1957-10-16

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to provide for annual vacations with pay for employees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for two weeks' annual vacation with pay after one year's service for all employees who come under federal labour jurisdiction. This bill is exactly the same as the one I have introduced on former occasions and which has had the support of hon. members opposite when it came to a vote. I trust if there is a government bill in the same field it will be at least as good as this one.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OF STATUTORY HOLIDAYS WITH PAY FOR EMPLOYEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction shall receive their regular pay for at least eight statutory holidays each year without having to work on those holidays. It also makes provision for overtime rates of pay for any employees who are required to work on statutory holidays.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OF MINIMUM RATE OF WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to provide for minimum wages for employees.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. This bill provides that such minimum rate of wages shall be $1 per hour. The bill also provides that its terms do not affect any employees whose rate of wages is higher than the minimum established by this legislation. However, any rate of wages less favourable to employees than $1 per hour is superseded by this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 152, REVISED STATUTES OF 1952-VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF OF UNION DUES

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to add a new subsection 3 to section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, otherwise known as the national labour code. The effect of this new subsection is to provide for the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting at advance polls).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which is similar to one which I have presented in former sessions, is to make provision for the privilege of voting at advance polls in federal elections to be extended to any qualified elector who finds that he will be absent from his polling division on the ordinary polling day for any reason whatsoever.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Inquiries of the Ministry



INCOME TAX ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to provide for an amendment to the Income Tax Act with respect to communication of information.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove, in part, the secrecy provisions contained in the Income Tax Act with respect to income tax returns of corporations. This bill will make it possible for information contained in corporation income tax returns to be communicated to parliament by a minister.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR HEARING OF CORPORATION APPEALS IN PUBLIC

Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to provide for an amendment to the Income Tax Act with respect to corporation appeals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make an amendment to the Income Tax Act having to do with appeals taken by corporations to the income tax appeal board. No change is made in the provision for appeals to the board by individuals to be heard in camera, if so desired, but this bill would make it necessary for all appeals made by corporations to the income tax appeal board to be heard in public.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to provide for an amendment to the Financial Administration Act with respect to the use of the two official languages.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
this bill is to provide that cheques, postal orders, money orders and any other similar remittances of any department or of any crown corporation shall be printed in both the official languages. This is in accordance with the principle established in the Bank of Canada Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to provide for jurisdiction in the handling of flax and rye.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. At the present time the Canadian wheat board has jurisdiction over the handling of wheat, oats and barley. The effect of this amendment will be that the wheat board shall have included in its jurisdiction the handling of flax and rye.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
(Translation):



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is it the government's intention to introduce amendments to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act during the present session, in order to provide more substantial assistance?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, quite recently, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and myself have received a delegation from the Canadian Metal Mining Association. The officials of my department are at present reviewing the suggestions and recommendations then made to us. As soon as those officials have submitted their report, we will make it available to the members of the cabinet.
(Text):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henry Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. What funds were made available by the federal government to finance a special works program by the Canadian National Railways to ease the lay-offs at Moncton and other points, and under what authority were these funds so made available?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the government undertook to make available such funds as would be required to undertake such a works program, but for one reason or another the works program was not able to be started and the funds were not required.


Henry Joseph Murphy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand then that nothing has been done to prevent these lay-offs?


George Harris Hees: The answer to that question is that the offer of the government to make the funds available, and the offer of the Canadian National Railways to carry out such a program, are still open.


Henry Joseph Murphy: May I ask a
further supplementary question. Does the minister still consider the recent Canadian National Railways lay-offs at Moncton as deplorable and unnecessary, as he was quoted as saying in the Moncton Times concerning similar lay-offs two years ago when he visited Moncton in a similar situation?


George Harris Hees: That is a very easy question to answer. Any lay-offs are deplorable and regretted by the government, as I am sure they are regretted by all Canadians, but layoffs have to take place from time to time.



UNEMPLOYMENT-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour this question. Is the government aware of the rapidly growing unemployment problem? If so, what is the government planning to do about it?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there will be seasonal unemployment this winter. We have stepped up our winter program to take care of winter unemployment. We have also advised our national employment service offices to step up their tempo in obtaining jobs for people as soon as they become unemployed. I might say also, on behalf of the government, that we have curtailed for the balance of the year the influx of immigrants which swelled our total labour population. In addition we have channelled $150 million into our economy for the construction of houses. These are the things the government has done so far in order to cope with unemployment this winter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erhart Regier: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Did I understand the minister to say, by implication at least, that the August unemployment figures are in any way to be classed as seasonal?


Michael Starr: No, the hon. member did not ask me that question and I made no mention of any August unemployment figures.


Hon. George C. Marler (St. Antoine-Wesi-mounl):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. He has just spoken of the sum of $150 million which has been made available for housing. Can he tell the house how much of that $150 million has actually been disbursed?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: This comes under the Department of Public Works. I have not had a report yet for last week, but as of the week before that I think there had been some $20 million committed and about $80 million earmarked. Mind you, that might not all be taken up in loans, but I think very nearly that figure of $80 million would be required. I have no doubt that the figures now, a week later, are a good deal higher, but unfortunately I am not able to give them to the hon. member today.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
for 1956-57
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wesley Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question also to the Minister of Labour. How many are registered as unemployed in New Brunswick at this time, particularly in the Campbellton area-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -and how do those figures compare with last year?


Michael Starr: have not that information available, as I am not able to carry it in my head, but if the hon. member wants that information I shall be glad to convey it to him.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY as to changes in support prices
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Has there been a change since the government took office in the support prices provided for by the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944 on any of the farm products, and if so, what change?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Douglas S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the right hon. gentleman for having informed me a few minutes ago that he was going to ask this question. The answer is that there has been no change in the support prices which were in effect when the present administration took over. Since that time, however, two further agricultural products, turkey and fowl, have been placed under price support.



INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION ON PRICE INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: May I ask
the Minister of Agriculture what is the intention of the government with regard to the condition existing in the butter market today, whereby the retail price of butter has increased by approximately 10 cents a pound in the last two months while the price of butterfat has increased by less than half that amount?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I may say that during the last couple of hours I have had a check made of the market prices of butter at the wholesale level in several of the important markets in Canada. The information I have received from these markets does not bear out the statement made by the hon. member.
The prices at Winnipeg on August 3 for butterfat were 60 cents per pound and on October 12, 62 cents per pound. In other words there was an increase of only 2 cents. The price at Toronto on the same dates, August 3 and October 12, were 64 and 66 cents per pound for butterfat. The wholesale prices of butter at Winnipeg on August 3 and October 12 were 60 cents and 61 cents per pound respectively. In other words there was an increase of only 1 cent per pound. At Toronto the prices on these same dates were 604 cents and 62 cents, an increase of only 1J cents per pound. I might say, Mr Speaker, that if any action were to be taken in regard to controlling the price of butter at the retail level, the responsibility would rest on the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is right; the dominion government has no means at the present time of controlling the retail price of butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further question of the Minister of Agriculture. Is it not true that there was a support 
price on fowl prior to the election, and has there been any change made in that regard since?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker. The previous administration had passed an order in council which would have made effective price support on fowl some time, I believe, in the present month of October.


James Garfield Gardiner: August 1st.


Douglas Scott Harkness: August, was it? The first of August. We placed fowl under price support in July.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Coasi-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Public Works when the government intends to begin construction of a Canadian merchant marine, which they so frequently promised to do during and after the election?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, that question really should be addressed to the Minister of Transport. As the hon. member for Coast-Capilano very well knows, this is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.



COASTAL TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) asked this question yesterday at page 15 of Hansard:
May I ask the Prime Minister a question. Can he tell us when the report of the royal commission on coastal shipping will be handed down?
At that time I said:
I cannot right offhand. I will make inquiries and at the next session of the house I will give an answer to my hon. friend.
The chairman of the royal commission on coastal shipping has advised that the report of the commission is in course of preparation but it is not expected that it will be completed for presentation until near the end of the year.



DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING DEEP SEA FACILITIES AT LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to address this question to the Minister of Transport. What plans has the minister

for assuaging the feelings of the Port Arthur city council regarding the minister's initial decision to send only minor departmental officials to confer with the council about deep sea shipping facilities at the lakehead?


George Harris Hees: In the first place I feel sure that the feelings of the Port Arthur city council do not need any assuaging, because when I went to the lakehead some few weeks ago I was received very cordially by the officials of both Port Arthur and Fort William. Since that time I have discussed this matter with my colleague the Minister of Public Works. As a result of these discussions, officials, not minor officials but senior officials, of both departments will go to the lakehead next Monday to examine the harbour facilities to ascertain if they are adequate, in their opinion, to handle such extra traffic as could reasonably be expected to arise when the St. Lawrence seaway is completed.
A survey will be carried out from an engineering point of view. Following that survey, a thorough study from the economic point of view will be carried out by the economics section of my department in order to ascertain just what additional traffic might be expected to pass through to the lakehead as a result of the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a kindly inquiry of my former colleague on the parliamentary committee on veterans affairs. Both our hearts beat as one on this question. In view of the fact that for 12 years the minister did urge the former government to establish a standing committee on veterans affairs, could the minister tell the house when the government of the day proposes to move for the establishment of such committee?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West for his very kindly remarks. We have been interested, of course, for years in setting up a standing committee on veterans affairs, and I can assure him and the house that the matter is receiving consideration. If such a committee is in the best interests of veterans legislation it will be done.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: If, if.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED OFFER OF SPEAKERSHIP TO HON. MEMBER FOR WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it true that the Prime Minister has requested the socialist member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to be the permanent Speaker of this House of Commons? If there has been any correspondence on the subject I would ask that copies of it be tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I answer that first
categorically. No; there was no offer to the hon. gentleman to be permanent Speaker. I am one of those who believe that action should be taken, having regard to what took place in the last two or three sessions, to bring about a degree of authority in the Speaker that would be above partisan consideration. During the election campaign and prior thereto I pointed out that one of the matters that deserved consideration was the appointment of a permanent Speaker and, if possible, when that unanimity of opinion -could be secured in the House of Commons, to bring about permanence in the speakership. However, that has not been achieved, in order to place the speakership above the importunities of anyone in this house, and in order that the Speaker would never in the future, during this parliament, be in any way considered to be, or placed in, the unenviable position in which those who now sit opposite to us placed the former Speaker.
The hon. gentleman mentioned the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There was no offer of a permanent speakership in any way inherent in the offer. What I said was this, and I will table the correspondence if my hon. friend is willing and if he expresses his willingness now. I asked the hon. member whether, because of the fact that he was regarded as an authority on parliamentary rules, he would allow me to place his name in nomination; and if he were chosen by the House of Commons, would he accept the appointment. That is the total and summary answer to my hon. friend.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make clear one thing that may not have been clear in my earlier remarks. I am very anxious to table these two letters. It has been agreed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that they should be tabled, and with your permission it can be done at once.

Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



REFERENCE TO APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENERGY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have already given him notice. Having regard to the establishment of the royal commission on energy and sources of energy announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, may I ask him these two questions.
Do the terms of reference include a study of the power to be developed by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the New York state power authority in the international rapids section of the seaway as well as the power now under development, or to be developed, in the Soulanges and La-chine sections of the St. Lawrence river? If not, will the government give consideration to enlarging the terms of reference so as to include these three areas of development?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the notice to which the hon. member referred, no doubt because of my absence on other duties this morning. However, I think the terms of reference speak for themselves and it is not for me to make an interpretation as to the meaning of those terms, because I think they are all-comprehensive. Nevertheless, if when the commission is constituted it is deemed advisable or necessary to amplify the terms of reference in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend, then consideration will be given to amplifying the powers.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the government's intention to institute by order in council or otherwise any legal action against the Westcoast Transmission Company for having entered into a contract under which they are now supplying natural gas to United States distributors at a lower price than that granted to distributors in British Columbia, which contravenes the regulations made under the authority of a statute of this parliament?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that anything in the nature of an offence which would
[Mr. Diefenbaker.1
form the basis of a prosecution had taken place. I shall be glad to have that matter checked further to make certain I am correct in my understanding. I would imagine, however, that in any event this would be one of the sort of problems that would require the urgent consideration of the royal commission announced yesterday by the Prime Minister.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister has said with regard to this being one of the problems likely to receive the urgent consideration of the royal commission. This is an act of parliament already established that has been contravened. Why does the minister think it necessary to wait for a royal commission to study the question of the contravention of an established act of parliament before he is prepared to take any action?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I may say to the hon. member that, as is his custom, he has jumped to conclusions not warranted by the words used. I have already told the hon. member that I will examine the matter immediately and see if in fact there be such a contravention, and I said further that this was one of the sort of problems which in addition would be studied by the royal commission announced yesterday.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECENT CONFERENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of his ready and kind agreement yesterday to make a statement as early as possible on the United Kingdom proposal with regard to free trade between Canada and the United Kingdom I should like to ask him if he proposes to include in that statement some reference not only to the Mont Tremblant conference, which he said yesterday he would willingly do, but if he would also make some reference-in fact make a complete report-on the recent conferences of Canadian and United States ministers in Washington; and also if he would be good enough to include in that report the very important proposal made by the Prime Minister of Canada not at the prime ministers' conference in London but to the members of the press gallery immediately upon his return from England.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that it will give me a great deal of pleasure to make the report he has asked

for and to see that it covers all the points he has put forward today. I hope he will enjoy receiving the report as much as I will enjoy offering it to him.

On the orders of the day:
Mr. J, H. Harrison (Meadow Lake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's often expressed desire to remove trade barriers between Canada and Great Britain and to increase trade between the two countries, does he intend to seize on Britain's recent offer of free trade and bring to the farmers of the west the ability to buy in the same free market in which they are forced to sell?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that whole matter will be covered by the Minister of Finance when he speaks, but I think the hon. member should certainly be commended. For 22 years he has been silent about it, and suddenly he has taken an interest.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance be rather more prepared when he makes that statement than he was at the meeting at Mont Tremblant?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will satisfy the hon. member and the house with the statement I have been asked to make by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), that it has been properly prepared, in the same adequate manner as were the preparations made on behalf of the Canadian government for representation at Mont Tremblant.


Mr. Harrison:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister answered my question. I asked if he was going to seize on the offer of Great Britain.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison). I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he knows of any occasion in the past 22 years when a Liberal government sitting in this house was offered to deal with Great Britain in so far as free trade was concerned?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask your friends.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me if he knows of an occasion when Great Britain offered this country a free trade agreement with them.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPORTED PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH COMMONWEALTH FREE TRADE AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance comment on the report that appeared in the October 14 issue of Le Devoir, a copy of which I sent him, which stated that in reply to the United Kingdom's proposal of establishing a free trade area with Canada the government was considering a counter-proposal whereby it would suggest forming a free trade area with all the commonwealth countries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for sending me notice of his question and also the article to which he has referred, appearing in Le Devoir of October 14. I do not know where the writer of this article chose to get information or inspiration to write such an article or the headline writer to entitle it in the way he did. As far as I am aware no country in the commonwealth has proposed the establishment of a free trade area within the commonwealth.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I ask a supplementary question? Do I take it from the answer that the government will not in fact make the counter-proposal I just mentioned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, certainly, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has made no such proposal.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And it will not?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will my hon. friend be content with the answer I have given him today and wait until I satisfy the curiosity of my esteemed friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in relation to the statement that I propose to make on the various trade conferences which have recently been held?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the government confirm or deny the publicized report that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will probably take over the national film board?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the government is not, of course, in a position to confirm or deny any statement with respect to

Inquiries of the Ministry the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is an independent crown corporation and not, at the moment, under the control of the government. I must say, in so far as the act is concerned, the powers of the minister are simply those of reporting to parliament, and within the scope of those limited powers I can tell my hon. friend that I have not had any word, directly or indirectly, with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation taking over the national film board.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the view just expressed as to the relationship of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the government?-because he did not express any such view when he sat on this side.


George Clyde Nowlan: It was a different minister then.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the importunate gentleman, who has just asked this question, that there is between the Minister of National Revenue and myself a measure of agreement that he and his colleagues might well have envied.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
minister's statement
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to implement the promise he made in Quebec recently to the members of la Societe St. Jean Baptiste that the Cartier-Brebeuf park would be made a national historic park?


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend for asking that question. I was greatly interested in the situation wherein, in our country, so many of our historic areas fall into disuse and are forgotten. We had an example right here in the city of Ottawa in the old Supreme Court of Canada building-


Jean Lesage: I am speaking about Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: -in which seven of Canada's prime ministers argued cases from time to time. I realize the need of action being taken in this regard. When I was in Quebec I must say I was deeply moved by the ceremony I attended there. I saw that area where Jacques Cartier spent that winter which all but ended exploration in what is now Canada. I then suggested that that area be set aside as a national historic site.

Action is being taken in that connection. A full investigation is being made. As soon as we are in a position to report the effective nature of that action, I shall do so.


Jean Lesage: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources what action is being taken or has been taken?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the past I never heard such particularization. I speak of the objective and the general means. The routine details are not going to be gone into in this house, because it is foreign to the rights of the house to go into such details except when the estimates are discussed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in principle, he would be willing to take similar action with respect to the area surrounding cape Bona-vista, which was discovered first by Cabot and was also visited by Cartier before Cartier went to Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into a controversy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no controversy.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friends sitting side by side are almost in the same degree of agreement in which they used to be when they were sitting over on this side of the house, when they invariably disagreed.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the government take the necessary steps to delay any increase in freight rates asked for by the railways in their latest request for a 10 per cent increase until a proper investigation has been undertaken, the provinces have had an opportunity to make representations, and an effort has been made to bring about a greater equality in freight rates across Canada?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, the hearing before the board of transport commissioners has not been concluded and it will not be concluded before all parties are given an adequate opportunity to be heard. Then a report will be made to the government and the matter will be seriously considered.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then may I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that the 4 per cent of that 10 per cent which was granted on September 24 will become effective unless some steps are taken by the government?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that fact. I will immediately get in touch with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners, and will give my answer tomorrow.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Is it the intention of the minister to come back to a practice which was in effect for over 50 years up to 1953, namely to build protection walls along the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers in order to stop the land destruction along these rivers?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The policy of the department is to take action of this kind only where the damage to the river banks is caused by navigation. In my short term of office as minister I have found that there are many people in many parts of Canada who want us to take action to stop erosion. However, the dominion government is not responsible for erosion from natural causes. It is responsible only where erosion is caused by navigation.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, following the answer made by the Minister of Public Works a few minutes ago to the question asked by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) are we to understand that the previous protection works projects of the former administration are not to be carried out during the present fiscal year?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether all the projects will be completed during the present fiscal year. As the hon. member for Levis knows, the basis on which the Department of Public Works undertakes jobs of this kind is to prevent damage by navigation, not simply to stop rivers eroding their banks, which they do in the ordinary course of nature.


Maurice Bourget: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I ask this because there were some tenders sought for projects in
96698-3^
Inquiries of the Ministry my own constituency a few weeks ago. I understand nothing has been done so far. This is a question of national interest because it is a question of departmental policy.


Some hon. Members:: Ask the question.


Maurice Bourget: Very often, when they were on this side of the house, members opposite were asking such questions and they will recall that whenever a point was raised or a question was asked by members now on that side-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad to answer, though I am a little surprised that the hon. member should raise this question. However, if he is referring to the projects which have been put in, at least in some cases, on the basis of protecting a Liberal farmer and not protecting anybody else, I may say that I am hoping the new government will be able to do a little better than that.


Maurice Bourget: I happened to be the parliamentary assistant to the minister of public works, and I know-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Those are the trained seals.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The questions have been asked, and some of the answers given have been speeches, and have been given at such length that I submit to you they are infractions of the rules of this house. My hon. friend has risen to ask his question in the same manner as the Prime Minister gave replies, and I submit to you that he should be given the same leeway.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member drawing to my attention the fact that some of the questions and some of the answers have not been in accordance with the rules of the house. I have hesitated, partly because of my own ignorance, to intervene; partly also because I assumed that among the new members at least there would be a certain amount of unfamiliarity with the purpose of the question period. However, after today's session I hope to be a little more severe with those who do not comply with the rules. But, as I say, I have been lenient today.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


Maurice Bourget: Yes. Due to the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
36	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Maurice Bourget: Well, give me a little time and I will ask the question. Due to the fact that the project that has been approved in my constituency comes within the terms of reference of protection works, is the minister going to accept it?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member a few minutes ago. I am really astonished that he should raise this question today. The new government hopes to put this protection back on a businesslike basis, and not on the basis of awarding party prizes.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ASSISTANCE TO EMPLOYABLE UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister at this time inform the house as to when the financial and other contractual agreements will be signed with our provincial governments relative to the payment of assistance to the employable unemployed who are not covered by unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member an answer to that question. It is a matter for discussion between this government and the provinces, who will be meeting here. It is one of the problems which will be discussed at that time.


Harold Edward Winch: Then may I ask a supplementary question. While you are waiting for that discussion to take place, how are these people supposed to live?



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) asked me whether I could give a report as to the progress of an inquiry under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act into the pulpwood industry. I told the hon. member that I would try to give him a reply at the earliest possible date. I should perhaps say that, as the house knows, the practice has been established over the years of not making reports of such investigations until all matters are concluded and a decision has been reached. However, there are exceptions and this is one of them, inasmuch as this inquiry originated as the result of a statement made in the house. I can therefore
[Mr. Bourget.l

deal with it only to the extent of telling the hon. member that it is not possible to say when a report may be made. The director informs me that the parties concerned have recently asked for a short postponement of the final hearing in order that they may bring additional information before the commission. The director anticipates that the commission will be seized of the case by the end of this calendar year, after which it will be a question as to how soon the commission can conclude their inquiry and make their report.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise this house whether he has received a copy of a resolution dealing with low cost housing passed by the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada at their eleventh annual meeting held at Clear Lake, Manitoba, in September of this year; and if so, what action if any has the government taken to implement the recommendations contained therein?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would be obliged to ask in my department to see whether I have had a copy of those recommendations. The action the government has taken with respect to housing has already been mentioned this afternoon and it has been extremely effective in all parts of Canada except, unfortunately, in my own province of British Columbia and in the maritime provinces, particularly in the maritime provinces. There they do not seem to be taking advantage of the provision which has been made.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Could the minister tell the house if any action has been taken by the government to give further consideration to the building of low cost houses which are badly needed in the maritimes?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member apparently has not familiarized himself with the policy which has been adopted and which is designed to help in the building of low cost homes. It is having that effect; the average price of the homes being built under this policy is a good deal lower than was the average under the policy which was followed by the former government.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the Postmaster General give assurances that commitments made by the previous government for the construction of a new federal building for the city of Moose Jaw will be carried out?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question would be more properly directed to the Minister of Public Works.


Louis Harrington Lewry: Then may I direct the question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the Minister of Public Works give assurances that commitments made by the previous government for the construction of a new federal building in the city of Moose Jaw will be carried out?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this is really a question for the order paper, but there are steps under way to bring about the erection of a new post office building in Moose Jaw.



QUEBEC CITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Does the government intend to proceed, as soon as possible of course, with the construction of the new postal terminal in Quebec city?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will have to obtain the information from my department. I will be glad to give the hon. member an answer at the earliest opportunity.



WINDSOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) raised a question regarding progress being made in the construction of the new post office in Windsor and why it was that accommodation which had been acquired is now being offered for rent.
The hon. member knows that preparations for this building have been under way for a couple of years. Unfortunately the former government had no item in the estimates for this project for the present fiscal year. The
Inquiries of the Ministry planning vote has been utilized in the preparation of plans and in the acquisition of property. The planning vote, however, does not make it possible to call for tenders.
Pending approval of the Department of Public Works estimates, I contemplate calling for tenders as soon as the estimates for the next fiscal year have been tabled in the house. This should make it possible to carry out demolition work during the months of February and March, and for new construction to commence immediately thereafter. I am just as concerned in providing as much employment as possible during the winter months as the hon. member, but with no funds available it has not been possible for me to have this work started earlier.
The hon. member made reference to accommodation which is being rented. Settlement has been reached with all the owners of property concerned in the new site except the Windsor Hotel Supply Company. We have good reason to believe that a satisfactory arrangement will be reached with them. However, one of the conditions is that they remain in possession until March 1, 1958. For the reasons given and the lack of funds in the current fiscal year, it was felt that this requirement was one that would not interfere with our program for next year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Could he inform the house of the effective date when the reserve army in Canada will be changed from its present role to that of civil defence?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for having sent me notice of this question, and also the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Deniset) for having sent me a somewhat similar question.
I think the hon. member knows that the training year for the non-permanent militia starts on October 1 of each year. On October 1 of this year a training directive was sent out which laid down the aims for the training in the current year. Those aims read:
To prepare the militia for its role to assist in any future mobilization for active service and for civil defence. Emphasis will be given to civil defence.
I think hon. members will see that there is really no change in the role being given to the militia. The emphasis for the coming year is to be laid on civil defence, and I think hon. members will agree that that is a realistic
38	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry subject for study in connection with the militia, particularly in view of recent scientific advances which have been made in some other countries. That may not be as glamorous a role as some of the other ones which have in the past been carried out by the militia, but I am confident that the militia will render the same patriotic service in this role as it has always done, rather than seeking some phony, glamorous role which hardly exists.


Some hon. Members:: Phony?


William James Henderson: Do I take it in view of what the minister has just said that in the present training year which started on October 1, 1957, the militia will conduct no other training other than for civil defence?


George Randolph Pearkes: No I just read the opening words of the directive, and I will read them again:
To prepare the militia for its role to assist in any future mobilization for active service and for civil defence. Emphasis will be given to civil defence.
Arrangements are made for selected personnel of militia units to attend summer camps with the regular units. The role of mobilization is not to be overlooked.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Perhaps he could tell the house what phony, glamorous role the militia has had in the past?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no suggestion of the militia having carried out in the past any role that could be considered as phony or glamorous, but there might be roles carried out in the future which would not be practical.



REPORTED UNIDENTIFIED SUBMARINES OFF NEWFOUNDLAND COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence and this, Mr. Speaker, is a serious question. In view of the many reports of strange submarines said to have been seen around the coast of Newfoundland, what action if any has been taken by his department to look into this matter?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, throughout the summer months there have been many reports from fishermen and other residents of Newfoundland that they have seen objects which they believe are unidentified submarines. These reports have not been confirmed, although every effort has been made to confirm them, by any naval or air force personnel. In every case where there has been


a report made by a fisherman or resident of Newfoundland a senior naval officer has personally interviewed and questioned the person making the report. Action is being taken by the flag officer, Atlantic, to try to confirm any future reports which might be made. I might say that action has been taken during the past several weeks by the navy and by the Royal Canadian Air Force to make a definite identification.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: desire to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and I assure you, sir, it is not one for the order paper.
British Columbia is holding its centennial next year, and one of the questions asked of the Minister of Public Works is with respect to a contribution by the government toward the building of the sea wall which, under Vancouver's centennial plan, will take care of and hold for all time the famous R.C.M.P. ship St. Roch.
I understand that information must be received immediately if the plan is to go forward. May I ask the hon. minister to tell us whether the federal government is prepared to participate financially in this matter?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): The hon. member for Vancouver East is a little behind the times on this question. I have been considering this matter for some weeks, and just a few days ago had a conference with three of the aldermen from the city of Vancouver. I am very hopeful that the government can give some help in connection with the sea wall, but I point out to the hon. member that he had better not press me too hard or I will be in trouble with the Minister of Finance. That is the situation at the present time. We are endeavouring to see what can be done in regard to this program.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler) asked a question of the Prime Minister, requesting information regarding the possibility of an agreement being reached

with Italy for an extension of air travel rights. As that matter comes within the orbit of my department, the Prime Minister has asked me to answer the question.
I am glad to report that informal discussions are going on at the present time through diplomatic channels, and it is hoped that a basis for the extension of these rights may be reached in the near future.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport, before we forget his answer to the previous question, whether the traffic rights he mentioned earlier are to be exercised at Toronto?


George Harris Hees: I think the hon. member is a little ahead of himself. First it is necessary to reach an agreement, if one can be reached, with Italy. If that can be done we shall give consideration to the matter he has mentioned.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. A. Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister undertaken personally, or has someone in his department undertaken for him, the censorship of salacious literature imported from abroad, as was carried out so worthily by his predecessor in office?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue in accordance with his oath of office performs those duties ascribed to him under the act.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of National Revenue approve, therefore, of the attitude and the conduct of the previous minister of national revenue in this regard.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is not for me to pass judgment on the conduct of my predecessor. Certainly the majority of the people of Canada did not approve of him or of the majority of his colleagues.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house if adequate floor prices will be placed under cattle and particularly under hogs, to protect the farmers
Inquiries of the Ministry from possible ruinous prices if a large scale switch is made by farmers as was advocated publicly by the minister in order to alleviate the grain surplus problem.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the hon. member has noted in the speech from the throne that the government proposes to introduce a measure to stabilize agricultural prices and the agricultural economy, and when that measure is introduced the government will make a full disclosure of its intentions in regard to matters of this kind.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) directed a question to me asking if I could advise him what progress the present government has made in developing a coast guard service.
This is a very important question and one in which many members of the house are interested. To do it justice it requires a detailed and of necessity a lengthy answer. I have such an answer here, but I do not think I should take up the time of the house giving it at this time. If the hon. member is willing to put his question on the order paper I will be able to immediately table the answer in the normal way.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, I think this is of such importance that the whole house would welcome a statement of policy from the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The whole house will get it if you will allow it to be tabled. You can read, can't you?


James Sinclair: I think it would be much better for the minister to tell us in his own inimitable way about this frequently repeated Tory promise.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. How many contracts have been awarded in the United Kingdom for the printing of posters for the current sale of Canada savings bonds? I have just sent one example of such a poster to the minister.
40	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think the correct answer is one. However, I can amplify the answer, in a manner that may give my hon. friend more information. About ten days ago it was brought to my attention that some of the posters used in the current Canada savings bond campaign appeared to have been printed in Great Britain rather than in Canada.


Jean Lesage: Even those in the French language.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I made inquiries at once on the matter and I found that one poster answered that description, one poster only.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Part of the policy of diversion.


Jean Lesage: Fifteen per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order, please. May I continue, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Gauthier: Ask Mr. Speaker for order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will permit his colleague's question to be answered, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to proceed.
That one poster I am told had been conspicuously successful in a similar campaign in the United Kingdom, and that was the reason it had been adopted for use here. The total amount involved in the purchasing of the rights to this one poster and having it printed at its source was $2,500 out of a total expenditure on advertising in connection with the current Canada savings bond campaign of $640,000.


An hon. Member:: Waste and extravagance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You can readily see, Mr. Speaker, that the amount involved is approximately one-third of one per cent of the total.
(Translation):




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Is it true that the minister has given instructions to the treasury to issue bilingual cheques throughout the whole of Canada from now on? In the negative, is it necessary to pass legislation in order to give such instructions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have given no such instructions. That is a matter of government policy.


(Text):



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister inform the house if there has been any change in policy by the present government in regard to the carrying out of geological surveys in the Northwest Territories?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I will take careful note of the question and answer it at the next opportunity, probably tomorrow.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, while the minister is giving a reply to that question could he also And out why it was that this summer the work of the geological survey parties in the Mackenzie river district of the Northwest Territories was stopped when only 80 per cent of the work was completed?



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SUBVENTION POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I do so because of the widespread interest in this problem in the province of Nova Scotia.
Is the Prime Minister in a position today or later to make a statement on the general coal subvention policy of this government, and in particular whether a subvention will be paid on coal moved within the maritime provinces, as forecast by him in his appearances in Nova Scotia prior to June 10?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will hold his curiosity in control for the next hour he will have an answer to that question.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the recent replies of the Minister of Public Works I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the written request to me from the minister to supply him with the names of farmers competent to act as

P.F.A.A. inspectors in the constituency of Meadow Lake, how many so named have been called out and immediately thereafter fired?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have not that detailed information with me at the present time, naturally, because I could not possibly carry it for all the constituencies in western Canada. However, I can tell my hon. friend that a considerable number of the people whom he recommended were approached or taken on as far as this P.F.A. work is concerned. I might tell him further that of the list he submitted I think only two were farmers. The remainder were bar keepers, barbers and people in various other occupations.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer I would like to ask a supplementary question. Seeing that I recommended only two men to him my suspicions are corroborated fully. Is this new technique the brain child of the minister or an adaptation of Mao Tse Tung's recent methods of finding out who's who in China?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my first comments on the address on behalf of the official opposition in this house, I should like to repeat my earlier statement that we deeply appreciate the historic circumstance that for the first time in the history of the Canadian parliament the speech from the throne was delivered by the sovereign in person. We welcomed the Queen in this parliament because among other reasons to be valid every act of this parliament must have the Queen's assent, and the royal assent is not an empty formality. It is true that the sovereign, under our British parliamentary system, acts only on the advice of ministers who are responsible to the elected branch of our parliament, but the crown is nonetheless an essential and a vital part of parliament itself.
The crown is a symbol of the constitutional evolution of our parliamentary tradition and also of our unity as a nation. The
9669S-4
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent presence of Her Majesty the Queen in our parliament here in Ottawa has for us given new life to that symbol.
I have already referred to the fact that I appear in this house in a new capacity. I must confess that I was disappointed by the results of the recent election. I do not propose, however, to dwell on that disappointment nor do I intend to speculate upon the reasons for those results. The results speak for themselves. The party which I have had the honour to lead for the past nine years accepted those results loyally, without hesitation, in what we believe is the true spirit of our parliamentary system.
I do feel that all Canadians have a right to be proud of the ease and smoothness with which the change of government was accomplished as soon as possible after the full results of the general election were known. As we look around us in the world today we note that there are not too many countries where a government which has been entrenched in office for over 20 years could be changed so speedily and with so little confusion. The fact that this change took place in the manner it did may perhaps give many of our fellow citizens a deeper faith in the strength of our parliamentary tradition and our parliamentary institutions and the devotion that all of us feel to that tradition and to those institutions.
I should like to do in parliament what I have done out of parliament and congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) upon the vigour of his campaign and upon the support he was able to enlist for himself and for his party in the recent election. The Prime Minister does not expect me to wish him any long tenure of his present office, but I do say sincerely that I appreciate the way the Prime Minister has preserved not merely the letter but the spirit of the amenities of our parliamentary system. In all of those difficult and delicate arrangements which are inseparable from a change of government the Prime Minister has shown courtesy and consideration which I have appreciated and which I trust will always characterize the relations between party leaders in this parliament.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say that what happened on June 21 was an effective answer to some of the exaggeration about the dangers to parliament which we heard so much about before June 10.
The speech from the throne forecasts steps by the government to make both houses of parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada. All hon. members have an equal interest in having parliament function as

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent an effective instrument in the services of the Canadian people and we on this side of the house hope that the government's plans for making parliament more effective were not being foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in recent speeches he made in Charlottetown and Montreal of which the newspaper reports give the impression he was suggesting that the house should accept virtually without question whatever program the government laid before it.


John George Diefenbaker: No; that is a misinterpretation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope
that is not an accurate forecast of what the government had in mind.
Hon. members are aware of the decision I had with great regret to announce on September 6 that I did not feel I had the strength and vigour necessary to lead my party in another general election and for that reason I felt the right course was to relinquish the leadership of my party as soon as a successor could be chosen in the appropriate manner. I doubt whether any party leader in the history of our country has enjoyed greater loyalty or more widespread support throughout the whole of his leadership than it has been my lot to enjoy since I became leader of the Liberal party in August, 1948. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it was not easy to reach the conclusion that so soon after the party had suffered its first reverse I would have to give up the responsibility and the honour of leadership. I reached the conclusion, however, that if, as I was advised, the state of my health was such that I could not reasonably expect to lead the party effectively in another general election campaign, it was important for the effectiveness of the role of the Liberal party in our parliamentary system and therefore in the interest of the country that the leadership should be assumed by someone with the necessary strength and vigour to fully discharge that task. Once I had reached that decision, and of course I alone could make it, I felt the right thing to do was to communicate it to the public without delay, so that is what I decided had to be done.
I mention these circumstances, because they do have a bearing on parliament. In this house I occupy the office of Leader of the Opposition and I hope to continue to occupy that office until a new permanent leader of our party has been selected. Once that selection has been made I shall, of course, immediately relinquish the office of Leader of the Opposition to my successor. In the meanwhile I shall endeavour to discharge the constitutional duties of that office to the best
of my abilities, fortified by the knowledge that I speak in this house for a united party which, as recently as June 10, still commanded substantially more popular support than any other political party in the country.
In assuming my new task as Leader of the Opposition I am comforted by the fact that, in spite of what has been said in answer to questions yesterday and today in the house, and in spite of the fact members of the present government and their supporters campaigned on the slogan that it was time for a change, they did seem singularly reluctant to make important changes in the policies or methods we followed when we sat on the other side. One member of the government after another has asserted he found little to change in the policies or administration of his department.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) paid tribute to the efficiency of our defence forces and, as recently as October 6th, indicated that there would be no fundamental changes in our forces. However, rumours appearing recently in the press seem to have caused some uncertainty in the public mind on this score. The Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Fulton) has apparently sought to give the impression he was following our practices. Two of the harshest critics of our administration, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) seem to have gone out of their way to praise the departments over which they preside. Even the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) seems to have found merits in the trans-Canada highway in its present state that were not too apparent to many of us on this side of the house. Indeed, the one minister who seems to have found serious fault with the previous administration, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), claims to have discovered many examples of waste and extravagance in the administration of the various departments. We shall all await with interest the particular examples the Minister of Finance is able to disclose.
We on this side of the house will rejoice with him if he is able to bring about any substantial economies without impairing essential services. Both Mr. Harris and Mr. Abbott before him were always trying to do this, and they succeeded in keeping the growth of expenditures well below the growth of the country during the past ten years. It is, I agree with the present incumbent of that important portfolio, the duty of any minister of finance to keep down expenditures as much as that can be done without impairing the services that the public needs and wants.

Perhaps the most heartening of all these assertions was the apparent endorsement given to the external policies of the Liberal government by the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) on the day he was sworn into office. Until about a year ago the discussion of external affairs in this house was generally carried on in a non-partisan spirit and I, for one, was very glad that the minister should have stated so definitely that he approved of the policies that were followed a year ago. We all hope Doctor Smith will continue to exhibit the admirably objective and non-partisan attitude which he proclaimed on the day he became a member of the government.
In view of the statements made before June 10, we have heard with surprise from the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) speeches about the wheat problem which, when compared with previous speeches, have echoed the very words used about this problem by his distinguished predecessor. Indeed, in so far as wheat is concerned, the only thing that seems to have changed since June 10 is that we appear to be selling less and less wheat than we were previously.
There has been from the Prime Minister the much-heralded pronouncement in the United States on Canadian-United States relations. Those of us who have compared his pronouncements at Dartmouth college with the speeches made in the United States not long before June 10 by the former minister of trade and commerce, and even since June 10 by the former secretary of state for external affairs, could only rub our eyes and wonder whether anything was changed because there seemed to be nothing whatever in the Prime Minister's speech that had not already been said, and said very well and at least as forcefully, by members of the Liberal government.
The other day the four ministers returned from a meeting in Washington and brought back a promise from the United States government not to resume the form of wheat disposal by barter which the United States had already abandoned while we were still in office. This seemed to be really all that was accomplished, unless there was something achieved that was not mentioned in the communique. One might wonder if those who voted for a change on June 10 really wanted anything more than a change of faces, because so far that seems to be the most that has been obtained, except perhaps a growing feeling of uneasiness about the future. You would not expect me to admit that that was a very substantial change for the better.
96698-4i
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent
I should not neglect any longer to compliment the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address, and to compliment them sincerely upon the admirable style and delivery of their maiden efforts in the house. The house, of course, always listens with sympathy to a newly-elected member making his first effort to catch its ear, and both hon. members acquitted themselves in a manner which promises well for their future contributions to our debates. It is not customary for the Leader of the Opposition to praise the contents of the speeches of the mover and seconder of the address and on this occasion particularly as I, too, am a novice, I shall not depart from precedent. I cannot, of course, share their understandable admiration for the new government which they feel they were elected to support.
I believe I have reached a point where I should indicate, as precisely as I can, what the attitude of the Liberal opposition will be to the new government during the present session when I expect to be responsible for leading the opposition. It is over 22 years since the Liberal party was last in opposition. In the 22 years Canada has enjoyed-I use a word that I believe will become more widely used in that connection as time passes-I say in the 22 years that Canada has enjoyed a Liberal government we as Liberals have prided ourselves on the fact that every item of the program placed before the public in each successive campaign has been implemented in full whenever it was possible for the government or for the parliament of Canada acting alone to implement it. The only items in our Liberal programs which have not been fully implemented are those which have required provincial co-operation, which was not always forthcoming, or the co-operation of the governments of other countries or of international bodies. Everything we have undertaken to do that could be done by a government here in Ottawa acting on its own has been accomplished.
This is a record of which we are justly proud. We are also proud of the fact that in these past twenty years the people of Canada have come to take it for granted that the government of Canada acts in good faith and carries out its undertakings to the people. I believe that the good faith in fulfilling undertakings that the public has received from the Liberal government they will now expect to receive from a Conservative government. I understand that is also the view of the present Prime Minister.
Of course it may be argued that the situation is somewhat different because the present government has not a majority of its
44	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent own supporters in this house. That is true. The Conservative party was a long way from receiving a majority either of the popular vote or of the seats in parliament on June 10 last. But as far as its promises to the people are concerned, that should not be a substantial handicap to the government. Almost all of the Conservative promises were echoed by the two smaller parties represented in this house. Indeed, the most substantial difference between the Conservative party and the smaller parties in that regard is that the smaller parties were making even larger promises.
Since June 10 I understand that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and other members of his party have pledged their support to the government in fulfilling the promises, at least to the extent to which they themselves made them. To many Liberals some of the promises have seemed to be somewhat imprudent and some of them seem to be even impractical; but the fundamental position of the Liberal party is and always has been that the people by their votes have the right to control their own government.
We do not think that a Liberal minority in parliament has any more right to frustrate the will of the people by an obstructive attitude than has a Conservative minority or a C.C.F. minority. We believe that an opposition should state its position vigorously and honestly and that it should do its utmost to persuade a majority that when it objects to legislation, its objections are sound. But in the final analysis our view is that the will of the majority in parliament and, even more, of the majority in the country, should prevail. Indeed, our view is that a minority in parliament should not seek to obstruct the will of the majority unless the minority believes-and that may be possible at times- that there is at stake a principle of such importance to the nation that the minority should do everything in its power to bring the question before the electorate itself for a decision.
In the case of the Prime Minister's election promises we feel that the Liberal opposition should not attempt to substitute itself for the will of the majority expressed so recently in the general election. It is a fundamental Liberal belief that the people are entitled to have promises made to them by a successful political party implemented, and implemented in full.
I do not intend to detain the house with a catalogue of the promises made by the Prime Minister in the recent campaign. The speech from the throne forecasts legislation to implement several of these promises. I do not refer to the sections of the speech


which deal with international and commonwealth affairs. Apart from the reference to the Mont Tremblant conference, to which I shall refer later, the rest of these sections of the speech could just as well have been put there by a Liberal government. Indeed, many of the phrases are mere echoes of earlier speeches; and I am not suggesting that they are any the worse for that.
As for the measures forecast to increase old age security and other social benefits, naturally every true Liberal will welcome them in principle. Our sole concern will be to see how they fit into the whole financial picture and how far the government will take effective measures to control the rise in the cost of living which, if unchecked, could easily take away all the advantages of the proposed increases.
I think my right hon. friend would agree that the vague language used about benefits for farmers and fishermen is perhaps better suited to a party manifesto than to a legislative program, but when it is translated into a legislative program we shall see just what it can mean and what its effect can be. Like the farmers and the fishermen themselves, the opposition will be eager to see what, if anything, the proposed legislation really adds up to.
As for cash advances for farm stored wheat, it is our view that the farmers of the prairies and the country would be much more interested in the progress being made in selling the wheat.
There is nothing new in the so-called national development program as outlined in the speech from the throne except the undertaking to assist in financing Beechwood and the forecast of early discussions about beginning the South Saskatchewan dam.
Evidently part of the burden of the wider program for producing and transmitting power in the Atlantic provinces which we felt should be financed entirely out of the federal treasury is being pushed back on the provinces. In the speech from the throne there was just the gentlest hint of tax changes. The language of the speech was in singular contrast to the vigorous and forthright language used by the Minister of Finance in June.
Let me recall his statement as reported by the Canadian Press in the Montreal Gazette of June 26. The article is entitled "Tax Reductions, Pensions Boosts in Fall Budget" and reads as follows:
Ottawa, June 25-(CP) Finance Minister Donald Fleming said tonight he plans to bring down a new budget next fall to reduce taxes, increase old age pension and possibly curb government spending.
The new Progressive Conservative fiscal chief said also in an interview that he will be moving

toward easing of the federal "tight-money" policy as quickly as possible with the hope of reviving Canada's housing slump.
"There very definitely must be an early relaxation of the rigors of the tight-money policy," said the 52-year old Toronto lawyer on whose shoulders have fallen the job of developing a financial policy to fulfil Prime Minister Diefenbaker's election promises.
The same report goes on to state that the Minister of Finance recalled that during the election campaign the Prime Minister had promised to reduce taxes, increase old age pensions and bring about a fair distribution for provinces and municipalities of revenue from joint federal-provincial tax fields. Then there is this direct quotation:
"These promises will be fulfilled," Mr. Fleming said, observing that in. each case the promises required action of the finance department.
We are all looking forward to the presentation of this budget and to a full debate on the case the Minister of Finance will present at that time.
From time to time I have noticed from press rumours that the government intends to make important changes in the fiscal policy of this country without giving the elected representatives of the Canadian people an opportunity for a full debate which, under our parliamentary system, is afforded by the presentation of a budget. I refuse to believe that a government whose leading members made so much of their attachment to the rights of parliament would seriously propose, both to alter the tax structure of the country and to increase expenditures substantially without giving parliament every opportunity afforded by the rules to consider the whole financial picture and to debate fully the benefits of proposed changes upon the economy.
In the budget proposals we will await with particular interest the proposal for implementing the promises which the Prime Minister made, all across the country, to arrange for a substantial increase in the revenues of the provinces. That is a matter which we have studied very carefully, over the years. We may not have been able to reach the best possible conclusion, but we put forth our best efforts. We have therefore been somewhat surprised that the federal-provincial conference which the Prime Minister promised to call immediately after the election should have been delayed now for nearly five months.
We perhaps are entitled to expect also, in accordance with their oft-proclaimed policy of keeping parliament fully informed, that we in parliament would be advised in advance of the proposals that the government will place before the federal-provincial conference. For our part we are proud that it was a Liberal government which established
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent the principle of equalization payments out of taxes paid by all the Canadian people with the object of placing all the provincial governments in a more nearly equal position to discharge their constitutional obligations. It seems to us that any departure from the principle of equalization will be viewed with alarm in all parts of Canada.
Now may I turn for a moment to the question of trade about which the Prime Minister made a very far-reaching proposal. I refer, of course, to the policy he announced on his return from the meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers in London, namely, that the government will seek to divert 15 per cent of our purchases from the United States to commonwealth countries. I should like to believe that the Prime Minister would not announce such a policy unless he had a concrete plan designed to carry it out. It is true that a few suggestions for increasing United Kingdom sales in Canada were contained in the joint announcement made by the United Kingdom and Canadian ministers on October 4, but I submit, with great respect, that these suggestions do not appear to be very impressive.
For most of the period since the war our government has sought systematically to direct our purchases to the United Kingdom, if they were purchases of things that could not be made at home, and there is nothing new in the suggestion that that policy be pursued. The increasing United Kingdom exports which would result from increasing the $100 exemption for tourists certainly would not go very far, and the high level trade delegation is not something new. For years a committee headed by Mr. James Duncan, and other special missions, have been contributing in the same way to the same end. I am sure that all of us who know Mr. Duncan-and many of us do know him-would believe that he had put forth very serious efforts to make a success of the mission upon which he was engaged and which he headed. It does not seem that any of these things are likely to bring about a diversion of even a small fraction of one per cent of our purchases, much less 15 per cent. We will be very interested to know what is the government's plan for this huge diversion of trade.
It seems to us that there are only three possible ways to bring about a diversion of trade on this scale, if indeed a diversion on this scale is possible at all. The first would be discriminatory increases in tariffs against the United States. Some suggestions have been made that this might be called the Bennett way. I do not think that that is the plan and I think it would create serious difficulties if it were considered as a way to bring about this

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent desirable result of making it possible for the United Kingdom economy to earn Canadian dollars.
The second way would be by state trading and state control of exports and imports which might be called the soviet way. That certainly is not being contemplated by this government, nor would it be contemplated by any Canadian government as a proper manner in which to handle our trade policies.
The third way is by the reduction or removal of trade barriers between Canada and commonwealth countries, which I suppose you might call the Thorneycroft way. We have been given the impression that the government is not too enthusiastic about that; the Minister of Finance was supposed to have a secret agenda of his own at Mont Tremblant, but so far the Canadian public have not been given any hint of what that agenda might contain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not have any secret agenda of his own.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well there was a report published of a press conference with the Minister of Finance, held before the Mont Tremblant meeting, which was progressing splendidly until the newspaper men commenced to ask questions about an agenda and were told that the agenda was on the secret list and that the ways and means were matters that could not be divulged at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not my agenda.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would
imagine that the hon. gentleman would not be writing the agenda himself but would be using the assistance of the very competent staff of the Department of Finance and the Department of Trade and Commerce in preparing an agenda for that kind of meeting.
Now the speech from the throne refers to the comradely spirit at Mont Tremblant. Well, this comradely spirit seems to have escaped the notice of press correspondents. Perhaps I might be allowed to cite a comment in the last issue of the Financial Post on October 12 entitled "Months of Grace for Tories Over":
The unfortunate fact is that the Mont Tremblant conference between Canadian and British officials was a great flop.
The whole story of what went on behind the scenes is now available (see page 3 this issue).
The British had prepared very thoroughly for the meeting. The Canadians had not.
The crux of the problem of increasing trade between Canada and Commonwealth countries is in how governments can foster this without running foul of their commitments under GATT.
The British came with their proposal which they had told the Canadians about several weeks before. Their plans got the much over-simplified name of free trade area. Stated baldly that way, it stunned the Canadians, and before it ever got adequately explained, it got buried. Fully explained, it isn't nearly such a startling scheme as it sounds.

This is regrettable because a thorough, unexcited examination might have led somewhere. At least, a sober discussion of it would have laid useful groundwork for future conferences. But the fact is that the cause of commonwealth trade has actually been set back rather than advanced.
What caused the Mont Tremblant fiasco?
Despite the advance warning that the British would announce this proposal, it appears that the Canadians went to the conference without doing nearly enough homework. The big research and analysis machinery available to the government wasn't adequately exploited.
Ottawa observers of the affair are also convinced that the new Canadian cabinet hasn't yet got its working methods organized, that cabinet members are inadequately informed on the Prime Minister's views and on each other's.
One Briton said: "Before the meeting Canadians talked a lot about commonwealth trade, but at the conference they apparently were not prepared to face up to doing anything important about it."
Coming into office after so long a pilgrimage in the wilderness of opposition, the new government was bound to take some time to learn how to run public business smoothly.
But parliament meets next week. The months of grace are over. The new government should take pains to demonstrate to voters that it knows where it is going, that it doesn't make large promises it doesn't know how to fulfil.
I submit that it is time parliament and the Canadian people were told in precise language just what the plans of the government are to divert our trade to commonwealth countries and precisely what is involved in the proposals of the United Kingdom government.
We were told before the election that this trade problem was urgent: surely it cannot be shelved until a commonwealth conference is held some time next year to consider an agenda which is still being kept secret from the people of Canada. On this question of the diversion of trade we in the opposition will not attempt to comment, and no one can comment intelligently until we know what the government really proposes.
We believe the proper function of an opposition which hopes and expects to be in office again is to be fair and frank with the public, to criticize the government vigorously, and to advance alternatives to the policies followed by the government, but not to seek to usurp the functions of the government or to take responsibility for them.
Having the reasonable assurance that the fulfilment of its promises will not be obstructed at the present session of parliament, at least by the official opposition, the government will have no excuse for any failure to carry out that program.
In the special circumstances in which this house finds itself where no party has a majority but where there does seem to be a disposition to give the government the opportunity to bring its legislation before

the house, it does not seem to us in the official opposition to be appropriate to move the traditional vote of want of confidence.
Such a motion could, it seems to me, have only one or other of two effects. If the motion were carried it would deny the government the possibility of attempting to fulfil their promises. If the motion were not carried it would serve merely to put forward some alternative proposition, and the beginning of this session does not seem to be the time for that.
Having decided not to move an amendment ourselves, we do not feel at this time that we should support any amendment to the address moved in any other quarter of the house.
We feel that the government has enunciated a program in the speech from the throne in general terms. No doubt the government has legislation in which we will find more precise, more concrete suggestions than those contained in the speech from the throne, and we think that the government should have the opportunity of producing that legislation. If that legislation is, as it would appear to be, in line with the pre-election promises made by the government which resulted in the situation which induced us to tender our resignation to His Excellency the Governor General then the government should have the opportunity of producing that legislation and making clear to the Canadian public that it is, and always was, its intention to carry out those promises, and that it feels this can be done without any serious effect on the future economy of the Canadian nation.
I am sure the government will have in mind, in all the measures it will be recommending to parliament, the necessity in the interest of the Canadian individual and the Canadian nation of effectively controlling inflation so that increases in expenditure may not become useless because of increases in prices which these expenses were meant to cover.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally with some diffidence that I rise at this time. The Prime Minister said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition-I say immediately that so long was he in the former office that all of us wondered who would be the first to make the slip. I did.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) said he was not going to prophesy a long period of office for us. I remember a prophecy in January of 1957
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker when I occupied for the first time the position which he is occupying now. He then made the prophecy that I would be in that position for a long time. I am glad he did not make any prophecy today, for, after all, on that occasion and since the prophecy did not come true.
But I am not here for the purpose of going over the election. I dislike referring to that, and I would not have done so had the Leader of the Opposition not referred to it, because it is contrary to my inclinations to bring up matters that cause feelings that I do not want hon. members opposite to feel.
Mr. Speaker, my first words must be words of congratulation to yourself on the elevation to the position you now occupy. I say to you my hope is, and it is a sure one, that in the days ahead you will maintain those great traditions of the position which you occupy.
In the last few days we in this parliament have had an experience, to which reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition, of having a visit from Her Majesty the Queen. As she left us today she sent to us and to all of Canada a message warmhearted and appreciative coupled with the hope that it will not be long before she will again be visiting her country as Queen of Canada. I think I can do no better, with the leave of the house, than to table that message, as well as the message which I sent on your behalf and on behalf of the people of Canada to her on her departure.
Before I get into the debate proper I want to say a word of congratulation to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This is not a perfunctory thing to do. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) acquitted himself in a way that was truly reminiscent of the contributions made in this house by his father, for many years a member of this body.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), able to do that which all of us must envy, that is to speak in both official languages and so well, executed his task extremely capably. These two hon. members are but an example of the very considerable number of young members who have come into this parliament for the first time, young in years but old in experience, who I know in the years ahead will make great contributions as so many of them did in the days of war.
Now, I listened to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -or rather to the Leader of the Opposition as he revealed something of his attitude in regard to these matters of
48	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker public importance. I could not quite follow him in the attitude that he took all the way through his speech. It was an attitude of criticism-sometimes captious criticism-this was wrong, that was wrong and the other thing was wrong. And yet, as he came to the end of that speech he indicated that although we did not have a majority in the house, and therefore did not enjoy the confidence of the house, he would not move a vote of nonconfidence. Why? If everything that is being presented is wrong or subject to criticism, why not do that which under ordinary circumstances would be the proper attitude to adopt? Why not permit a vote to take place regarding that matter-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you disappointed?


John George Diefenbaker: -which above all others is of the first consideration, whether or not we do enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons?


Jean Lesage: We are letting you ride.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friends will possess themselves in silence for a moment I will continue. They have already jeered themselves out of this side of the house.
One of the major reasons they are over there is because they jeered and jeered and ridiculed the situation which built up and built up whereby our parliamentary institutions were degraded.


Lionel Chevrier: Ah, get off that line.


John George Diefenbaker: Your attitude is not shared by your deskmate and if my hon. friends opposite think I overstate the question-


Mr. Mcllraifh:: You do.


John George Diefenbaker: -my hon. friends should have been present at Presqu'ile Point on the occasion of the young Liberals meeting a few weeks ago. My friend the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was not there but his seatmate was and on that occasion his seatmate spoke words of great wisdom.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He always does.


John George Diefenbaker: He went on to point out as he peeped into the cupboard of practices by the former government-


Lionel Chevrier: Why don't you deal with the speech?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You don't like that.


John George Diefenbaker: He produced in words of acute and accurate observation a description of the reason why changes took place. The trouble with my hon. friends opposite is, and it was so apparent throughout the speech of


their leader, they do not realize that things have changed. The hon. member for West Algoma-


Mr. Pearson:: No, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Algoma East.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for
Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) dealt with what the situation was in what he described as an agonizing reappraisal. He said there were reasons why the change had taken place. He indicated that the government had been too long in power.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: In describing the situation he used the words that it had lost touch with the people, according to the quotation. He said that parliament needed to be restored in its prestige, that there was a breakdown apparently in communication between the grass and the brass. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, was not that what we had said over and over again? As a matter of fact that meeting was one of the greatest competitions in "whodunit" of which I have ever read.
The former minister of finance accepted a major portion of the responsibility for what had happened because, as he said, the agricultural policy was not as it should have been. The only one who placed the blame elsewhere was my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). He made a fighting speech in which he indicated that nobody was to blame but the people of Canada.
I mention that, because of the degree to which every stand that we have tried to take, that we have been developing in the last few months since coming into power, was subjected to a rather meticulous examination. We appreciate the fact, and it is a tribute to us, that those who formerly formed the government expect us to do more in 22 weeks than they did in almost 22 years. I cannot understand why the right hon. Leader of the Opposition did not move that vote of nonconfidence. If the things that we are doing, the stands that we are taking, the direful prospect that he pictured for the future are in anticipation, why not discharge that constitutional action, the only one that can be taken, rather than simply touching the various matters referred to in the speech from the throne and ending up by what must have been regarded by him and those associated with him as the most defeatist attitude that any party could take in the circumstances.
Our purpose will be to bring before the House of Commons the various matters of legislation which have been set out in the speech from the throne. I am not going into detail on this occasion; I am simply going

to indicate some of the general principles that actuated us in proceeding so soon after the election to carry into effect those promises which we made.
We have great responsibilities as a new parliament meeting under circumstances which we inherited as a government. I refer to the trade situation with the United States wherein today we find ourselves, or did in June last, in the position of having an adverse trade balance of $1,300 million, and increasing year by year. We found ourselves in the position where inflation, to which reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition, was increasing. The cost of living had not been met. We found ourselves in the position that various segments of our population, because of the so-called tight-money policy being improperly applied, were hard hit. This policy brought about in various industries in our country a diminution in production and in productivity and a major reduction in employment. These are some of the things that we found we had inherited. We tried to meet the general situation that existed in unemployment and in particular in the housing industry by action to which reference was made this afternoon, by which $150 million was made available for the construction of small houses.
My right hon. friend mentioned the serious situation with regard to the marketing of wheat, the loss of markets. I ask, what did my hon. friends opposite do in the last two or three years while the markets for wheat were being lost? They ridiculed the endeavour on our part to bring about the establishment of sound economic conditions within our country. Throughout the years we asked them whether or not they would take action in connection with the convening of a commonwealth trade and economic conference. I am not going into the details, but from 1950 on they followed the course year by year of shutting their eyes to the situation that was developing in the loss of our trade and at the same time refusing to take effective action, or indeed any action, to meet the situation which was apparent on every hand. My right hon. friend mentioned the fact that we have already laid the foundations for that conference. He and others on the other side of the house said it could not be done. That conference is being called.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who ever said that?


John George Diefenbaker: That conference will
achieve many of the aims that we have in mind. Certainly there is no reason whatsoever for the attitude taken by the former government of refusing to do anything, to deny the existence of those things and, having denied them for the past three or four
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker years, now point out to us as the legatees of their failure to act that the things that they did not achieve in years have not been attained in a matter of months.
Yes, we took action on behalf of the coal industry in Nova Scotia and in British Columbia. In two points in those areas we took ad hoc action as soon as we came into power. We also have taken action with regard to one of the most serious situations in which Canadian agriculture found itself as a result of the dumping into Canada of agricultural products to the detriment of the Canadian farmer. Did they act? I am not going into the particulars on this occasion. The Minister of Agriculture and others will deal with it. The Canadian farmer found himself in a position where his market in Canada was unfairly challenged by imports into Canada at prices that gave every indication of having been based on other than ordinary commercial grounds, and everywhere across this country the former government failed to act in that regard.
I am not here for the purpose of going into that except to point out-and it is only because the Leader of the Opposition raised these matters-that they existed-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And still do.


John George Diefenbaker: -for several years. The present government when it came into power acted as far as it could within the limitations that must necessarily confine its action until the convening of parliament. I am sure nobody will say that it was improper on our part to postpone the calling of parliament until October 14 in order to permit the events of the last few days to take place; for, after all, the plans had been made long in advance of the election campaign and it would have been, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition, most improper to have done anything to change those plans in that regard.
I mention our program in general, what we intend to do, some of the ideas that we have, and I place before parliament in a general outline the development of those policies which we advocated while in opposition. I am going to start with a reference to the social policy. Our legislative program in this regard speaks for itself; it is in keeping with our philosophy, the need of action being taken, the need of action that should have been taken a great deal earlier, and effective action, in order to do something on behalf of those older citizens of our country who because of the very fact raised by the right honourable gentleman, the inflationary trend, found themselves caught in an impossible position.
Yet, what could they do? Knowing the situation they acted, but they acted in such

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker a way that it in no way met the dire position in which many of our elder citizens found themselves. As has been set out in the speech from the throne, we intend to place before parliament measures to improve the lot of the senior members of our society; to increase old age security pensions and to shorten the period of residence required to qualify for them. Changes will be proposed also in the terms of assistance in so far as the Old Age Assistance Act is concerned, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. Further changes will be made on behalf of the war veterans in the payment of war veterans' allowances.
These things would have been passed by any previous parliament if it had not been for the fact that the government of my right hon. friend refused to act in this connection and the members who supported him stood behind him in his refusal to act. My right hon. friend spoke of parliament and asked whether changes would be brought about. He spoke of the need for full debate in parliament and I could not be more in agreement with him. There is need for careful examination, full consideration and debate that is not muzzled in anticipation by the application of closure.
I mention that as one of the most serious examples of the curtailment of the ancient rights of parliament. Apparently my right hon. friend looks back upon the course of action followed in 1956 with some regret, for in indicating to us the need for full discussion he pointed out, and properly so, that the essence of parliamentary government is full discussion. You say, what are we going to do about that? Well closure had its place, if properly used, in order to prevent an unjustifiable action on the part of the opposition as against the government of the day after a debate lasting for a very considerable period of time. We found out, however, that closure, necessary as it has been proven to be in times past, not only in our own parliament but in other parliaments within the commonwealth, under our rules constitutes an open invitation to the curtailment of fair and reasonable debate, indeed to the imprisonment of parliament by the government.
During the election campaign I said, and I am unchanged in this viewpoint, that having regard to its potential danger, as was evidenced so clearly so short a time ago, we intend at the first opportunity to move the necessary motion in order to remove closure from the rules of the House of Commons, to the end that parliament will be restored to something of its ancient glory. That is the


first step. We have a tremendous responsibility in this parliament to restore in the hearts of the people something of the prestige of parliament. I am not entering into a discussion as to who was responsible, I am saying that if we are to make this institution the great and abiding institution that it should be to fashion freedom the responsibility will fall on each and every one in this parliament to so conduct himself that, in co-operation, we together, without in any way measuring the responsibility of any member of this house, will make our contribution to the restoration of this parliament to its proper position.
I mentioned the question of social security. I mention now the next matter to which reference is made, the subject of agriculture. I am merely going to give a general idea of some of the steps we shall take in this regard. Naturally I cannot reveal the particulars of the legislative program. I point out, however, that because parliament was not to sit until October 14 one of our first acts in order to meet the situation in which the western farmer found himself, with a vast accumulation of wheat-yes, underestimated by the last government by 75 million bushels which we only ascertained since coming into power-was to continue the loan legislation. This would meet the needs of those who chose to use the available facilities until such time as parliament might meet.
I am hoping that my hon. friends in all parts of the house will agree within the next few days, in view of the serious situation in western Canada, on the need of doing something to advance the legislation even prior to the completion of the present debate. As a matter of fact, I would not have made that suggestion if it had not been indicated there is to be no challenge so far as the official opposition is concerned. Since that is so, there is no reason now why we should not, at the earliest possible date, proceed with the introduction of the resolution and, as soon as possible, bring about the enactment of legislation if parliament will accept the recommendation of this government.
My right hon. friend said that markets were better than cash advances. I agree with him, but where have the markets been? What does one do about the 700 million bushels piled up-not under this government? It was a very great thought to place before parliament the superiority of markets and sales to advances. We supported advances when we were in opposition. We believed they were necessary. We stated that the loan system would not be acceptable. I think, in general, the farm communities of

the western provinces agreed with our contention that the loan system was one that placed the farmer in the position of actually having to pay for a loan on his earnings because he could sell only through the government or its agencies. We intend to introduce this legislation at the earliest possible date.
We intend as well, as has been outlined, through the necessary legislation to lay the foundation for the stabilization of agricultural prices at reasonable levels, taking into consideration market conditions and also the costs of production. We intend to proceed with that program as a safeguard program on behalf of the farmer, as a beginning of a long-term policy to bring about security and stability to the farming population of this country. It is a positive program beginning with the legislation which we will introduce, to be expanded on the basis of experience, which after all is necessary and requisite if the legislation is to be effectual.
In addition to the fact that the farmers have not had stability, one of the major causes of disaffection has been the fact that-this is somewhat different from the situation in the United States where the farmer's share of the consumer dollar has been going up-in Canada in the past seven or eight years the farmer's share of the consumer dollar has been going down. The farmers have been asking for an investigation in this connection for the purpose of arriving at a true conclusion or for an actual explanation of the reason for this peculiar paradoxical course having regard to what is happening in the United States. In order to bring about the beginnings of an investigation of this situation I believe that members of parliament themselves in committee might make an investigation into this matter. If at any time, because of the complexities and difficulties which are incident to the examination, it is found that the matter is too widespread and too complex for a committee to handle, in that case we should certainly consider the setting up of a royal commission to investigate this matter to the end tha* as a result of that investigation and of the recommendations made the action necessary and requisite could be taken.
As far as the agricultural policy is concerned, I mentioned earlier that we had taken emergent action. We took emergent action in July by placing turkeys under price support. We took action by import control some days later in order to prevent Canada's farmers and producers of turkeys from being actually inundated by vast imports that had been increasing over the last several years. In addition to that, in so far
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker as fowl is concerned, we place fowl under price support and also under import control. Both of these actions have received the approval of organized agriculture.
As well action was taken under import control in reference to dry skim milk, the import provisions to continue in effect until May 31, 1958. This was the only action that we could take consistent with the responsibility of parliament and of parliamentary control.
Then there is the next matter to which I wish to make reference and this has to do with the question of a national development policy. I am not going into detail in this connection except to say this. Throughout the last number of years we have been advocating a policy to raise the horizons of the Canadian people, to give Canadians some conception and vision of the greatness of the future, to bring about a policy of co-operation as between the central government and the provincial governments When they ask for co-operation in order to enable the formulation of a national development policy whereby our resources may be developed for the maximum benefit of Canada. In that connection we must move in those areas that are particularly affected and find themselves in a position below the level of the general register of advancement and development in other parts of Canada. This afternoon a question was asked as to what was the attitude with regard to one matter affecting the maritime provinces. The answer is given in the speech from the throne in these words:
As an immediate start upon a program of more extensive development in the Atlantic provinces, you will be asked to authorize, in joint action with the provincial governments, the creation of facilities for the production and transmission of cheaper electric power in those provinces.
My right hon. friend said that apparently we changed their policy and that the federal government was going to undertake complete financing of the power facilities in the mari-times. I have not his speech here with me on this occasion but as I recall it, he spoke in the city of Fredericton and when asked whether this policy would provide cheaper power was unable to give any assurance in that direction. The difference between the policy we advance, in so far as the assured objective is concerned, and the policy advanced by him is this:	The policy that we
intend to place before parliament will bring about cheaper power to the end that industrialization may be extended in the maritime provinces. A policy of regional underdevelopment, as long as the problem remains unsolved, will permit the richer provinces to grow richer and the poorer provinces by
52	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker reason of a lack of cheaper power, to become industrially poorer with advancing years. In other words, there will be an unbalanced economic growth. The maritimes, the provinces by the sea, found themselves neglected by the former government. In the dying days of the last session there was placed before parliament a dish which, under that shrewd examination that maritimers give, was recognized as not being one palatable or in any way desirable.
In addition to that we intend to provide assistance in financing the Beechwood project. My right hon. friend says that the financing will all be done by the provinces. For a considerable period of time the people of New Brunswick asked for some financial assistance or guarantee from the last government. We believe that in connection with the development of the maritimes and in the general concept of our national development the Beechwood project is one of those facets that deserve the national assistance of the people of Canada.
My hon. friend asked a question on the orders of the day regarding the matter of coal subventions. Well, throughout the years my hon. New Brunswick friends in the Conservative party have been asking for action in this regard. No action was taken. Indications were given at election time that action might be taken but, with the passing of the election, there was forgetfulness of the promise. As an integral part of the power development of the maritime provinces and also out of consideration for the situation prevalent in the coal producing areas of the maritimes, we believe the time has come to inaugurate a system of freight subventions for the removal of coal for power purposes within that area. That will serve two purposes: first it will provide a steadily increasing demand for maritime coal and also do much to stabilize the coal industry, reduce the cost of power and in consequence render the climate clement for expanded industrialization and the raising of economic standards in the maritime provinces. That is of the essence and that is also of the essence of this policy of national development.
My right hon. friend mentioned the South Saskatchewan dam. I am sure that if at any time the right hon. gentleman had accepted the advice of the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) there would have been no question as to whether or not that development plan was feasible, indeed more than that was necessary for the diversification of industry within the province of Saskatchewan and to provide in addition thereto the restoration of large land areas which for many years have had successive periods of drought and of plenty.


Various plans have been offered as far as this government is concerned as a result of the examination made by the engineers and on the basis of reports the feasibility of this scheme seems to us beyond doubt. However there are difficulties to be ironed out in connection with the project and its implementation. There have been many representations and, throughout the years, the exchange of many documents between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada, culminating finally in the month of May last with a clear indication by the last government that no decision had been arrived at. We want to state immediately, with no desire other than the assurance of the protection of the public interest, the proper financing as between this government and the government of Saskatchewan, and the allocation to the province of Saskatchewan and its government of the primary responsibilities for those things which are a provincial responsibility alone, that we intend to proceed at the earliest possible date to the commencement of this project, after it has received-I hope it will-the approval of parliament.
Throughout the years this party has taken a strong and definite stand in this regard. This is one of those things which we are including in our general development plan for expansion in our country and the equalization of opportunity. This is a project which deserves primary consideration.
We start with the maritimes and there is the province of Saskatchewan project to which I have just referred, and then there will of course be considered the great Columbia river plan in the province of British Columbia, respecting which further will be said at a later date. Today we are endeavouring to bring about a favourable settlement of the international problems that are incident to an international river in order to clear the way for a joint program so that the province of British Columbia may be able to develop this power project for the benefit, not only of the people of British Columbia but of the people of Canada as a whole.
These are but few of the major matters which will be dealt with during this session. As far as the international situation is concerned I intended to say no more at this time. Having regard to the developments that are now taking place and which have taken place in recent weeks we must not become apathetic. The international field still holds its grasp on the hearts of all mankind.
My hope is that while the disarmament program offered by the nations of the free world was turned down by the U.S.S.R., in the United Nations today there is springing

up a feeling that serious reconsideration must be given, and will be given, to the whole question of disarmament. We must not allow ourselves to become frightened as a result of this moon that passes by us several times a day, but we must, each and every one of us, so dedicate ourselves to our cause that it cannot be said of us that we did not make our maximum contribution and go to the extreme limits in securing agreement consistent with our security and the maintenance of freedom.
We of Canada, realizing that we live in the tremendous peril of a surprise attack, as do our neighbours in the United States, laid before the disarmament committee-as I also did before the United Nations-Canada's willingness to render open for inspection all parts of the Arctic, providing some correlated action was taken by the U.S.S.R. That would have been a step forward and would have provided for the initiation of a more widely accepted disarmament plan. The suggestion that was advanced by those five countries composing the committee was turned down. We in Canada believe that we went to the very limit in that direction in order to make it apparent to the world and to the U.S.S.R. that we at least, having regard to our strategic position-and we were joined in this by the United States equally-have nothing to hide and that our joint purposes with the United States on this continent are peaceful and not aggressive.
I am looking forward to an opportunity for an early debate on international affairs wherein, providing the electors elect him to the House of Commons, Dr. Sidney Smith will be able to present to parliament as he is now presenting to the United Nations the policies of this country in regard to external affairs.
The Leader of the Opposition said today that in general there is no disagreement regarding external affairs. That has always been our stand. We have endeavoured to the limit of our responsibilities while in opposition so to chart our course that in the international field the nations would know that when the hon. member for Algoma East and those associated with him spoke in the United Nations they were speaking for Canada, and we have not gone back, as was so direfully predicted, in the field of international affairs. Indeed this is indicated by the fact that Canada has in the last few days been chosen a member of the security council, a new responsibility in keeping with Canada's international position.
I intend to conclude by one personal reference. Throughout the years in which I have been in public life, my course has not been directed to personalities or to building up animosities against those on the other side
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of the house. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the recent change in government and remarked how it had changed so calmly, so smoothly, so unaffectedly. What he said was true. That change epitomized something of the concept of true democracy. There was no acrimony; there was simply a meeting of minds, and I speak not only for myself but also for my colleagues when I express feelings of deep regret that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, by reason of those things that come to us in life, should have found it necessary to take the course that he has.
Mr. Speaker, as one who sat on the other side of the house for a long while-so long, in fact, that my right hon. friend had finally reached the point where he is referred to by everyone as I referred to him earlier this afternoon-I extend to him on behalf of this party every good wish. That is the wish of all Canadians and with his permission I am going to go one step further, for after all it does no harm for anyone to make the admission that I am about to make. In all the years I have sat in this house I have never had cause at any time to find that my right hon. friend in anything he said to me told me other than the facts; and that is the highest tribute that can be paid to a political opponent-that in the acrimony of debate and among those things that separate us we still maintain in our system a regard for the better things of life. I regret that the right hon. gentleman has found it necessary to make the decision he has, and it is for that reason that I speak these words on this occasion from a very sincere and full heart.
Now, with regard to the other matters in the speech from the throne may I say that they will be dealt with in the course of the ensuing days. I think there is nothing further that I can say at this time except that we intend to get on with the business of the house, in no way denying in the slightest degree the fullest discharge of responsible government which consists in discussion, consideration and full examination. That is the kind of parliament that the Canadian people ask for; that is the kind of parliament that I hope the Canadian people will receive.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed on this occasion to extend to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and to hon. members of the Conservative party congratulations on the victory they won at the polls on June 10. I do not think that needs to be misinterpreted in any way, but I think the achievement was, in itself, something that was unexpected by most of the people of Canada.
54	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Coldwell
May I say to the Prime Minister that I have known him for a good many years. I knew of his energy, I knew of his ability, and one of my thoughts during the election was that he might jeopardize his health. But when I look across at him today I find that his physical condition seems vastly improved.
I should like to add my word to those that were spoken by the Prime Minister regarding the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent). My first association with him was at the San Francisco conference in 1945 when we were both members of the Canadian delegation, and later we were together as delegates to the United Nations assembly at Lake Success. I grew to understand him and to respect him and, like the Prime Minister, I am indeed sorry that he has found it necessary because of health to tell his party that as soon as they can find a suitable successor he is prepared to resign as leader of the Liberal party.
The Prime Minister said that because we are divided in this house it does not mean that there are personal animosities or differences. Indeed during the years that the Leader of the Opposition has been with us he has earned our respect in every quarter of the house.
Yesterday I would have liked to have risen for a few moments to congratulate the former secretary of state for external affairs, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson).
I was delighted when I learned that he had been so signally honoured by being awarded the Nobel prize. I got to know the hon. member for Algoma East very well at San Francisco where he was a principal advisor of our delegation and from time to time I worked with him at the United Nations. I think the award was never given more deservedly than on the occasion when it was presented to the former secretary of state for external affairs.
Yesterday, too, I listened with interest to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and I want to congratulate both hon. gentlemen most sincerely. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) reminded me so forcibly of the fine gentleman who bore his name and for whom we all came to hold a great deal of affection. I hope that during his term in parliament, be it long or short, he too will have his wish fulfilled and when the time comes he will also leave with the good wishes and good feelings of the house as did his respected father a few years ago.
I also wish to extend to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) my congratulations. I only wish I had the facility that he has in speaking the two official languages of this country and participating in the debate in the manner in which he did. 

Of course this house today is meeting under extremely interesting circumstances. Apart altogether from the visit of Her Majesty the Queen which we have so much enjoyed, this house is different to any in which I have sat. I have been here since 1935 and this of course is the first time since I have been in this house when no party had a majority. Not since December, 1925 has a party failed to secure a majority of seats in this house.
In January 1926 the government met under somewhat similar but not analagous circumstances. At that time a small group in the house headed by the gentleman who preceded me as leader of the C.C.F., Mr. J. S. Woods-worth, held the balance of power. No party in this house can be said to hold a balance of power in that sense. I recollect that that was a very fruitful parliament. It lasted only six months but during that time our senior citizens received the first indication that this house would grant old age pension legislation and Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, then of Winnipeg North Centre, received that pledge in a letter of which we are rather proud and which we have framed in our national office.
I remember, too, it was in that session that we got the Hudson Bay railway which we in western Canada had looked forward to for many years. We also received a promise of consideration of unemployment insurance. Although it did not come into existence for 14 years we did receive the promise of consideration of it before the house dissolved in July 1926.
As I say, no party in this house today has a position analagous to that then held by Mr. Woodsworth and his friends. Nevertheless it is quite obvious from the speech from the throne that the government is anxious to secure support for legislation which has been promoted across this country, not by one party but by several parties, and, if I may say so, through the years we in this group have been particularly interested ourselves in improving the situation with respect to our senior citizens and in doing something with regard to farm prices. Under that pressure-whether it was needed or not is a question that everyone will have to decide for himself-we shall I hope get some fruitful legislation from this parliament before it dissolves.
The speech from the throne does foreshadow legislation in which we are indeed interested as a party. When this legislation comes down I do not imagine it will go quite as far as we would wish but whatever instalments are made will receive our support and the government can be assured of that.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
We were pleased to find in the speech from the throne reference to increased pensions for our senior citizens with a reduction in the period for qualification. May I add one other thing? I think the residential qualification should be discontinued. If a senior citizen wishes to reside perhaps in the United Kingdom or even across the line in the United States or elsewhere, the pension should be paid as of right. I say it should be paid as of right today because all the people are paying directly for it. This is no longer a gift from the treasury as it was. Right from the time a young Canadian begins to earn he is going to pay 2 per cent of his personal income tax into the social security fund. Two per cent of the corporation tax and 2 per cent of the sales tax which everybody pays also will go into that fund. Our citizens are paying a fairly substantial premium if it is considered over the working period of life of a young man or woman today. The disqualification on account of residence outside the borders of Canada should, we think, be eliminated as well as the time for qualification reduced as is foreshadowed in the speech from the throne. It is our contention that this pension should be paid as of right.
I regret that in the realm of social security there is no mention of improvement in the national hospitalization plan in the speech from the throne. I look forward to the time when we shall have a comprehensive health plan in this country which will benefit every citizen of this country, regardless of the length of the purse, and provide the best care and treatment that medical science can make available. While we made a short step in the last parliament I should have liked to see the plan extended even if only to the extent of bringing under the hospitalization plan now on the statute books tubercular patients and patients suffering from mental disease.
I could go into other social security measures which I have in mind but I want to speak of some other matters so I must not dwell at too great length on this question. Because of the restrictions of time I am not even going to spend a great deal of time discussing the South Saskatchewan river dam project. I will only say when I was a new member of the house years ago I advocated from my seat on this side of the chamber consideration of irrigation and of a South Saskatchewan river plan. Consequently we are fully in favour of the negotiations for a firm and fair agreement with the government of Saskatchewan and the commencement of the dam at the very earliest possible date.
We are told we have to diversify agriculture and some farmers must get out of wheat production. I may have something more to
say on that subject in a moment but I wish now to comment that irrigation is one way perhaps of taking areas of land out of wheat production and putting them into some other forms of agricultural production.
We in this group also welcome the outlined suggestions in the speech from the throne regarding agriculture. We agree that agricultural returns have been quite inadequate. We agree that our farmers need a proper share of the national income. We even go further than that and say the farmers' share of the national income should be based on a parity price system so that they may receive for their production returns comparable to what they have to pay to produce their crops and to live in our midst. We have been advocating this for a long time in the house and it is again encouraging to know the government intends to go some distance toward the stabilization of agricultural prices even if they do not go the whole distance we would go, in the establishment of a parity price system. I may add that this step forward will receive our support.
Of course we have long advocated advance payments on farm-stored grain. I am under no illusions; we are under no illusions; we know that this is purely a temporary step. It can only mitigate. The advance payments will help the farmer at the beginning of the new crop year, but it is not a solution to the agricultural problems, though it will provide a measure of very welcome relief. A solution can only come from increased sales, increased exports and increased returns. These are not in sight in spite of world food shortages. International agencies point out that there are continuous and increasing food shortages. The world problem is not overproduction; it is surely one of underconsumption. There is, as the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations recognizes, all over the world a problem of underconsumption.
To cut back production in wheat and transfer to cattle, hogs and other farm commodities on a large scale, as proposed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), struck me as being a counsel of despair. Ultimately it would merely spread the burden of surpluses around and increase the burden of those surpluses elsewhere. We should be proposing and supporting policies to expand consumption on a world-wide scale.
I am now going to interrupt this trend of thought because I want to move an amendment which I have at hand. If the house will permit me, I shall discuss this amendment

Business of the House when we resume this debate tomorrow. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the following words be added to the address:
This house welcomes the measures indicated in the speech from the throne and urges that these measures be placed before parliament with the least possible delay in order that the benefits proposed therein might accrue to the Canadian people at once. We respectfully submit, however, that in the opinion of this house Your Majesty's advisers should give immediate consideration to the advisability of taking steps to deal with, the menace of inflation, rapidly rising unemployment and other serious problems facing this country. We call upon the government to give immediate effect to the social and economic planning necessary to cope with these problems.
You will observe we believe-and I shall develop this a little later-that we need national social and economic planning. That means, of course, that there must be some public control over our economy and some public direction given to it. I know that hon. gentlemen in various parts of the house have on occasion disagreed with this concept of national planning, but without national planning I am convinced that on a long-term basis the problems that are facing us today can neither be dealt with adequately nor can they be solved.
I would like you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to ask for interim supply, the need having been explained yesterday by the Minister of Finance. Then, if and when that is agreed to, we shall continue with the debate on the throne speech. In order that we do not lose the time from eleven o'clock to one o'clock, it is necessary that a motion be put

through this afternoon. I would ask unanimous consent to revert to motions in order that I may move a motion to bring about that result.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17

Howard Charles Green: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance:
That on Thursday next, government orders shall have precedence over all other business except the ordinary daily routine of business: the house shall meet at 11.00 a.m., and the provisions of standing order 2(1) with respect to the time of meeting shall be suspended in relation thereto.
If that motion were not moved we could not meet until 2.30 p.m. There will be time taken up in considering interim supply and I would hope that later on in the throne speech debate it would be possible to make some arrangement so that we do not lose the whole of tomorrow's time on the throne speech. In other words, if it takes us two hours on interim supply, then we would give that extra time at the conclusion of the regular 10 days.


George Carlyle Marler: Is that the significance of the second part of the motion?


Howard Charles Green: No; the motion has nothing whatever to do with it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk raises the question whether unanimous consent extends to the resumption of the debate on the address after the business covered by the motion, and I should like to ask the house whether I may assume that the consent does extend to that as well?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, Oclober 17, 1957