per cent to 25 per cent at the time of shipment with the balance payable from one to three years after the date of shipment.
Ordinarily wheat is sold for cash in international trade and, as the house is well aware, the Canadian wheat board requires payment in cash so that it can distribute the proceeds of sale to producers. Until 1952-and this act has been in operation since 1944-there were no requests for credit terms on the sale of Canadian wheat. In that year, Yugoslavia faced a serious shortage of food and foreign exchange and applied to Canada for wheat on short term credit. The private exporters financed themselves at commercial rates of interest through the banking system, using the export credits insurance policy as security, in order to pay cash to the wheat board.
With changes from time to time in credit terms this pattern of export insurance, worked out for this first transaction with Yugoslavia, has been applied in subsequent years to several other countries-Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Israel and Poland. Policies have been issued covering the export of 1J million tons, or about 55 million bushels of wheat.
As a result of recent intensive efforts to enlarge wheat markets, a number of countries have expressed interest in buying Canadian wheat on credit. At this stage it would not, of course, be in the public interest to disclose the names of the countries but it is vitally important that authority should be available (Mr. Churchill.]

to insure such credit sales if and when formal requests are made. That is the principal reason for seeking this amendment.
The Export Credits Insurance Corporation provides a service that cannot be obtained from private insurance firms. Similar insurance protection is provided by government of the majority of exporting countries. Export credits insurance gives protection to Canadian exporters against those unexpected and unpreventable losses that occur in spite of every precaution of the policyholder. Some of the risks covered include insolvency of the foreign buyer, cancellation of an import licence in the country of destination, or the risk of adverse changes in foreign exchange regulations. While the corporation will insure against delays in collection that are not the fault of the exporter, it does not cover trade disputes as to quantity of goods.
The exporter is insured against blockage of funds in a foreign country or transfer difficulties which prevent him from receiving payment for his goods. Such calamities as war or revolution in the country of the buyer are also covered. This insurance protection in no way subsidizes the Canadian exporter, as the corporation operates on a self-supporting basis and charges an insurance premium that is assessed according to the risk assumed. The Canadian exporter still has to compete on the basis of quality, price, credit terms, and service rendered. However, the policy of insurance provides protection for his foreign accounts receivable and also provides him with the benefit of the advice and assistance of the corporation in recovering any losses which may arise. In addition, the insurance provides him with facilities to obtain financial assistance enabling him to expand his export business and so help in building up Canada's foreign trade.
Policies of insurance issued under section 21 of the act cover contracts of sale much larger than those normally undertaken by the corporation on its own behalf, and the exporters are not prepared to take on such contracts of sale without insurance protection. Furthermore, the fact that payments are generally spread over a period of years makes it very difficult for exporters to obtain the additional financing required without the support of an export credits insurance policy.
These sales are essential to Canada's wellbeing and materially add to the development of her foreign trade. The practical question of payment often depends more on the over-all balance of payments situation in the country of the buyer, and is more often affected by political considerations in that country than by the normal practices of commercial trade. Where the risk involves political factors that

increase the element of uncertainty in foreign trading and where a contract will prove beneficial to our nation as a whole, it is felt that the people of Canada, through its government, should bear some share of that risk, and by so doing place our exporters in the same position as their competitors in the world market.


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask the minister first just one question? Is there any change in the act proposed beyond the extension of the over-all liability under section 21 from $100 million to $200 million?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman, this is the only change, this change from $100 to $200 million. As I mentioned a minute ago, the act has been in operation for 12 or 13 years with considerable success and all we wish to do now is to extend it a bit.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, particularly in consequence of the hon. minister's reply to that question, my remarks will be fairly brief. In the first place, this act was before the house for amendment in the earlier session of 1957. I just want to point out that when this act was up for two minor amendments earlier this year some 41 columns of Hansard were utilized by members of the then opposition to discuss certain items of amendment, and naturally I wondered whether or not those who were so critical at that time on the question of whether this corporation should be liable for income tax on its transfers to the underwriting reserve against losses had changed their minds, or whether their proposals then would form part of the amending bill, now that the then critics compose the administration. At that time the Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Health and Welfare, the former member for Simcoe North, and the gentleman, who I believe, has been the acting minister of trade and commerce in the minister's absence, and who has probably been supervising the bill -the hon. member for Greenwood, Minister without Portfolio-were all among those who were so bitter in their denunciation of the amendments made earlier this session.
The other reason for brevity is one that the minister himself has indicated. This bill was introduced in 1944. It was just one of the many wise and farsighted statutes which were prepared by the administration of Mr. Mackenzie King in his desire for the stimulation of postwar trade, for the stabilization of the economy of this country and for the welfare of its people for the post war period. I am very pleased that the minister has paid tribute to the good results of this legislation.
Export Credits Insurance Act
While he did not say so, I am informed that export sales under the ordinary terms of the legislation have assisted by insurance provisions the export of more than $400 million worth of Canadian exports. The minister said that also under section 21 alone export sales beyond $200 million have been assisted. This proposal provides confirmation in my mind of the proof of a statement which appeared in the Time magazine of October 9 when it reproduced a short statement from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which said this:
The dominant fact in the political life of the country is the Conservatives' close adherence to the Liberals' main lines.
I think that is very true. The minister did give us figures with respect to the amount of export sales that have been assisted by insurance under section 21. He also outlined the provisions of section 21 indicating that this is a special risk that is not solely the responsibility of the board or the corporation but is a risk approved specially by the governor in council. While we are in the committee would he add to the information that is available from the last annual report and tell us what is the latest figure of export sales that have been assisted by the ordinary provisions of the act since December 31, 1956. I believe the annual report indicated that the sales on an ordinary basis were then $376 million.
Recently with respect to this statute I placed some questions on the order paper. I am grateful for certain information that was provided as a result. It was indicated that under section 21, which I take it is our main interest tonight, $104 million in export sales have been insured from January 1, 1957 to October 31, 1957, in other words ten months of this year. I wonder if the minister would tell the committee what proportion of this related to wheat sales and would he indicate with respect to non-wheat sales what the large items of exports were.
I was very interested to read shortly after the introduction of this resolution that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources who comes from Saskatchewan visited his home province shortly afterward and made what I thought were rather extravagant statements to the wheat producers respecting the advantages of this particular extension of the total amount of liability that is possible under section 21. The strange thing is that the reports of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Regina occurred just one day after the Minister of Trade and Commerce was in Regina. One got the impression that the total value

Export Credits Insurance Act of the extension of the liability that is possible under this statute by reason of this amending bill would be to the advantage of the wheat producers.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce in Regina on November 15, as I understand it, suggested that we could reasonably anticipate exports of some 300 million bushels of wheat in this crop year. The following day by reason of this particular item of legislation his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as reported in the Regina Leader-Post of November 16, indicated that this figure could be upped by 50 million bushels for the same term.
I understand the good reasons when negotiations are taking place why the minister, as he suggested, must be cautious about indicating the countries with which he is now negotiating with respect to possible sales of Canadan wheat. I know this is a competitive thing and I would not want in any way to embarrass these negotiations which are to the benefit of this country but I do think in view of this conflict of estimates within 24 hours in the same city by two members of the government as to the possible sales of wheat for export within the current crop year that this committee is entitled to some explanation.
In particular I would like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to inform the committee-I do not wish to put him on the spot as to the countries with which he is negotiating-whether some 50 million bushels of wheat beyond the 300 million bushels he discussed in Regina are likely to be sold simply because of the insurance provisions that are being provided in this legislation. The reason I ask that is that while the total amount of export sales related to this insurance under section 21 have increased very substantially in the ten months of 1957, according to the returns given to me to which I have previously referred, it actually happens that the amount of wheat insured in the ten months of 1957 is considerably less relatively than wheat sales insured in 1956.
The figures are as follows: Section 21 was utilized in 1956 for sales of wheat to the extent of 24 million bushels. In 1957 the figure is ten million bushels for ten months. I would simply ask the question, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce going to tell this committee that people have been standing by at the threshold waiting for credit for wheat in such substantial measure that his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources was justified in suggesting to Saskatchewan audiences that this $100 million would be utilized more or less exclusively and totally for the sale of wheat. I have indicated that in the current
[Mr. Benidickson.l

year it does not appear to have been a lack of available credit insurance that reduced the quantity of wheat which was sold under insurance provisions. I take it that it was probably the market conditions and the competition conditions to which my hon. friend has frequently referred.
In connection with this amendment I feel I am justified in chastising the Minister of Trade and Commerce a little bit for some remarks he made yesterday. I believe-I think other hon. members will agree with me-he was somewhat flippant when he referred to a possible customer for Canadian wheat, namely Russia. As a matter of fact we have trade agreements with Russia which I think are of considerable advantage to the grain producers of western Canada.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain asked the minister yesterday about the Russian trade delegation presently in Canada. I admit that the minister has been out of Canada recently. I think he returned only yesterday but there was no suggestion that this question might be referred to the acting minister of trade and commerce, the able Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood. On the contrary, in a rather flippant manner he simply associated this trade delegation visit with a visit by a Russian hockey team.
The Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood, made a statement some years ago with respect to trade that could be generally approved in regard to this type of legislation. On February 24, 1954, at page 2398 of Hansard, when speaking to an amendment to this very statute, the hon. member for Greenwood had this to say:
It does not seem to me there Is much hope for peace and a quiet life as long as our chief joint occupations with people beyond the iron curtain are to make faces at each other and listen while they call us names.
I got the impression that the attitude of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in his rather flippant reply yesterday to the possibility of sales of wheat and the attention paid to this Russian trade delegation was quite contrary to the spirit of the remarks of the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Greenwood, which I have quoted.
Generally, as I say, this proposed amendment will be supported by members of the official opposition. In so far as our party is concerned it is simply an extension in liability terms without change, of the principle of good Liberal legislation.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think too many comments are necessary at the resolution stage of this bill because I think the purpose of the resolution is a laudable one. There are, however, one or two

comments that I think should be made, since one of the commodities that are most worrisome on the Canadian market at the present time is wheat and one of the purposes of the Export Credits Insurance Act is to facilitate the importation of Canadian wheat on credit terms.
Hon. members are familiar with the circumstances last year when one of the iron curtain countries was negotiating with Canada for the importation of a significant quantity of Canadian wheat and required a long-term credit for it, a longer-term credit than the then minister of trade and commerce was prepared to grant under the present legislation. It was found at that time that the delegation went to the United States where they filled their orders. I just wonder whether the present amendment, which increases the amount from $100 million to $200 million, will still put us in a position to compete with the United States give-away programs in this respect.
The minister pointed out that they required from a 10 per cent to a 25 per cent down payment on the purchase of wheat, with a one to three year period of repayment. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we as a government should be able to do much better than that. I know of many individual farmers in my constituency who would be only too prepared to sell 1,000, yes, up to 5,000 bushels of wheat at the present time, to get it off their farms, with the understanding that they would be paid for it in five or even 10 years time. Now, surely if individual farmers have presented that suggestion to me in their readiness to move their wheat off the farm, then this legislation should be geared to the same purpose.
I am hopeful that the comments which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources made in Saskatchewan, and which were referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River can be fulfilled because, in reporting to his constituents, he painted a very rosy picture indeed as to the results of this amendment. It is to be hoped indeed that the amendment which is being introduced will be of value in allowing the exporters of Canadian grain to put themselves in a position of partial equality with the United States exporters and that we shall be able to move our burdensome surplus of grain to other countries which may not have the immediate funds with which to purchase it.
I think this is all I shall say at the present time, Mr. Chairman. I shall make any other comments that may be required at a later time.
Export Credits Insurance Act effectiveness of the act by allowing it to have additional liabilities in the amount of $100 million. It is rather strange that today we should be speaking of a measure which was so heavily criticized by the Conservative party at the last session of parliament. I recall many of the members who were critical of certain features of it. I notice the hon. member for Greenwood looking rather astonished. I remind him that at that time the point that the Conservatives were so critical about was the question of the exempting of the corporations from a certain amount of taxation up to a certain level.
Now, as I understand it, the main purpose of the Export Credits Insurance Act is to provide exporters with insurance which cannot be obtained from private insurance companies. We are quite in favour of that because we think it is very important that insurance of this type be made available, and if private insurance companies will not write it, then it is essential that this corporation carry on the business. For that reason we are glad that the government has seen fit to make it possible for a greater amount of business to be carried on.
I understand that the only insurance of this type that can be written today by private insurance companies is done with the United States, and consequently I understand this corporation does not insure exports to the United States of America. Therefore, I say we agree with the objective of the act because we think it is very important at this time that we do everything possible to expand our exports so as to make it possible to reduce our adverse balance of trade and also to dispose of our surplus products.
Today we are facing very strong competition from the United States of America in their farm disposal plan. They are expanding markets in many directions and, owing to the easy terms on which they sell, it makes it quite hard for Canada to compete!
In the January issue of the Western Producer we find a quotation from Mr. Butz, the assistant secretary of agriculture. He has this to say in regard to the United States disposal policy:
w e are
learning xo use these surpluses as a positive factor in our foreign policy. These donations to other countries for relief of famine flood and other disasters, plus the sales for foreign currency, are making friends for us in many countries that we are trying to keep from slipping under Russian domination.
And the fact that our dollar sales not only are holding up but increasing shows that these donations and foreign-currency sales are not just taking the place of deals that could be made for dollars.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, we in this group welcome this measure to increase the
I hope the minister will take note of the last paragraph because time and again it has
1872	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act been stated that if we were to adopt similar disposal policies our dollar sales would be reduced by the amount of the donations and foreign-currency sales. Well, in the United States they are accepting in their disposal policy foreign currency and barter deals. Nevertheless, their sales for dollars are also increasing.
The Western Producer has this comment:
The mood of agriculture department officials and of congress indicates that the government surplus policy is to continue. The demand for U.S. surpluses indicates, too, that there is a vast overseas market to be tapped as long as United States taxpayers continue to foot the bill and make the price right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That last sentence is
important.


Victor Quelch: Yes, that last sentence is important; that is quite true. In the losses under our policy it will be the taxpayer who foots the bill. So far we have had very small losses.


William Moore Benidickson: No losses under section
21.


Victor Quelch: The purpose of this measure is to try to push our sales of wheat. According to Mr. Butz there are vast untapped markets yet which we may be able to gain. No doubt there will be a good deal of risk involved in trying to sell our wheat to some of these nations.
The question I should like to ask the minister, and a point I have never been quite able to understand, is that under this insurance adverse changes in foreign exchange regulations are covered, but I understand that you cannot insure the rate of exchange. This seems to be very strange, because surely when we are making sales to many of these foreign countries change in the rate of exchange is an important factor. I recall that some years ago when we changed the rate of our exchange from 90 cents to $1 some members complained that certain businesses had lost money. At that time, I think it was Mr. Abbott who stated that there was nothing to prevent our industries from insuring against a change in the rate of exchange. Does that mean that these businesses could be insured by other companies or does it mean that under certain conditions it is possible to insure against a change in the rate of exchange under this legislation? I understand that under this bill that is not possible. However, I believe the minister will agree that there should be a provision for exporters to insure against a change in the rate of exchange by some countries.


Walter Adam Tucker: Before the resolution carries, I understand that the amount that may be


insured in respect of various commodities is limited. For example, I am particularly interested in the total amount of insurance that will be allocated to wheat under this bill. The minister referred also to a limitation in regard to the countries, and would he explain that a little further?


Gordon Minto Churchill: In answer to the first question, the $200 million has been the limit on the amount of insurance. The answer to the second question is that we would like to spread these risks over a large number of countries rather than too much with any one.


Walter Adam Tucker: I understood the minister to say that there was a limitation in fact placed against the various commodities; in other words, the whole of this $200 million could not be applied to the purchase of wheat, as I understand it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It may be, Mr. Chairman, that we are getting ourselves mixed up with the Export Credits Insurance Act. At this time we are dealing with section 21. There is $200 million available under the normal operations of the act, and that $200 million is a grand total. It is that for which we are asking.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister make any comment now on my question concerning the difference in 24 hours between his estimate of our likely wheat sales in the current year and that of his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs when this legislation to his knowledge and under his sponsorship had already been introduced?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer this question as well as the questions put forward by the hon. member for Acadia. I should like to thank the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for his lucid and constructive discussion of this problem.
Before I deal with his last question, he did ask about the $104 million of loans from January, 1957 to October, 1957, and how that was distributed. The distribution is, for wheat, $24 million, and on non-wheat sales $80 million dealing with aircraft sent to Germany. The forecast of the exports of wheat for this year-I was not clear whether the hon. member was indicating that I had tied that in with the Export Credits Insurance Act-


William Moore Benidickson: No, your colleague, I understand, did a day after you made an estimate. In other words, was the suggestion valid that almost the entire $100 million would be utilized for extra sales of wheat? The minister has just given us figures indicating that in the current year only $24

million out of $104 million of insurance on 1957 export sales under this act was actually utilized for the sale of wheat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am very happy to learn that I am not implicated in that particular forecast. My forecast of 300 million bushels was based on very careful consideration of the world need and our share of the world trade in so far as one could estimate it at this time. The estimate put forward by me-


William Moore Benidickson: May I just ask a question at this time? Was not your estimate made in the knowledge that you proposed to introduce this amendment to the act to enlarge the total amount of credit insurance liability that could be incurred under section 21?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I had some hope that this would be introduced and would be accepted by the house, but at the same time I was not pinning too much hope on a very large increase in our wheat sales by virtue of this measure. This is rather complicated, and at no time have I said that this would necessarily ensure the sale of more wheat. We hope that it will. It gives us room for manoeuvring, room to negotiate. The impression I have received over the last several months is that a great many countries in the world are looking towards credit arrangements for the purpose of buying wheat. When talking to men who have been in the grain trade for many years have indicated to me that this is substantially a new departure that seems now to have been rather widely accepted in various countries throughout the world. It may be that some substantial increase will result from this. On the other hand, my estimate of 300 million bushels was not based to any great extent on this particular measure. With regard to the statement made by my colleague, I may say I am having plenty of trouble looking after my own statements. I think we will let him answer that when he is in the house.
While I am on my feet may I answer the question of the hon. member for Acadia. This bill does not provide for any insurance on the rate of exchange. I do not know that that is done anywhere in the world. It is rather a banking procedure to guard against that fluctuation. At any rate, we have not considered it and this bill does not provide for it. We have not introduced it into this amendment.


William Moore Benidickson: I was very glad to receive that answer from the responsible minister. I think it just indicates his colleague was a little extra exuberant when he was speaking to a Saskatchewan audience shortly after it was announced that this legislation would be forthcoming.
Export Credits Insurance Act
Not necessarily tonight but before second reading would the minister be able to provide the house with a little additional information? Would it be possible for him to tell us whether or not, since the annual report was published at the end of 1956, the capital stock which this house in 1954 authorized the government to pay for has been paid for or is it simply in the status of subscription only? The other question is, would he indicate on second reading what changes, if any, there have been during 1957 in the personnel of the advisory council? It has been a very strong council, as I think is recognized by the house. As a matter of fact it is composed of such a galaxy of names that I recall the hon. member for Greenwood said in 1954 that the former minister of trade and commerce (Mr. Howe) in outlining the personnel of the advisory council, was trying to dazzle the house. I should like to know if there have been any changes in the advisory council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will answer both questions right now rather than wait for second reading. As to the first question, the answer is that there is no change at all. As to the second question regarding the personnel, one has resigned by reason of ill health.


William Moore Benidickson: Who was that?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Koerner of Vancouver.


William Moore Benidickson: Has there been a replacement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not yet.


William Moore Benidickson: I notice that at the end of 1956 there were fewer representatives from the prairie provinces, I think one instead of two, compared with former years. In view of the emphasis on the sale of wheat I was wondering whether the minister had in contemplation enlarging the representation of the prairies on the advisory council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.


Walter Adam Tucker: What proportion of the additional $100 million asked for in this measure does the minister envisage being used to promote the sale of wheat?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is impossible to estimate that. It depends on the negotiations, on the requests from various countries for our wheat. It might well be that the whole $100 million would be used for that. If so, I think that would be quite all right.


Victor Quelch: The minister stated that there would no doubt be credit sales. Will the wheat board itself make the credit sales or will they be demanding payment in dollars?

Export Credits Insurance Act


Gordon Minto Churchill: These credit sales are consummated through the trade. The various grain dealers conduct the negotiations, make the sale and apply to the corporation for the necessary insurance.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, we in this group certainly welcome the fact that the government has seen fit to add another $100 million to the funds available under the Export Credits Insurance Act. I do so particularly because I see a hope that possibly through this measure we will be able to appeal to countries that wish to import our agricultural products to take advantage of this legislation. I hope that the minister-I am confident he will-will invite countries that wish to buy agricultural products from Canada to take advantage of the additional incentive that he has placed in this legislation.
I have particular reference to the question of buying Canadian rape seed. In the past we have sold great amounts of Canadian rape seed. As a matter of fact, it might be of interest to hon. members to know that today Canada is the largest producer of rape seed in the world. I believe it was in 1955 or 1956 that we sold our entire production to Japan, something in the neighbourhood of 40,000 tons. We have not sold any to that country since that time for the simple reason that Japan has not felt that she was in a position to buy because of the shortage of dollars.
Since that time we have had as our major market the United Kingdom and central Europe. Our sales to the United Kingdom have fallen off quite drastically. As I recall, they were in the neighbourhood of 7 thousand tons and I believe that in the past year they fell to approximately 4 thousand or 4J- thousand tons. But we are maintaining our sales to the Scandinavian countries. I am not prepared to say how much those sales amount to but they are considerable. Central Europe is not as interested in buying Canadian rape seed as they were previously, and again I presume it is because of the shortage of United States dollars.
Therefore I hope the minister will invite these countries to take advantage of the opportunities provided under the Export Credits Insurance Act. I also think we have to do something else. If we are going to interest these countries in buying Canadian rape seed products these products must be competitive with the products of the United States. That applies particularly to oil seeds. I am not going to pursue this matter too far. I hope on another occasion to expand the proposition I am going to mention briefly now. I think it falls in line with the wishes and desires of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in that
[Mr. Quelch.l

he has said in effect that he thinks it would be a good thing if we could divert some of the acreage now planted to wheat to some alternative crop or to the raising of livestock, and I entirely agree with him.
I am not sure about the production of rape seed in the whole of Canada but I do know that in Saskatchewan last year we grew in the neighbourhood of half a million acres and it is estimated by Mr. A. D. Miller, the manager of the oil seed processing plant in Saskatoon, that this coming year we could expand that acreage to i| million acres. That would be very desirable if we could market the product and we will only market the product if it is competitive with other oil seeds being offered on the world markets.
Therefore we have to see if we can do something to make the product competitive. The first thing I think we must do, and I believe the minister will agree, is to lower the freight rate on the movement of rape seed from the prairie provinces to the lake-head and to Vancouver. At the present time it is 70 cents a hundred as against 23J cents for flax. It is very unfair, it is discriminatory and causes great hardship for the producers of rape seed. That is only one thing to which we should give consideration if we really want to divert acreage now planted to wheat to some alternative crop.
There is something else I should like to mention to which we must give serious consideration. I refer to the tariff problem existing in this country with relation to oil seeds. We have a potentially great market in this country. Rape seed oil has been under some suspicion because scientists and other people interested in the welfare of the Canadian people have suspected that rape seed contains cholesterol which aggravates heart conditions. But just recently, as a matter of fact in the last month I believe, the national research council issued a report and in that report it is stated quite emphatically as far as they are concerned oil made from rape seed is just as acceptable as any other vegetable oil product. We have a potentially tremendous market in this country and in other countries provided those other countries have the money to buy the product.
I am going to sit down in a moment because I am not going to expand this proposition at this time. There is no tariff on oil seeds or oil processed from such seeds coming into Canada from the United States but there is a substantial tariff on oil seeds and the oil product going into the United States and this situation is causing severe hardship. The people who grow soy beans in Canada must be confronted with the same problem as producers of rape seed.

Here is what is happening. The people in Minnesota and the corn belt of the middle western states who grow soy beans are shipping them into Canada and they are being processed into oil. They can take the oil back to that country if they like but in many cases prior to 1954 they were mixing the United States product with 25 per cent Canadian oil, whether sunflower, soy bean or rape seed oil, and shipping that oil to the United Kingdom thus getting the benefit of the British preferential tariff.
Now that is a pretty deplorable situation. Since, 1954, of course the tariff board has ruled that the mixture must contain not less than 50 per cent Canadian oil, but if that United States product is mixed with 50 per cent Canadian oil it can still be exported to the United Kingdom and be eligible for the British preferential tariff. This is working a real hardship on the producers of this country who are trying to produce an alternative crop in order to receive ready cash.
Now what is the other side of the picture? If we ship rape seed to the United States there is a one cent per pound tariff; if we process rape seed in this country and attempt to ship the oil down there, what do we find? We find on every gallon of oil there is a 5j-cents a gallon tariff plus 2\ cents per pound tariff on that product and yet we allow the US. to export their products into this country, mix it with a percentage of our product, and ship it to the United Kingdom, thereby giving them the opportunity to take advantage of the British preferential tariff. A pretty deplorable state affairs.
This simply means we cannot compete with the United States product. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are losing our markets in the United Kingdom and central Europe and I am fairly confident that we are losing them because of the situation 1 have pointed out. I therefore want to suggest to the minister that here we have an opportunity of growing an alternative crop and taking acreage out of wheat production, which is most desirable. First of all however we have to see that our crop is competitive with other crops in other countries. I suggest to the minister that he give some consideration to what I have said in this respect and finally that he invite other countries to take advantage of the act which is now before us in order that we may dispose of some of our surplus agricultural products.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a word or two in comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort who has twice today made a very constructive speech in the House of Commons. I appreciate his suggestions and will
Export Credits Insurance Act most certainly give consideration to the items about which we have spoken tonight.
The members of the Canadian wheat board are very active in the promotion of sales of our wheat and other grains. I have become well acquainted with them; I had the opportunity of travelling with them in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe in September when we were discussing the methods of promoting the sale of our wheat. They told me that an increase in the amount of money available under this particular act would be very helpful and when they visit the various countries in Europe, in the future or when they deal with representatives of those countries in Canada, providing parliament passes this amendment they will then be in a position to negotiate with much greater freedom. They have pointed out to me that several suggestions have been made to them with respect to the desire of the various countries to buy Canadian wheat, although they did not have the ready cash available. These countries would like to have credit arrangements made. Now the purpose of this amendment is to give the Canadian wheat board that room for manoeuvre.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort also dealt with the question of rape seed and the disadvantages of making the Canadian product competitive in the world markets because of freight rates, etc. He also drew my attention to what amounts to almost a special privilege to United States rape seed growers in enabling them to take advantage of the British preferential tariff by shipping to Canada, having the rape seed mixed with the Canadian product and thereafter shipping to Great Britain. The first of these two points had previously been drawn to my attention; the second one had not, or if it had it had escaped my notice, and I am very grateful to the hon. member for having mentioned those subjects tonight. We have every hope that this amendment which we have proposed will be of some assistance. We are not pinning all our hopes on just this one measure, however, but, on the contrary, we are prepared to consider any reasonable method for the disposal of our surplus products.
Members of this house have been asking questions of me from time to time and have attempted to get some positive answers which could not be forthcoming because some of these plans have not yet been brought to fruition, but I can assure the house that we are not overlooking any method of disposing of Canada's surplus products. In the course of time we will have proposals to bring before the house leading to this end. We recognize

Export Credits Insurance Act that we cannot match the United States surplus disposal program because, as a country, we have not the financial capacity to do things on the grand scale upon which they do them. However, we have the same desire to assist the under-privileged nations of this world and I think there is the same generous feeling in the minds of Canadians as there is in the minds of the people of the United States. We have every intention, as a government, of doing what can be done along that line. I would just complete my remarks by saying that this particular measure is only one of the various steps which I hope we will be able to take towards disposing more rapidly of our surplus products.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, several
times during this session we have had discussions about the possibility of trade with China and I think we have been intrigued with the potential in that regard. I wonder if the minister would care to say whether or not he would at this particular time regard trade with China as worthy of his recommendation under section 21, for the purpose of credit insurance.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, trade with China is a matter of very considerable concern to many countries in the world. Representatives from many nations have been visiting China recently in order to stimulate their respective trade. Our trade commissioner in Hong Kong has recently visited China and I hope before the end of this week to be able to report to the house with regard to his observations in that country. Until, however, I have received a report from him I am not in a position to state whether or not anything might be done, but the position I have taken when I have previously been asked this question is that we are not opposed to trading with any country in the world. It is a question of whether proper arrangements can be made and if China can purchase our wheat, and needs it, I do not see why we are not quite ready to sell. If our trade commissioner reports that there is an opportunity, or a desire on the part of China to purchase wheat from Canada, I think that would be very seriously considered by the Canadian wheat board.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to ask the minister a question. He referred to the report from the trade commissioner at Hong Kong. Am I to understand that the report has not been received by the minister?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The report has reached Ottawa. I have not had a chance to read it, because I returned only yesterday, but I think that between now and tomorrow I will have a chance to peruse it.


Mr. Schulz:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word on this subject. I will make it very short because we have already received a lecture today on co-operation, and believing in co-operation I will abide by the decision which has been made. The reason I am so patient is because I am trying to facilitate the business of this house so that we can get to this farm bill, because that will be the biggest thing on the agenda this session as far as I am concerned.
But I must admit it would be a wonderful opportunity to talk about wheat marketing and exporting, especially after we have heard today that our exports went down by 22 million bushels in the new crop year compared with last year. It would be such a wonderful opportunity to get at the Minister of Trade and Commerce, after we have missed him for two weeks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Go ahead. I am here, I can take it.


Jacob Schulz: I should just like to say that so far as farm organizations are concerned we have always asked that consideration should be given to selling our wheat by more diversified methods such as the acceptance of foreign currency, trade credit arrangements and even relief programs if necessary and I would say that credit arrangements is one of those things. Of course, it has already been instituted by the previous government and I am very happy that this government should see fit to increase the amount available for these credit arrangements with other countries.
That is a step forward, but I am rather disappointed to have to say that it is perhaps the first forward step taken by this government and, also, I must admit that it is a very small step, especially compared with what has been done in the United States. I admit that the United States is a rich country, and perhaps we cannot go quite as far as they have, but $100 million compared with $1,500 million which is available in the United States right now does seem a difference which is a little too great in my opinion, and I think Canada could do much better than this. But my disappointment goes deeper. Surely the minister will admit that if it is necessary to increase the amount available for credit it should be just as important to extend the terms of the credit, and as I understand it our creditors are given only two or three years at the present time. I do not think that is even half good enough. Surely we can do much better than this. The United States is extending credit terms as far as 20, 30 or 40 years.
This is what I have to be critical about: we are lagging behind, and in spite of the

fact that I appreciate this proposal I still say that there is a lot of room, especially when our wheat marketing problem in this country is a much greater problem than it is in the United States for a more urgent approach to the situation. I hope that before this bill goes through the minister will consider the proposal that we should at the same time increase the terms of the credit at least up to five or ten years. If the minister will accept that, I would even forgive him for being so complacent yesterday when he answered a question about this possible wheat deal with Australia; when he just pushed it off and said: well, if they want the wheat we are willing to sell it.
I do not think we can take this thing so lightly today. We are in a buyers' market. Regarding this Australian possibility, I should like to read the committee a quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press of December 2.
Broomhall's Corn Trade News, published in England, recently reported that, as a result of drought, the Australian wheat board is prepared to recommend to the Australian government that it buy 22 million bushels of wheat from Canada.
I think that if I were the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would be out there seeing that these people buy the wheat from us; I would not wait until they came and asked us; I would go out and ask them. In conclusion, I say to the minister that he should not only increase the amount of credit available, though this is appreciated, but that he should consider taking one more step and extending the terms of credit available, too.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the co-operative mood of the house tonight after the stormy scenes this afternoon. I should like to say to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I am not a bit complacent about the wheat situation. When the question was put to me about the sale of wheat to Australia I had not seen that article in the paper and I had not been informed about the proposal from Australia. I did not have the facts before me. But we are quite prepared to sell to any country which wants to buy from us, and we are certainly quite prepared to sell to Australia. We have not been at all slack in attempting to push the sales of our wheat.
With regard to the extension of the credit terms, that has also been under consideration. I have raised the question myself on several occasions and the judgment of the wheat board, who are very experienced people in this business, is that the present arrangements are the better type of arrangement. We considered the long-term arrangements in the United States-10 or 20 years,
National Housing Act
or whatever it is-but with regard to the sale of wheat it is the opinion of the Canadian wheat board that these long-term arrangements are not as suitable as the present ones which they advocate.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 199, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase from two hundred and fifty million dollars to four hundred million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act; and also to provide for the reduction of down payments.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will notice that this resolution deals with two proposed changes in the National Housing Act; one to increase the amount that is available under section 22 of the act from $250 million to $400 million, and the other to provide for a reduction of down payments. This measure is not designed to be an over-all revision of the National Housing Act. It was not the intention of the government to open the act at all at this session and I gave an answer to that effect to one of the members on orders of the day some weeks ago but the plan which we adopted in August to help in the provision of low-cost homes has been so successful that we now find it necessary to ask for further funds. While doing so we are also asking for a change to lower the down payments because we think that would also be a great help in the provision of housing in Canada at the present time.
I should like to sketch in a bit of background and my first comment would be this. There has been a decline in housing starts from the maximum of 1955. In that year there were 138,000 new housing units started. During 1956 construction was started on a smaller number, namely 127,000 units. It became evident early in 1957 that there would be a further decline in the quantity of new housing started and in the first six months
1878	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
of this calendar year there were only 48,500 starts as compared with 60,200 in the same period in 1956.
When the new government took over we very soon found that a fear was developing in the homebuilding industry of Canada. Builders were very much concerned. They knew, of course, of this falling away of starts and they thought there would be unemployment in their industry. That fear was spreading back into the lines of activity in Canada which supply the materials for homes including, of course, furniture and other essentials; and certainly there was more depression mindedness, if I may call it that, in the homebuilding industry than possibly any other industry in Canada.
We also found that there was a shortage of low cost homes. There was a real demand for cheaper homes but the trend under the National Housing Act and in the ordinary loan business had been in the direction of more and more expensive homes. I was very much surprised to find that the qualifying income for the average National Housing Act loan made by approved lenders in the month of September of this year was $5,350. The average income for borrowers under the National Housing Act was $5,829. There is some reason for this trend because it is a good deal easier to handle a large loan than it is to handle a small one and I think some preference has been given by the different institutions to the larger loans.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not want to interrupt the minister but does he refer to the average income of applicants or was that the minimum income that an applicant could have?


Howard Charles Green: The figure I gave represented the average income of borrowers. Faced with that situation we decided to act and a decision was taken to extend the direct lending of the government. It was our view that money should be found without delay to keep the housebuilding industry in active employment and to maintain the supply of housing for an expanding population. We were especially concerned at the difficulties faced by families of ordinary means in raising mortgage money and, as I said, we decided to extend the direct lending activities of the government.
This is where section 22 of the National Housing Act comes into the picture. It provides the authority for moneys to be advanced to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund to an amount not exceeding $250 million. Such funds have been available to the corporation for making loans. By government policy for some years the corporation has made direct loans for certain specified categories of housing. These were principally in 

the cases of prospective home owners in communities of less than 55,000 population where National Housing Act loans were not available from private lenders approved under the act.
Another type was in the form of loans to limited dividend companies under section 16 of the act for low rental housing. In addition there are other special types of direct loans such as those to primary industries under section 17 and those made to defence workers.
Hon. members will observe that direct loans were not made for ordinary home ownership purposes in the larger urban centres and were not available to house builders producing housing for sale nor, in recent years, for rental. This government source of funds, in fact, had not been used to supplement private National Housing Act investment in the larger cities where the principal supply of new housing is required.
By August of this year about $100 million of the total of $250 million had been used for direct loans, for the purposes which I have mentioned. The government decided at that time that the balance of these moneys- that was roughly $150 million-should immediately be made available in a way that would have the most beneficial effect upon employment in the housing industry and in areas where the need for accommodation was most acute.
We placed certain restrictions on these loans because we felt it was vitally important that they should be used to help people build smaller homes. We were deliberately not trying to give this kind of help for building of the more expensive homes. Restrictions were primarily in the nature of limitation on the floor area. For example, for a three-bedroom bungalow, the floor area allowed was 1,050 square feet. Then, there were other restrictions in the way of not allowing certain features in the home which, while they were very desirable, were not considered as entirely necessary.
As the plan has worked out, the average floor area of bungalows under this agency loan plan is 1,014 square feet which compares with an average of 1,137 square feet for bungalows financed by National Housing Act loans through approved lenders during the year 1957.


George Carlyle Marler: Did the minister say 1957?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, during the year 1957. These restrictions have, I think, worked out very well. They are comparatively simple and they have helped bring down the cost of the homes. For example, in September the cost of homes being built under this small

home loan program averaged about $2,000 per home less than the cost of single family dwellings financed by approved lenders during the same period.
Hon. members may wonder why the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not make those loans directly itself through its own branches. That, we felt, would have resulted in a good deal of delay and it seemed far more practical to work through the regular lending institutions. We believed it would be advisable to utilize the services of the banks and other approved lenders who have developed business relationships with house builders and house purchasers through the National Housing Act. We were aware that since we wanted to get immediate action before winter closed in upon housing construction it might be difficult to effect the necessary arrangements for the private lenders to act as agents of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this new operation. I would like to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the speed and the efficiency with which those arrangements were made by the banks and the insurance companies and the other approved lenders. We have had first-class co-operation from them and the results have been very gratifying, Mr. Chairman.
I have a report here up to the end of last week, and the loans approved up to November 29 amounted to $132,594,438. In addition to that, there were potential loans in the process of going through the offices estimated at $25,840,000. That makes a total of $158,434,438, so that the scheme is already over the top; we are already over the $150 million.
It has not gone so well in the Atlantic region. There, as of the end of last week, the aggregate volume of loans approved was only $2.1 million for 249 units. It dragged considerably also in the province of British Columbia which should normally take about one-tenth of the total loans across the country. The figure for the west coast province, as of last week, was $8.8 million for 980 units. I do not have the starts under this plan to date. We do not normally get them until the end of the month, but I gave the house figures some days ago and at that time the total starts were 5,992. They will be considerably higher than that at the present time.
From these figures it will be clearly seen that we now require further funds and that is why in these amendments we are asking the house for a further $150 million. I point out that all of that amount will not be available for this low-cost housing plan because, while these activities have been going on, there have also been very extensive activities in the other fields which were covered by section 22, particularly in buildings under the limited
National Housing Act
dividend corporation plan and also in the direct loans in the smaller centres of the country.
I have here the figures for those types of loans as well. For example, under section 16 there have been approvals since the act was first brought in, in 1954,-and that is when the figure of $250 million was set-of $61,368,987, and there are advances under that section being processed of $4,235,948. Under section 17 there have been approvals amounting to $7,020,451, and under section 40- these are direct loans to the smaller centres -amounting to $56,454,565. The additional $150 million, therefore, will have to be used for the purpose of these other types of advances as well as for the small homes. I estimate, however, that there should be from $75 million to $100 million of this additional amount we are asking available for the smaller homes.
So much for that part of this amendment which will provide additional funds. May I now refer to the other part of the amendment which will reduce the down payment under the act. I have several speeches here prepared for me, and it is becoming rather confusing.


George Carlyle Marler: Do not give us the same one twice.


Howard Charles Green: That is the dangerous part of ad libbing in the middle of these written speeches; I am trying to make my remarks more interesting. The second amendment in the bill is to reduce the down payment which borrowers have to make if they are buying or building a new home under the National Housing Act. In this way it is hoped to make it easier for families of modest means to obtain mortgage money under the act. At present the act provides that a borrower may obtain a loan amounting to 90 per cent of the first $8,000 of lending value and 70 per cent of the lending value in excess of $8,000. The amendment will enable a borrower to obtain a loan amounting to 90 per cent of the first $12,000 of lending value, together with 70 per cent of the lending value in excess of that amount. These larger loans will be available to home owner applicants, to builders and to co-operative housing associations constructing either single family houses or two-family housing units.
These new maximum loan ratios would apply to loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under section 40 of the act under either the agency or the other lending programs. They would also permit approved lenders to make higher ratio insured loans out of their own funds. I have here a table which perhaps hon. members will

National Housing Act allow me to have printed in Hansard which will explain clearly just what these changes would mean. We are not raising the maximum of $12,800. Under the present act where the home has a lending value of $10,000, the loan would be $8,600 and the down payment would be $1,400. Under the proposed amendments the loan would go up from $8,600 to $9,000 and the down payment would go down from $1,400 to $1,000. Where the lending value is now $11,000, the loan would be $9,300 and the down payment $1,700; that is under the law as it is now. Under the proposed change, the loan in such a case would be $9,900 and the down payment $1,100. Where the lending value is $12,000 under the present law, the loan would be $10,000 and the down payment $2,000; under the amendment the loan would be $10,800 and the down payment would be only $1,200. There are other figures in the table which hon. members will see, running up to $16,000 at which figure the down payment would be the same in both cases.
I see it is practically ten o'clock but I am very nearly finished. If hon. members do not object, I will continue.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Howard Charles Green: One thing I should like to make very clear is that we have had excellent co-operation from builders across the country under the small homes plan. It would be very unfair if they were to be caught now with unsold houses on their hands after we have made this change in the amount of down payment. We propose to see that they do not suffer for that reason. It is planned, therefore, that home owners and builders who are already building under the agency loan program will be permitted to renegotiate their loans so that they can take advantage of the higher loan ratios, provided the loan moneys have not been fully advanced. Similarly, any home owner who has obtained a non-agency loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under section 40 and to whom only a portion of the loan so far has been advanced will be eligible to claim a higher loan ratio. In both cases the borrower will have to bear any legal charges associated with the renegotiation of the loan.
Then, as I pointed out, we are not making any increase in the ceiling on loans above the figure of $12,800. There is one other change which will be made by regulation, and that is to raise the proportion of an applicant's income that he can spend for the servicing of his loan. When you lower the down payment, you increase the size of the loan accordingly and there is just that much


more to be paid. In order to give the maximum help to Canadians with smaller incomes we are raising this ratio.
Coupled with this increase in loans it is proposed that there should also be a change in the regulation affecting the relationship between a borrower's income and the loan he may obtain. Up to now an approved lender has been required to obtain approval of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for loans to applicants proposing to assume debt service over 23 per cent of his income. The amended regulation will authorize approved lenders to proceed without special approval up to 27 per cent of income.
Once again, this will help fulfil the government's aim of making housing loans more readily available to families of moderate means. The government believes that there are many borrowers who would be prepared to put a larger proportion of their income into houses if they were able to obtain a home of their own. The direct effect of raising the ratio of debt service to 27 per cent will be to enable more families to qualify for National Housing Act loans.
For example, to qualify without special approval-there is now a provision for special approval by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for higher ratios-at present for a $9,000 loan a borrower has to have an income of about $4,050. I should say that the actual income required will depend upon the size of municipal taxes, but I am taking $240 as a representative municipal tax figure for the purpose of this example.
Under the 27 per cent rule it will only be necessary to have an income of $3,450 to qualify for a loan of this size. In other words, the income requirement would come down from $4,050 to $3,450.
Similarly, under the new down payment arrangement a borrower can obtain a $12,200 loan on a $14,000 house but with existing regulations regarding the size of debt service he would require an income of nearly $5,200 a year to qualify for a $12,200 loan. When the 27 per cent rule takes effect an income of $4,360 a year will be sufficient.
This change will be made by changing the regulations, not by amending the act. Quite frankly, I should like to be able to help an income group even lower than those who will be helped by this legislation.
Finally, the objectives of these amendments and of the change in regulations are to provide homes for the lower income groups and to raise the morale of the home building industry and all the associate industries. In that regard I think hon. members will agree that our existing plan has already gone quite far in the direction of achieving

that objective. The objective is also to furnish employment because the building of all these homes at this time means a great many thousands of additional jobs in Canada. Above all, the objective is to build a better Canada.
As I said in opening my remarks, many other plans are under study by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We would be very glad to have the co-operation of private members of the house. Some of the private members on the government side were very interested in housing and they asked to be given the opportunity to study the whole housing question. They have been doing that with the co-operation of the corporation's officials. Private members of the official opposition have made the same request and they have been given exactly the same facilities. We would be glad to extend those facilities to the members of the other two parties who might be interested in carrying out such a study because these are complicated questions. I do not pretend to know half the answers myself and we want all the help we can get.
I should like to close with a word of commendation for the splendid work done in the field of housing by my predecessor,
National Housing Act
the Hon. Robert Winters. He and I were friends from the time he first came into the house. I always admired him greatly even though criticizing him pretty severely at times. I realized how much effort he was putting into this job and when I took over the department I was not a bit surprised to find that he had really done a first class job in the housing field. I doubt whether he always got the support from the government that he would have liked. However, sometimes we all have these troubles, I suppose.


George Carlyle Marler: Who can speak with better authority?


Howard Charles Green: I should also like to pay credit to the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think they are doing a splendid job for Canada. They have many new and trying problems to face and I am sure we all agree that they merit words of encouragement. I should also like to thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this extra time to finish my statement.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is it understood that the table to which the minister referred earlier is to be included in Hansard?


Howard Charles Green: Yes and I will do so. The table follows:
Effect of Changes in Loan Ratio on Down Payments-Maximum by Regulation, $12,800
	Present Act		Proposed Amendment	
90 per	cent on $8,000	90 per	cent on $12,00070 per	cent on balance	70 per	cent on balanceLending Value	Loan	Down Payment	Loan	Down Payment$10,000 	$1,400	$ 9,000	$1,00011,000 	
9,300	1,700	9,900	1,10012,000 	2,000	10,800	1,20013,000 	
10,700	2,300	11,500	1,50014,000 	2,600	12,200	1,80015,000 	2,900	12,800	2,20016,000 	
12,800	3,200	12,800	3,200
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: What is the business for Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of National Defence and, if we finish those estimates, the estimates of trade and commerce.


Lionel Chevrier: You suggested finance for Friday. Is that still the intention?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure whether finance would be on Friday or Saturday. My plan
is to have finance one day and trade and commerce the other but I cannot say tonight on which day we will take which estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Can we take it for granted that we will have estimates on Saturday as well?


Howard Charles Green: So far as I know at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	assistance to lumbering industry, b.c.
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.	Did any thefts of postal stamps, money orders, postal notes, cash or otherwise, occur in the different post offices of Canada from June 21, 1957 to date? If so, how many?
2.	What was the total sum involved and what new measures if any have been taken by the Post Office Department to prevent such incidents?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamillon (Postmaster
General):
1.	Yes; there were 143 cases where post offices were broken into and in 63 of these cases no cash or postal supplies were stolen.
2.	The amount of cash stolen was $10,742. In addition, postage stamps, unemployment insurance stamps, postal scrip and money order forms were stolen. The postage stamps and unemployment insurance stamps do not represent a loss unless they are used. Money order forms do not represent a loss unless they are cashed at post offices.
Security measures now being taken:
(a)	Continuation of the program for gradual replacement of all safes in post offices occupying premises provided by the Department of Public Works with new type safes designed in co-operation with the R.C.M.P.
(b)	In the planning of new post office buildings, provision is made for a built-in "strong room" containing a burglar-resistant money chest for the cash.
(c)	In April of this year, agreement was reached with the Department of Public Works for the installation of glass "ports" in mail lobby doors for new post office buildings. This is to enable our employees to identify callers before opening the mail lobby doors. On doors already installed without ports, provision has been made for the installation of security chains and this program is being carried out at district level.
(d)	On June 20 as a result of an agreement with the Department of Public Works, field officers were instructed to arrange with local district architects for the removal of casters on post office safes and where considered practicable have these safes bolted to the floor to increase the difficulty of their illegal removal.
(e)	The use of night depository service at banks is being continually extended to reduce the amount of cash held overnight.
(f)	Security transfer services are used where necessary to transfer larger amounts.

Question No. 168-Mr. Christian:
What steps have been taken by the government since June 10, 1957, to help the lumbering industry in the province of British Columbia, and especially the small loggers who face adverse market conditions?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	The government has already made available for housing loan purposes $150,000,000 and has placed a resolution before the House of Commons which would provide a further $150,000,000 for these purposes. These steps are of substantial indirect assistance to the building industry as with an increase in housing construction will come an increased demand for timber and timber products.
2.	An agreement was entered into with the government of the province of British Columbia whereby the government of Canada will pay one-third of the cost of spraying forests in the northern part of Vancouver island to combat an outbreak of the blackheaded budworm. Present indications are that the federal contribution will exceed $83,000.
3.	An agreement was entered into with the government of the province of British Columbia whereby the government of Canada will contribute, mainly on a 50 per cent basis, toward the cost of capital expenditures made by the province for equipment, roads, etc., required for forest fire protection. It is expected that the federal contribution for 1957-58 will be over $74,000.
4.	Indirect assistance is being given through the program of forest research carried on by the federal government in British Columbia including the work of the forest products laboratory at Vancouver. Expenditures in 1957-58 will likely exceed $250,000.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Have any civil servants, apart from stenographers and clerks, employed at headquarters of the Department of Public Works resigned since June 21, 1957? If so, how many?
2.	What is the name and former duty of each?
3.	What reason was given in each case for the resignation?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Yes, four.
2.	(a) S. Ferizi, technical officer 3; (b) R. M. Bullock, technical officer 7; (c) S. H. Osaka, architect 1; (d) R. G. Gauthier, technical officer 3.

Questions
3.	(a) No reason given; (b) resigned as an alternative to carrying out departmental instructions; (c) returned to university; (d) returned to university.



STAMP ISSUE


Mr. L'Heureux: What is the total number of stamps comprised in the issue bearing the picture of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Philip?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
51,260,000.



COAL SUBVENTION PAYMENTS, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. MacEachen: Will the subventions on coal to be used in connection with thermal plants in the maritimes be paid to privately owned companies now operating in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the same manner as to the provincial power commissions?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):
The regulations governing the payment of subventions on coal used in thermal plants in the maritime provinces form part of the
agreements under negotiation with the authorities in the provinces concerned. Until the agreements are finally concluded, no statement can be made as to the payments.



FEDERAL PAYMENTS, TERREBONNE COUNTY, QUE.

Mr. Raymond: 1.	Were any payments made by the federal government to the city of St. Jerome, the town of Ste. Therese and the town of Ste. Agathe des Monts, in the county of Terrebonne, since June 10, 1957?
2.	If so, what amounts and under what authority?
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	Ste. Therese $1,108.00 pursuant to the Municipal Grants Act.



WHEAT BOARD FLOUR EXPORTS

Mr. Hansell: 1.	Does the wheat board sell for export any flour milled in Canada?
2.	If so, (a) how much flour has been sold in 1956, and 1957 respectively; (b) to what countries; (c) how much to each country; (d) what total dollar value to each country?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	No.
2.	See answer to question No. 1.

Thursday, December 5, 1957