1957-10-23

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from Hon. Mr. Justice J. E. Gibben of the territorial court of the Yukon and Hon. Mr. J. O. Wilson, of the supreme court of British Columbia, the two judges selected for the trial of an election petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment in the matter of the election in the electoral district of Yukon, held June 10, 1957, declaring such election void. It is as follows. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: This document will be tabled and printed in the Votes and Proceedings. It is the judgment in the electoral hearing. Is it agreed that I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I should also inform the house that the learned judges have stated that it was not possible to complete the notes of evidence so they could accompany the reasons for judgment, but they have advised that the typewritten evidence will be forwarded with the minimum of delay.
I have also the honour to inform the house that in conformity with section 69 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 87, revised statutes, 1952, I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON RECENT CONFERENCES

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15 the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked me certain questions pertaining to matters arising out of recent trade conferences, and I indicated at that time that I should be glad to make a statement, if it were the wish of the house, on the subject of the trade proposals and the various recent trade conferences. The following day the
hon. member pursued his question further and asked if I would include in the statement reference to the conference at Washington. Similar questions were asked by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin).
I should like to bring that statement to the house now; and as the conferences were three in number, somewhat different in character and circumstances, and all of some importance, the reports I am about to make are not as short as I should have wished they might be.	The first of these
conferences-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend permit an interruption? Would he not think it would be more convenient if the statement could be made under circumstances which would permit interrogations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for the submission of questions on the statement on the orders of the day, in accordance with the practice of the house. I shall be glad to deal with them.
The first of these conferences was the conference of commonwealth finance ministers held at Mont Tremblant. That conference was proposed by the Prime Minister when he attended the conference of prime ministers at London last June. It has been the practice for the commonwealth finance ministers each year to hold a meeting following the annual meeting of the governors of the international bank and the international monetary fund at Washington. Those meetings have normally been held at Washington. On this occasion our Prime Minister proposed that the conference should be held in Canada, and that invitation was accepted.
The conference was attended by all the finance ministers of the commonwealth with the exception of New Zealand, which was represented by its minister for external affairs. The Canadian representation consisted of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), and myself, and we were supported by a very strong team of Canadian officials drawn from the departments of finance, trade and commerce and external affairs.
The preparation for the conference was intensive. It continued throughout the entire summer.

Trade Conferences
The selection of Mont Tremblant as the venue of the conference was indeed a happy one, and the circumstances there contributed very greatly to the creation of a friendly atmosphere which was conducive to understanding and to agreement.
The agenda of that conference consisted of three topics. The first concerned matters in relation to the pound sterling and problems of exchange in relation to sterling. The second topic concerned the proposed European free trade area or the European economic integration, as it is called.
These two topics were discussed at the sessions of the conference on the Saturday. On the Monday and Tuesday the conference devoted its consideration to the Canadian proposals for enlarging trade within the commonwealth and improving economic relations among the countries of the commonwealth. As hon. members are aware, the conference achieved agreement, and the extent of the agreement and the enthusiasm with which that agreement was hailed by the ministerial representatives of the commonwealth countries are alike testimony to the success of the conference. It is a pleasure indeed to assure the house that as the result of the unanimous decision that was taken at that Mont Tremblant conference, a full dress commonwealth trade and economic conference will be held some time next year. The place has not been finally decided. The date has not been finally decided. The Canadian government has extended to the governments of the other countries of the commonwealth an invitation to hold the conference in Canada. In due course we expect a final answer to that invitation.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that a great deal of preparation, as was recognized by the ministers of finance, will be required for such a conference, and plans have been made and are proceeding for a conference of officials, drawn from the various countries, to be held at a time and place yet to be agreed upon. The officials will have the responsibility at such a meeting for shaping the agenda for the conference and arranging plans.
I wish, in concluding my remarks on the Mont Tremblant conference, to say that in the closing meeting of the conference, which was public, minister after minister testified to his belief that the conference had achieved significant results and had done something worthy in strengthening commonwealth consciousness and fellow feeling. By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I now table the communique that was issued at the close of the conference by the ministers there present.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this document be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I turn now to the second
subject, which concerns bilateral discussions between Canada and the United Kingdom. Prior to the Mont Tremblant conference we had received information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the wish of the United Kingdom ministers who were attending the conference to come to Ottawa at the conclusion of the Mont Tremblant conference for a discussion of matters of mutual interest. We had no indication of the particular matters they proposed to discuss with us when that suggestion was made to us. We, of course, said the Canadian ministers concerned would be more than pleased to make themselves available to meet with their counterparts in the British government in any discussions. I stress the fact that there was no indication of an agenda, and that there was no suggestion of a formal conference. I think that fact needs to be clearly understood.
On the Saturday, during the progress of the first day's sittings of the Mont Tremblant conference, a news story appeared in the Montreal Daily Star, and copies of that newspaper became available during the afternoon recess at Mont Tremblant. That news story purported to refer to the intention of the United Kingdom ministers to propose the establishment of a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada. I had been designated by the conference as its chairman and also as the individual to give to the press each day statements on such matters as were discussed at the conference. The house will realize, of course, that the proceedings of the conference were closed.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Secret.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A meeting was arranged with the press that evening for that purpose. In the course of the meeting questions were asked concerning the proposal that had been reported in the news report to which I have just referred. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I were both present and took part in the conference. In reply to those questions the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined a proposal which he indicated he intended to submit to the Canadian government when he came on to Ottawa the following week at the conclusion of the Mont Tremblant conference. It was a proposal, as he indicated in reply to various questions, for the establishment of a free trade area between the two countries, and to achieve it on a progressive basis over a period of years.

It was obviously a very far-reaching proposal. In the course of that conference I was invited to state the attitude of the Canadian government with respect to that proposal. Obviously it would have been improper of me to do such a thing under the circumstances. The proposal had not yet been submitted. Obviously it had never been before the Canadian government. I was just listening in the course of Mr. Thorneycroft's answers to the questions put to him at the conference as to the features of the proposal as he unfolded them at that time, and I declined- and I think quite properly so-to make any comment on that proposal except to say that I thought it would be realized that it would involve formidable difficulties in any consideration that might be given to it by the Canadian government. However, until the proposal had been set forth and submitted, I indicated that I could not undertake to make any comments on it.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the end of that matter so far as the Mont Tremblant conference was concerned. That matter was never discussed at the Mont Tremblant conference. It never had any place whatever in the proceedings of the conference. Indeed, it would not have been permissible to introduce it. In that conference we were engaged in a discussion of commonwealth trade and the Canadian proposal for the holding of a commonwealth trade and economic conference. I may say to the house that no bilateral arrangements were discussed in the course of the conference proceedings.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what I have said will leave no room for doubt, and that there will be an end to such confusion as has been evidenced on this subject.
At the conclusion of the Mont Tremblant conference two of the British ministers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Thorney-croft, and the president of the board of trade, Sir David Eccles, came on to Ottawa. In the course of two or three days of meetings here the United Kingdom ministers submitted a proposal in relation to the establishment of a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom to be brought about over a period which, we were told, might be in the neighbourhood of, say, 12 to 15 years.
I wish here to say one word by way of clarification of a matter which has been referred to more than once in this connection. That is the matter which the Prime Minister mentioned on his return to Ottawa from the conference of prime ministers last summer, when at the airport he pointed out in reply to questions put to him that the diversion from the United States to the United Kingdom of 15 per cent of the purchases which
Trade Conferences
Canadians are now making in the United States would redress a trade situation which I think must and does give a great many Canadians serious concern.
This concern is based upon two principal considerations, the first being the extent to which the Canadian trading eggs are being laid in one basket, in other words the extent to which Canadian external trade is-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that this is one of those difficult problems with which Your Honour will have to deal, namely the latitude to be allowed to ministers in making statements on the order for motions. You will find in the records of this house plenty of discussions on this point in which my hon. friends opposite have taken part. It does seem to me that the house is willing to accept the practice that ministers be permitted, either on motions or on orders of the day, to make announcements, statements of ministerial changes or explanations of government policy having the character of an announcement or being of an urgent nature. This is shown by the fact that the house was generous today in not objecting to what the Minister of Finance asked for at the start. But with all respect it does seem to me he is now really indulging in debate. He has not announced anything new. He has commented on things that have been said about statements made by the Prime Minister and, with respect, I think Your Honour should consider whether this is the time to make a statement like this.
I am not quarrelling very much as to the difference between making statements on motions and on orders of the day. That difference is not great. If a statement is made on motions we can ask questions on orders of the day, but I think it has been ruled in the past that it is better to make such statements on orders of the day so that members can ask questions right away. I question, however, whether this statement should be made on either orders of the day or on motions. It is not an announcement of government policy; it is a matter of debate, and I think the minister should have waited his turn to take part in the debate on the address. That is still in progress, and I think it is not in order for the Minister of Finance to make such a statement at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when I intervened at the opening of my hon. friend's statement today I asked if he could not make his statement under circumstances which would permit interrogation. I had in mind precisely the point now raised by the

Trade Conferences
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Under the rules of this house I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that this kind of statement at this particular juncture and under these circumstances is not in order. My hon. friend can take the time of the house in respect to this very important matter, even today, during the debate which is now formally before the house. That would afford other speakers on this side and elsewhere an opportunity to make speeches in reply.
A more preferable arrangement, I strongly suggest to the Minister of Finance, would be, for instance, when we are discussing, let us say, international affairs along the lines indicated by the Prime Minister himself the other day, when I assume we would be in committee and would have the opportunity of putting to the Minister of Finance questions arising out of the very important matter about which he is seeking now to make so inadequate a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what hon. members have drawn to my attention, and perhaps I shpuld say a word before any further steps are taken along this course. As I understand it, what was done in the last two parliaments, at least when there was an important statement to be made by a minister, was for that statement to be made either at this time or on the orders of the day. Then the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other two opposition parties were given an opportunity to make a brief comment or to ask a question about the statement in order that it might not simply be a unilateral statement, if it was an extended statement such as this.
I had that practice in mind when I allowed the matter to proceed, thinking that it might be satisfactory to the house if, when the Minister of Finance had finished, the leaders of the opposition parties were to do that.
Of course there is no question before the house, and we cannot carry on a general or an extended debate; we are under the limitation restricting comments and replies in that way. Since we have gone this far, and I trust that the minister's statement is practically finished, I suggest we might follow the course I had in mind, and that the house will consider it a satisfactory way of dealing with this matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should make any comment except to say that there are many precedents which can be pointed out, and that I had prepared the statement at the request of the hon. member for Essex East.
Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning the background of the matters discussed in the informal discussions here in Ottawa. The basis of

what the Prime Minister said on the occasion I mentioned, having regard to the deficit in our trade with the United States, was to seek a diversion from the United States to the United Kingdom of purchases that Canada is now making from the United States. It was not part of that proposal to divert to the United Kingdom purchases by Canadians of Canadian products. The proposal of the United Kingdom ministers therefore introduced quite a new dimension into the considerations which had arisen out of the Prime Minister's reference.
In these several days of discussion here in Ottawa many matters pertaining to the trade interests of the two countries were discussed. The proceedings were very informal in character; the discussions were frank and friendly. The discussions were necessarily of a preliminary character because, for instance, the United Kingdom ministers were not authorized to discuss the question of imports of Canadian agricultural products into the United Kingdom.
It was agreed in the light of the discussion, and of the circumstances, that it was important to achieve the holding of the commonwealth trade conference next year, and as the proposal of the United Kingdom was of a long-range nature, which neither required nor was expected to be given immediate consideration by the Canadian government, or even consideration prior to the commonwealth trade and economic conference, that the matter should rest there in the form in which it was referred to later in the communique which was issued.
As to the proposals advanced by the Canadian government, I mention this only briefly to indicate that we propose to seek, wherever possible, to transfer government purchases that are now being made in the United States to the United Kingdom on terms that are fair to all concerned; to enlarge as soon as may be the amounts of goods purchased that tourists may bring back with them following visits to the United Kingdom.
Then in the third place-and this, in the view of the government, is one of very considerable importance, sir-we propose to send to the United Kingdom next month the most important trade mission which Canada has ever sent abroad. It will be a large trade mission; it will be a mission sponsored by the Canadian government, and it will include leading representatives of business, industry, labour, agriculture and other primary production from all areas of Canada.
In leaving that subject, sir, may I table the communique or agreed statement that

*was issued by the ministers of the two governments, the United Kingdom and Canada, at the conclusion of the Canada-United Kingdom talks on October 4.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this communique be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The third of the conferences, Mr. Speaker, was held at Washington. It was the third meeting of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic matters. The first two meetings of that committee had been held in March, 1954, and September, 1955, respectively. This, therefore, was the first meeting of that committee in more than two years; and, having regard to the fact that there had been a change of government in Canada, it was particularly opportune that the meeting should then be held.
The Canadian ministers who were members of the committee went to Washington then at the invitation of the United States government. The committee has definite limits set upon the scope of its consideration. Its terms of reference are limited, sir. They are, first, to consider matters affecting the harmonious economic relations between the two countries; second, in particular, to exchange information and views on matters which might adversely affect the high level of mutually profitable trade which has been built up; third, to report to the respective governments on such discussions in order that consideration may be given to measures deemed appropriate and necessary to improve economic relations and to encourage the flow of trade. The purpose of the conference, therefore, broadly speaking was an exchange of points of view.
The committee has no power of its own to arrive at definite conclusions.
The purpose of the Canadian delegation, which consisted of four ministers, my colleagues the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and myself, assisted by a very strong team of officials from the four departments concerned, was to place before the four members of the United States cabinet the point of view that we considered to be a true representation of the feeling of the Canadian people concerning the trend of trade between the two countries, and the effect upon the well-being of Canadian agriculture of the policies being followed by the United States administration in the disposal of agricultural surpluses.
The proceedings were informal, intimate, frank and friendly. The discussions were
Trade Conferences
characterized by a vigorous presentation of the points of view of both governments, and I may say that so far as the presentation of the Canadian point of view was concerned it was put forward just as vigorously as it has been put forward at any time by the persons concerned on the floor of this House of Commons.
Now, sir, the proceedings continued for two days. As to the results of the conference,
I think briefly they can be put under four headings. First, I think there was value in the conference in that it afforded an opportunity for a frank exchange of points of view; second, it afforded an opportunity for the exchange of information, and in that exchange I think representatives of both countries derived information that will be of benefit to them in shaping their policies in certain respects. Third-perhaps this may not be so important-it afforded an opportunity for the ministers of both countries to become acquainted with their opposite numbers; and fourth-and perhaps of most direct interest- was the decision that was arrived at in reference to one particular feature of the methods pursued by the United States administration in the disposal of agricultural surpluses. We received from the four United States secretaries an affirmation in these terms:
The United States members affirm to the Canadian ministers their intention in all surplus disposal activities to avoid, in so far as possible, interfering with normal commercial marketings.
They gave assurance that under the present revised commodity credit corporation barter program each barter contract must result in a net increase in exports of the agricultural commodity involved, and that interest must be paid until the strategic materials are delivered or payment is otherwise effected for the agricultural commodities.
The United States administration, through the secretary for agriculture, had made a somewhat similar statement about the middle of the summer in regard to the barter feature of the methods pursued by the United States administration in disposing of agricultural surpluses. This is the first time to our knowledge that this has become a matter of undertaking on the part of the United States administration to any other government. While we would like to have seen some assurances that all the objectionable features in the methods pursued by the United States administration-that is, objectionable from the Canadian point of view-in their agricultural disposal program would be eliminated, at any rate this was an assurance that, so far as it went, we were glad to receive.
Now, sir, I think I should ask the leave of the house to table the communique that was agreed upon at the conference and was

Trade Conferences
issued on October 8, embodying the conclusions and reviewing the nature of the discussions on various topics carried on at that conference.
I make just this one observation in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. While the realm of positive agreement resulting from the Washington meetings is necessarily limited, limited by the nature of the meeting and limited by the powers of the committee, it was felt by the Canadian ministers who attended that conference that the conference had served a very useful purpose.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you at once that I am not going to overlook your warning that this could not be the occasion for a debate. Hon. members on both sides will have their own views as to how near or how close to a debate on the subject the Minister of Finance chose to tread. The conferences in question have all had to do very much with all the external trade policies of the Canadian government, and certainly cannot be dealt with in the limits that are indicated in the warning you gave when a point of order was submitted to you a few moments ago.
There will certainly be other opportunities, because there are very diverging views as to the achievements the hon. gentleman has mentioned in the statement he made today. The substance, I think, is summarized as glamorously as it could be made to appear in the communiques which have been laid on the table and which we have all had the opportunity of reading in the press before this day. The views that have been expressed about the limited extent of those achievements are not apt to be very much affected by the statement we have just heard from the Minister of Finance.
It may very well be that there will be some questions on the orders of the day or at another more opportune moment to elucidate some of the points touched upon by the Minister of Finance in his statement, and there is no doubt that, Canada being in proportion to its population perhaps the most active trading nation in the world, there should be all sorts of complications resulting from the channels trade takes in the interests of those who are engaged in that trade.
It may be that the hon. gentlemen feel that the methods that were resorted to by the previous government can be pursued with greater vigour by them than they were by their predecessors, but that also is a matter about which there are very serious diverging views. The only new suggestion that seems to have arisen with respect to this attempt to divert trade, not from Canadian

production but from United States sources to United Kingdom sources, is the increase in the allowance that tourists may have for purchases made in the United Kingdom on the occasion of a trip to that country. That would not have any substantial effect in diverting trade from United States sources to British sources and would perhaps have some effect, although not serious, upon a possible diversion of some trade from Canadian production to the producers of the country the tourists would have visited.
These are all matters that deserve very careful consideration, and about which more will be required than the statement just made by the Minister of Finance to destroy the impression that nothing very new has transpired.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosefown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you first that it might be well to look into what constitutes a ministerial statement, because in reality I think the statement made by the minister today should have been made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne so that we might have debated the matter. However, I am going to ask the minister a question. One cannot deal with the United Kingdom proposition, one cannot deal with commonwealth trade, one cannot deal with commercial relations with the United States in one question, but I am going to confine myself to one question.
In view of what the minister said about the satisfactory outcome of the discussions with the secretary of agriculture and others in the United States, may I ask him this question. Has he seen the report that the secretary of agriculture of the United States, Mr. Benson, is about to proceed to Japan, where he hopes to enter the wheat market which we have so assiduously cultivated over the last number of years and where we have gained a very pronounced entry to our benefit, with a view to entering into a trading agreement with Japan whereby the United States will take Japanese currency for American wheat and invest the proceeds in Japan? Has the minister seen that report? If not, I would refer him to the financial page of the Montreal Gazette of today's date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report in question, but I can assure the hon. member that no ground was given by the Canadian ministers at Washington-
Some hon Members: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in regard to the methods being pursued by the United States in disposing of their agricultural surpluses. There has been very strong denouncement and very strong disapproval expressed of the methods

being pursued, particularly with regard to the way they are hurting the marketing of Canadian agricultural products.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I say that the minister's presentation to the house this afternoon was merely a confession of failure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Far from being a confession of failure, it was a report to the house on the strong position taken by the Canadian ministers at Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No stronger position could have been taken by any Canadian government. Indeed, it was the strongest position that has ever been taken by any Canadian government in such discussions at Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there is no spokesman for the Social Credit party I would ask other members to hold their questions, if they have further questions, until we reach orders of the day, so that we may at least preserve the appearance of not having engaged in a debate.


Harold Edward Winch: That was the very point on which I was rising. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the completely new precedent of cabinet ministers making statements before the orders of the day also embraces the opportunity for others to comment and debate, as was actually done by the minister, or is this a new precedent that can be made use of only by the Conservatives on the government side of the house?


Mr. Robichaud:: It could be a new kind of closure.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to ask a question or to say anything at this stage on the statement made by the Minister of Finance. I did not do so for the reason that my colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), still has about seven or eight minutes of his time left in the speech from the throne debate, and he will be commenting on the statement in the course of what he has to say.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it possible to have an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to ask the Speaker hypothetical questions. I take it that the hon. member's comments have been heard by the house. They were probably out of order as well as some of the other things that have been done here. I may say
Trade Conferences
to the house that it has been quite customary for ministers to make important statements on the order for motions.


Mr. Pearson:: Never like that.


Mr. Speaker:: No one knows in advance what will be their content or extent, or how far they will develop into an argument, and we just have to take these matters as they come. I think the house will agree that no further discussion should take place at this time.

On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance if I am right in concluding that the first time he heard of the British proposals was on the occasion of the recent visit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or is it not a fact that he first learned of this proposal from the mouth of the Minister of Food and Agriculture on September 10 last, and that a few days later the president of the board of trade journeyed from Washington to visit the Prime Minister when he was at the United Nations to acquaint him with the details of the proposal for a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada?
I should like also to ask the Minister of Finance if he would not table the proposals which he said were put forward by the government of Canada through him at Mont Tremblant. Would he not table the details of the British proposal itself, because I say to him with great respect, realizing the limitations of time today, I do not think we are clear yet as to what are the full details of the British proposals.
Also he may tell us whether, when he was in Washington, there was a serious discussion of a proposal made by the Prime Minister of Canada as to the diversion, to the extent of 15 per cent, of Canada's purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. Is the press accurate in saying that the Minister of Finance said that the Prime Minister's proposal really was an afterthought, and not to be taken too seriously?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I lost track of the number of questions, and I am not sure that I can remember them in their multitudinous profusion. I shall deal with them as well as I can remember them.
First of all let me say this, that the first time the Canadian government received any formal proposal or anything at all that could be said to be definite in regard to that proposal-


Mr. Mcllraith:: Formal?

Trade Conferences


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who is giving the answer?
May I give the answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you answer
the question?


George James McIlraith: Nobody is giving the
answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate wishes to give the answer, perhaps the time of the house can be saved. If he knows all the answers then he should satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Essex East.
The first time the Canadian government received that proposal, as a proposal with any aspect of definiteness to it at all, was when on returning from Mont Tremblant and arriving in Ottawa I received a written communication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer embodying the proposal; that was the first time. The hon. member asks about the visit of the British Minister of Food and Agriculture, Right Hon. Derick Heathcoat-Amory. When Mr. Amory was here in the course of a tour across Canada he touched very lightly on the possibility that the United Kingdom ministers, when they came here later on, might be putting forward some suggestion of a free trade area. But he did not put forward any proposal, on behalf of his government, as a proposal to the Canadian government. Let me make that very clear.
What was next in this group of questions? Oh, yes; the hon. member referred to some trip that Sir David Eccles is supposed to have made to this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the trip Sir David Eccles made from Washington to visit the Prime Minister when he was at the United Nations.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That is not true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister says that is not true. I think that is plain. Sir David Eccles was one of the British ministers attending the Mont Tremblant conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He came to Ottawa for the several days of discussion. There was a third member of the British cabinet, Right Hon. Reginald Maudling, the paymaster general, who attended the Mont Tremblant conference but who did not come on to Ottawa.
The next question the hon. member asked was whether this had not been discussed in Washington. The hon. member shakes his head, so may I get the question right?


Mr.   Marlin.@Essex Easl: The question I asked about Washington was whether or not my hon. friend discussed the proposal made to the press gallery by the Prime Minister of

Canada, that there should be a diversion of Canadian purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. The report is that the Minister of Finance said that that proposal was a long-term one, and the impression was created from reading the particular article that the Minister of Finance did not believe the proposal by the Prime Minister of Canada was to be taken too seriously.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Essex East has got his facts all wrong, as usual. Let me say this. There was nothing said by the Minister of Finance to the press at Washington or elsewhere to indicate or suggest that what the Prime Minister of Canada had said about a diversion of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom was not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the Minister of Finance said on all such occasions was that obviously this is something that cannot be accomplished overnight. It never was suggested it could be accomplished overnight, but it was put forward by the Prime Minister as an objective and it remains an objective of the Canadian government. If the hon. member wants the reasons I can give them to him.


George James McIlraith: Do it on a proper occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, I see. It is all right for the questions to be asked with all the insinuations in them, but the questions are not to be answered when it does not suit the purposes of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the same old closure complex.


George James McIlraith: You have no respect for any of the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: How many helpers has he?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am trying to remember question No. 5, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps my hon. friend will assist me.


Mr.   Marlin.@Essex Easl: Question No. 3 was whether or not my hon. friend would table the British proposal. Question No. 4 was this. WiR he table the Canadian proposal which he said the government brought to the conference at Mont Tremblant?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member well knows that exchanges between governments cannot be tabled. They are secret communications and are always privileged. How many times have I heard the hon. gentleman and his colleagues assert that position in the house: "These were secret communications". The communication by the Canadian government of its proposal in this respect to the other commonwealth governments was a secret proposal, as the hon. gentleman well knows, and the communication that we received from

the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a secret communication and is privileged. The hon. member should not attempt to try to give anybody the impression that this is a departure from the position that he and his colleagues took day in and day out in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And you objected to it.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it true that following on his visit to Washington he was "fixed"? Is it equally true that after the British proposal on free trade he was transfixed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no. The hon. member, of course, refers to a remark which the United States secretary for commerce, Mr. Sinclair Weeks, dropped on his way out of one of the sessions of the conference. In order that the record may be fair on this point I think I should say that, when I was in Washington, I heard about this remark that was attributed to Mr. Weeks, the remark being "We fixed 'em". I realized at once that it was purely a jocular remark-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: because it had no validity as applied to anything that happened in the conference. Naturally, under the circumstances, I was a little disappointed to find that some newspapers not friendly to the new government took this comment up and tried to make much of it. I therefore communicated with Mr. Weeks about it, realizing that this use that was being made of a chance jocular remark did not do him justice. Mr. Weeks issued, from the United States embassy here in Ottawa several days ago, the following statement:
I was deeply concerned to learn that the meaning of a chance colloquialism of mine is being misrepresented to give a false impression of the fine accomplishments and excellent team work resulting from the recent conferences between representatives of Canada and the United States.
As I left one of the meetings I was asked for comments and in a hurried jest without even pausing for discussion I responded, "We fixed 'em" -obviously meaning only that we, all of us, Canadians and Americans together, had fixed or settled a lot of things. The fact is that never have I said or implied or felt that the meeting was other than a great success from the standpoint of our mutual objectives. This year's meeting was the third in which I have sat and one of the best of the whole series.
No peoples are more closely bound by friendship and respect than are Canadians and Americans. The grave problems of this age are compelling reasons for greater mutual understanding and cooperation.
It is this spirit of respect and friendship and not distorted chance remarks that reveal my appreciation of the representatives of Canada and their
Trade Conferences
great independent nation. Such esteem, I assure you, is shared by all Americans associated in the recent conference.


Mr. Peter Slefura (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given consideration to the acceptance of sterling in an effort to increase Canadian exports to Britain and other commonwealth nations? If so, has a decision been reached, and what was the nature of that decision?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No such proposal was made to the Canadian government.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the recent discussions in Washington. Was the minister made aware of the tie-in or tie-up between the metal crisis at this time and the disposal program of the United States government? This is a matter of a good deal of interest at this time because of the crisis existing in metals in Canada at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that matter was discussed. It was a matter of considerable concern to the Canadian government, and we were extremely anxious to know what were the plans of the United States government both with regard to the possibility of continued stockpiling and also with reference to the possibility of tariff action against Canadian metals, in particular zinc and lead. This matter was fully discussed, and in the communique the hon. member will find reference to the subject.
So far as the first matter is concerned, namely the policy on stockpiling, I may tell him that the United States government is not continuing the policy of stockpiling of these particular metals which Canada has been exporting in quantity to the United States. So far as the possibility of future United States tariff action against Canadian lead and zinc is concerned, the communique contains the following:
The Canadian ministers expressed concern over the effect on Canadian producers which would result from any future action by the United States to raise duties on imported lead and zinc. The United States members explained the situation confronting their domestic producers. They called attention to the continued need for imports of certain minerals and metals and indicated that any United States tariff action that might be taken to relieve serious injury to United States producers would have the primary objective of maintaining a normal relationship between imports and domestic production. They noted that any such action would be applied in accordance with the procedures of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I am sure the hon. member is aware that the United States tariff rates on importations of lead and zinc-and this applies to imports

Trade Conferences
of these two base metals from Canada-are bound by the general agreement on tariffs and trade. If the United States congress at the next session proceeds to increase tariffs on imports of lead and zinc so far as Canada is concerned, it will mean that the United States will have to obtain, from the countries which are signatories to GATT, agreement to waive the provisions in that respect. That will give the countries concerned the right, if they so choose, to demand concessions.
In conclusion I may assure the hon. gentleman that the Canadian government regards this as a matter of serious concern, and pressed the case of the Canadian producers of zinc and lead very firmly and very hard.


Mr, Byrne:: Pressed it how?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, we pressed the case for the Canadian producers of all metals. There was extensive discussion on the subject.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Financial Post article dated October 19 last seems to indicate that there was a close tie-up between the American disposal program and the present price of metals. That was my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article to which my hon. friend refers, but if the Financial Post is no more accurate in that article than in the one appearing during the week before which was quoted last Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition, then, believe me, there is not one jot or tittle of accuracy in it.


Mr. Sinclair:: The freedom of the press.


Major James William Coldwell: I would like to ask a supplementary question which has a bearing on the main question asked. When the minister was at Washington may I ask if there was any understanding arrived at regarding any limitation of our exports of coarse grains to the United States? Several years ago we agreed that we would limit the exportation of oats. I remember that distinctly, and I am wondering if perhaps some other farm commodities were discussed; or is the arrangement still in effect whereby we voluntarily limit the export of certain farm commodities to the United States? If so, does the minister not think, in view of the United States actions in regard to our foreign markets, we might withdraw such an undertaking if it is still in effect?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That subject was not discussed at Washington. Obviously it was not the sort of subject which was in our interest to raise, and the United States secretaries did not raise it either.
[Mr. Fleming.}


Major James William Coldwell: Why not? Why is it not in
our interest to raise this subject when it is our limitation? We had agreed several years ago on the limiting of exports of certain coarse grains to the United States, in the interests of the United States because they had a large production surplus. Is that agreement still in effect? The minister might look into it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, but I might assure my hon. friend that that subject was not raised. There was an extended discussion as to the marketing by both countries of their agricultural products, we being in the position of complaining about the methods pursued by the United States administration; but so far as the subject of agreed quotas is concerned, such quotas being imposed by the exporting country on its own exports, that subject was not raised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I may not have fully understood some of the answers given this afternoon, may I ask the Prime Minister this very simple question. Did he attend a meeting with the United Kingdom president of the board of trade in New York at the opening of the United Nations assembly?


John George Diefenbaker: When I was in New York to speak at the United Nations a luncheon was arranged at which one of the guests was Sir David Eccles, who was en route to Washington. There was no meeting at any time with him in New York with reference to any questions which have been raised here today. It was simply a social gathering at noon at which, by reason of our relevant positions, we were placed side by side.


Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's picture having been published in 12 of the last 16 issues of Time magazine, is it the intention of the government to abolish the special tax on Canadian editions of American publications?


Peter Stefura: I would like an answer to the question which I asked previously. That was, has the government given consideration to the acceptance of sterling in an effort to increase Canadian exports to Britain and other commonwealth countries? If so, has a decision been reached and what was the nature of that decision?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already told my hon. friend that question has not even been raised by anyone.


Peter Stefura: Not among yourselves?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesl):: would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister yet been able to determine in his own mind if the backstairs entry of two trade commissioners into China is an official mission?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps the hon. member will confine the inquiry to the intricacies of his own mind.


Some hon. Members:: That is a proper question.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I would like to ask a supplementary question to one which was asked previously by the member for Vegreville (Mr. Stefura). Will the Minister of Finance and his government give serious consideration to the acceptance of sterling in part payment at least for our exports to Great Britain? The reason I ask this question is that I consider it to be very serious, particularly in our part of the country; and this was something which was promised by the Conservatives in the last election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. gentleman's statement which he appended to his last question. There was no such promise made in the campaign at all.


James Sinclair: There was by my opponent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, it was not a promise made on behalf of the Conservative party. My hon. friend can hold his local debates to his heart's content, but I make the assertion that no such undertaking was given to the Canadian people during the last election.
To deal with the question, however, until somebody asks us to accept sterling in part payment for Canadian exports 1 see no reason why we should go out looking for the opportunity to purchase sterling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you not trying to sell our wheat?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are interested in the flow of two-way trade between Canada and the United Kingdom, and we are interested in the flow of commonwealth trade. We think this would be a good thing in rectifying the weaknesses in the Canadian trade position. However, until some of the countries on a sterling basis regard this as a matter of sufficient importance to them to come and ask us to accept such an arrangement, I do not see any reason why we should go out proposing to take sterling. We are interested
Proposed Legislation
in the two-way flow of trade and payment by commodities that are being purchased from non-commonwealth sources.


Mr. Quelch:: Did anybody ask the United States to accept foreign currency for their exports?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that question had better be directed to the United States administration. I find it keeps me occupied in trying to answer for my own job in Canada.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to fifty-five dollars per month, to reduce the basic residence requirements for pensioners from twenty years to ten years and to increase the length of permissible temporary absences of pensioners from Canada from three to six months.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act. to reduce the basic residence requirement for recipients from twenty years to ten years and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person, and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Blind Persons Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount

Inquiries of the Ministry of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, to provide, subject to regulations, for payments in respect of certain additional persons who are patients in institutions, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he advise the house as to whether it is his intention to bring forward for consideration at this session legislation concerning the development and improvement of the national capital?


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. The cabinet has considered this matter but has decided regretfully that it must be deferred until the next session. In saying that, may I point out that a bill was placed on the order paper in the records of the house during last session. It was not proceeded with at that time and many matters in connection with it will have to be considered. Furthermore, having regard to some of the emergent matters of this session, it is felt that in order to give full and comprehensive consideration to this very important matter and to ensure that Canada's capital will be worthy of her nationhood the whole question might well be postponed until the ensuing session.


lLater:1



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO END POLLUTION OF OTTAWA RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I also ask a question with regard to the national capital plan. I direct my question to the Prime Minister now that he resides on the banks of the beautiful Ottawa river. When the capital plan comes up for consideration will he try to get the authorities responsible to do something to stop the pollution of this very beautiful river?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter. This is one of those problems which over the years have received very intensive study on my part-the necessity of action being taken in order to preserve and maintain the purity of our waters. It is a problem which is surrounded by many complexities when an interprovincial river is concerned, but I can assure the hon. member of this: The interest I have taken in the past has not been diminished in any way by the position I now occupy, and I feel that this is a matter which deserves the most serious attention of parliament. I am having it looked into. Naturally, I have not missed the controversies that have been going on within this city within the last few days. All over this country there is a general demand that something should be done by the federal government and the provincial governments in co-operation, to maintain the flow uninterrupted, and also unimpaired by pollution, of the rivers and waters of our country.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance based on a statement found on page 2 of the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects to the effect that a comprehensive final report is in preparation and will appear some time in 1957, also giving a list of the studies to be published by the commission. My question is: Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the final report of the Gordon commission has yet been made? Can he also tell us whether the study intituled "Canadian Energy Prospects", referred to in appendix "C" of the preliminary report, has yet been published, and if it has not been published when we may expect that it will be published?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be precise in my answer to the first question asked, but the chairman of the royal commission intimated to me some time ago that he hoped to complete the final report, I think he said this autumn. This has been a very heavy task and, as hon. members may be aware, the secretary of the royal commission, Mr. LePan, was taken ill during the summer and is only back at his post on a part-time basis. Accordingly, the completion of the report has been somewhat delayed.
So far as the various studies are concerned, they have been proceeding, and there is one due this week. As to the one about which the hon. member inquired, the study on energy, I have no knowledge that it has been issued, and I think I would have been made aware of the fact if it had been issued recently. But I will be glad to make inquiries as to how far it is advanced and give the hon. member that information.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that when a farmer makes application for a loan from the Canadian farm loan board the board, before acknowledging the request, informs implement companies in the area of the application and of the board's disposition of the request for the loan? If the minister finds this to be the case, will he assure the house that he will instruct the board to cease immediately this unethical, high-handed and deplorable practice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member telephoned me fifteen minutes before the session opened this afternoon to inform me that he was aware of a case in which, while an application by a farmer to the Canadian farm loan board was pending and the farmer had not yet been notified as to the disposition of the case, an implement firm to which he was indebted was notified by the board that the board was declining the application. I expressed some surprise at that. I can assure the hon. member, and I can assure the house, that if the board has done what he intimates, it will not do it again.
As I understand it, an application by a farmer to the loan board is not a public matter and it is certainly not a matter to be discussed with persons who may be interested in the affairs of an applicant farmer.
Inquiries of the Ministry I have asked the hon. member to give me particulars of the case in question. I can assure the house that I will make it my business to go to the bottom of this matter; and if this sort of thing is happening I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I shall see to it that it has happened for the last time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When will the minister carry out the recommendation by the Newfoundland board of trade for the ferry William Carson to carry passengers on her run between Argentia and North Sydney?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. The question of the M.V. William Carson carrying passengers and automobiles in addition to freight on its temporary run between North Sydney and Argentia has been before the management of the Canadian National Railways and the former minister of transport on several occasions in the past. In announcing the service the former minister spoke in the house on July 20, 1955, as follows:
In the meantime the William Carson will, within the next few weeks, be placed in service by the C.N.R. on a limited basis between North Sydney and Argentia. Because the ship is designed to fit into specialized unloading and loading facilities that are available only at North Sydney and Port aux Basques, this temporary service to Argentia will be for freight movement only and will not provide for passengers or the carrying of automobiles. This temporary service to Argentia will provide valuable experience as to the operation of this highly specialized ship and should bring about an improvement in the carriage of freight to and from Newfoundland.
Since then, as I say, the matter of carrying passengers and automobiles was considered from time to time but no action was taken. I am advised that the William Carson is a highly specialized vessel in many respects, and in particular the ship requires special shore facilities in order to function properly; and that to accommodate passengers and automobiles on the run to Argentia would mean a substantial expansion of facilities.
I discussed this matter with the Newfoundland board of trade when 1 was in St. John's a month or two ago, and they told me that in their opinion automobiles could be landed and taken off this vessel at Argentia. I asked

Inquiries of the Ministry them if they had actually seen it done, or taken cars on and off the vessel, and they said they had not. I said: if you can go down to Argentia and demonstrate to the officials of the C.N.R. that cars can be moved on and off that vessel without danger I will recommend to the C.N.R. that cars should be loaded. I have not heard from the Newfoundland board of trade on the matter since that time.



L'ISLE AUX COUDRES-ST. JOSEPH DE LA RIVE   REQUESTED WINTER FERRY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the coming winter season will steps be taken to bring about the establishment of a winter ferry service between L'lsle aux Coudres and St. Joseph de la Rive on the St. Lawrence north shore?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. When I was in the province of Quebec this summer I was asked by prominent citizens of L'lsle aux Coudres to look into the possibility of providing such a ferry. They told me that they had been asking the previous government for a number of years past to provide such a ferry and that they had not met with any success. I told them that it would be impossible to know whether or not such a ferry could be provided until an inspection could be made of the ice and current conditions during the winter season and that my department would have an inspector look into those conditions when winter arrived.


Auguste Maltais: May I ask the minister if there is any truth in the statement he then made that the people of L'lsle aux Coudres might expect to get this ferry if they would vote Conservative at the next federal election?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, but after my talk with the estimable citizens of L'lsle aux Coudres I am convinced that the very high quality of their mentality makes them realize that with a new government in power they have more chance of obtaining it.


Auguste Maltais: Another supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there have been enough supplementaries on that point. The discussion might degenerate into another debate.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the shortage of livestock box cars in certain sections of western Canada and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken to correct this situation?


George Harris Hees: I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. Since receiving the notice I have checked with my department and I can find no instance of our being advised of such a shortage. If he will advise me of any specific shortages that he knows of I shall be very glad to pass that information along to the railways concerned.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what are his plans regarding the future of a well-known architectural landmark on a street in the city of Toronto, namely the Bank of Canada building, which many Torontians are anxious to see preserved.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if this is a proper matter to raise on the orders of the day I will say to the hon. member that this matter has been inquired into. The premises in question are the property of the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Canada has planned to erect a new building suitable for its purposes in Toronto. It is true that the building in question has stood there for a long time, and that it has architectural features which one would like to see preserved. The difficulty is that this is a relatively small building standing on a very valuable piece of property on the west side of Toronto street and under the pressure of increasing demand for space in that part of the city it becomes a question whether the Bank of Canada is to be expected to preserve that building on a property very much more valuable than would warrant the continuation of a small building.
Anybody who wishes to preserve architectural features I suppose can make his proper complaint about this matter, but it is the fact-it may be an unfortunate fact-that the property on which that building stands is

so valuable now that the Bank of Canada, after considering all these questions, feels that it must put the land to other uses.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a question of the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. It is a matter of procedure. Usually the questions that appear on the order paper are not answered until the debate on the address has been concluded. I understand we are to take up other business tomorrow. I am wondering whether he could arrange to have the questions that are on the order paper as well as the motions for production of papers proceeded with.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that and see what can be done to meet the hon. member's request.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: On Friday last the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) asked me the following question:
How many people are registered as unemployed in Montreal? Could I also, perhaps, have the comparative figures for the same period last year?
The answer is that the number of persons registered in Montreal on October 4, 1956, was: men, 8,612; women, 7,152; total, 15,764. On October 3, 1957, men, 17,371; women, 8,247; total, 25,618.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister consider making a brief statement at an early date as to what precise changes have been made in the operation of the national employment service to implement the policy which was recently announced?


Michael Starr: I think, Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question by saying that a directive has been sent out over my signature asking all managers
Inquiries of the Ministry of all offices to alert their staffs and to give instructions to their staffs to accelerate their action in securing employment for those who are registered as unemployed in the offices across Canada. I might add that I have received a number of letters from managers complimenting and thanking me for the instruction and saying that the directive will be carried out with, it is expected, good results.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Has the minister made provision for any extra facilities or additional staff to deal with the situation in the manner which his directive states it should be dealt with?


Michael Starr: The managers of various offices have been told and know that if necessary staff has to be hired they have the authority to do so under ordinary circumstances through the civil service commission.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister look into the situation at Quesnel at an early date? We have been seeking an unemployment insurance commission office there for some time and it would facilitate the very thing that the minister is proposing.


Michael Starr: We shall be glad to look into the situation.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Douglas S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) asked this question, Mr. Speaker:
Has the minister been informed of the systemic treatment by trolene for the control of warbles in cattle? If so, can he inform the house whether the government has any plan to undertake the free distribution of this treatment, as has been done with certain serums, in order to wipe out most of the annual loss of $14 million now estimated to be caused by warble fly infestation?
The answer is: the Department of Agriculture has investigated several systemic treatments, including trolene, for the control of warble fly. Trolene has been registered under the Pest Control Products Act. The government has no plans for the free distribution of this material. I might perhaps add that it is quite an expensive treatment and we have considerable hopes that a much cheaper treatment, and one which can be much more easily administered, will soon be available.

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



REPLACEMENT OF M. V. &quot;BURIN&quot; ON PLACENTIA BAY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What steps are being taken, or are being contemplated, either by the government of Canada or by the Canadian National Railways to replace the coastal boat M. V. Burin now employed by the C.N.R. on the Placentia bay service with another boat having more and better passenger accommodation?


George Harris Hees: I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The question of the Newfoundland coastal steamship service is one of the matters that are being studied by my department at the present time, and the particular question he has asked will certainly be included in that study. I should like to advise him at this time that the Canadian National Railways expect to announce shortly improvements in the Placentia bay service.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in and speak to the appropriate ministers about the plight of retired Candian National Railways employees and superannuated civil servants whose pensions are in the lower brackets, about whom he and his colleagues quite often went on record and had a good deal to say in days gone by? Can he give the hope that something might be done to improve the pensions of these groups of people at an early date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the factual recitation that I have shown an interest in this matter in the past is in accordance with the facts. It is of interest to know that it is expected of this government that everything be done in a matter of a few weeks. The matter to which he refers is one that is particularly close to me by reason of my father having been a civil servant and I can assure him that the attention that this government has already paid in raising the salaries of civil servants is but an indication of one of the steps to be taken which ultimately will, I am sure, remove the causes of complaint to which he has made reference.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED DECREASE IN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on the decline in Canadian exports of wheat during the present crop year, now some 7 million bushels below the very low exports during the same period last year? Would the minister inform the house as to what steps the government is taking to increase exports during the present crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to thank the
hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I propose to give a review of the situation at the second reading stage of the bill on cash advances, if he would not mind waiting until then. That will likely be Friday, all being well.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. As a result of a phone call received yesterday morning I was given to understand that this afternoon I would receive an answer to my question as to what action, if any, is going to be taken by his department on the question of kick-backs in the medical profession. In accordance with the phone call yesterday, is the minister now prepared to give me an answer? If not, just how soon may we expect the answer?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I think there must have
been some misunderstanding about the telephone call. I did not understand I had to give any further answer. When the hon. member asked me the question the other day with respect to kickbacks and asked whether any investigation was now being carried on with respect to that practice I was not aware of the newspaper clippings at the time; I have since read them and I have also read the decision of the court.
The reason for the discovery of this practice, apparently, as suggested by the hon. member, is that it fell from heaven. Actually, of course, it was as a result of the investigation carried on by this department prior to the appeal which resulted in the disclosure. In other words, all of the evidence

was adduced by the lawyers representing the department as the result of an investigation which they carried on and there was no adventitious disclosure whatsoever. As a matter of fact, this department is always conducting investigations of various matters such as this, sometimes to a degree which is sometimes resented by the taxpayers of this country.


Harold Edward Winch: That was not my question.
I know it was because of their investigation they discovered over $300,000 of kick-backs in two cities alone in one province. My question was: Because of that are you now going to make an investigation of the entire situation of kick-backs in the entire profession?


George Clyde Nowlan: The officers of the department are as usual and as always carrying on investigations of all matters affecting the affairs of the taxpayers of this country.



REPORTED DECISION TO INCREASE TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jacob Schulz (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is it correct that, according to press reports, the government has decided to proceed with plans to boost tariffs on a wide range of steel products and has notified a number of countries which come under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the United States, of its intention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not hear all of my hon. friend's question. Would he mind repeating it, please?


Jacob Schulz: I notified the minister of the question beforehand. Is it correct that, according to press reports, the government has decided to proceed with plans to boost tariffs on a wide range of steel products and has notified a number of countries which come under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the United States, of its intention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, having regard to some of the language used here and the strength of some of the terms employed, I suppose I would be justified in giving a summary negative answer but I think that would not be altogether fair to the house. I propose, when I table some recent reports of the Canadian tariff board, which I hope to do within the next several days, to make a statement that will cover the question that my hon. friend has asked, as well as other matters.
Inquiries of the Ministry FOOD



INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR POOLING OF SURPLUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken any action to promote an international agency for the pooling of surplus food products? If so, what has been done?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this being a matter which comes under the Department of Agriculture the Prime Minister has referred it to me. The answer is as follows: FAO proposed a world food board at Copenhagen in 1946. In subsequent months the proposal was reviewed in Washington by a special international commission. The commission, in which Canada was represented, recommended against the formation of such a body. This was subsequently followed by several other proposals, one for the establishment of an international commodity clearing house. None of these has met with acceptance by the member nations of FAO.
FAO then established its committee on commodity problems to review commodity situations and to consider surpluses. This was followed by the establishment of a special subcommittee in Washington which meets frequently to review surplus problems and to provide a forum for discussion. The committee prepared a set of principles relating to surplus disposal, designed among other things to eliminate or reduce competition with commercial transactions when surpluses are disposed of on concessional terms. Some 30 countries, including the leading trading nations, have subscribed to these principles. Canada has been an active participant in the committee on commodity problems and in the deliberations of the subcommittee on surplus disposal.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder
whether I might ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the present government would be prepared to reverse the position taken by the previous administration and come out positively now in support of an international world food pool as one means of disposing of our surplus agricultural products?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would not be prepared to make a statement on that at the moment.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask is perhaps based on the fact that a similar decision to the one you have just made was

Inquiries of the Ministry not made with regard to the answer to a previous question. The question had to do with a decision made by the FAO concerning the suggestion that there should be a method of dealing with surpluses. A very definite statement was made as to the position taken by Canada at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not a question, and I know it is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am asking the question because the answer, which was given following the discussion that has taken place, was also out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I headed the delegation at that time, and the position that was reported here is not in accordance with the position taken by Canada at that time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister tell the house whether the previous government initiated an inquiry respecting the erection of an administration building at St. Georges de Beauce and, if so, is it the intention of the government to carry on such inquiry?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question and this is the answer. Inquiry into the necessity of a new federal building at St. Georges de Beauce was initiated during 1956-57. The report indicated that increased space for the Post Office Department was justified and that a new building could accommodate the unemployment insurance commission, at present in leased premises.
Difficulty was experienced in deciding upon a new site and it is only recently the conclusion was reached that the most suitable site was property adjacent to the present building. Plans for the new building are in the early stage of preparation and work will continue on them. Construction will commence when the necessary funds are voted by parliament.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister be good enough to tell the house through which municipality the new bridge will pass before crossing the St. Lawrence river via Nuns' island to connect with Laprairie?


George Harris Hees: Yes. The new bridge will first pass through the municipality of Verdun.



SOUND SYSTEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May
I have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of directing a question to you, strictly non-political? I believe there are over 90 members in the house who do not realize that the loudspeaker system is arranged in such a manner that if you are on the three back benches on either side, unless you direct your voice in a certain way and do not turn around, as some do, and talk to the curtains, you cannot be heard. May I ask if it is not possible for you, within the next few days, to arrange something similar to what occurred in 1953, that is at the opening hour those who are interested could have an explanation of the use of the loudspeaker system. Personally I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say, and on occasion even with our loudspeakers I have not been able to hear. I believe my voice can be heard, but I want to hear what others say.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member and I must say I am sorry that some members are having difficulty in hearing the very interesting things that have been said this afternoon. I shall take that under consideration and see if any improvement can be made in that respect.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not questioning the system, I am merely stating you have to understand how to use the system.



YUKON-INQUIRY AS TO THE DATE OF BYELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet made a decision as to the date of the by-election to be held in the Yukon constituency?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


James Sinclair: The sooner the better.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Can the Minister of Finance inform the house whether or not it is the intention of the government to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act so as to increase the availability of loans and extend the supervision of loans so as to give counsel and advice to farmers procuring such loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend sent notice of this question to my office, but it was late in arriving and I received it only ten minutes ago in the house. I may say to my friend that the question he asks obviously touches on a matter of government policy and no statement can be made at this time in regard to that subject.
May I ask him to bear this in mind in relation to this question and similar questions. There is a limit to the amount of business parliament can cram into one short fall session. There is a limit to what the government can propose to parliament. Under the circumstances, we are doing our best to bring forward, as fast as the transaction of business in the house will permit, all the legislation possible in the time available for this session.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Victor Quelch: Shortly before the adjournment last night, I had been advocating an extension of trade with the sterling area, the acceptance of inconvertible currency and the spending of that sterling to buy goods in the sterling area that we are presently buying from the United States. In that way we would enable the sterling area to achieve a greater degree of balance with Canada, and would enable Canada to achieve a greater degree of balance with the United States, or at least to reduce our imbalance of trade with that country.
96698-21i
The Address-Mr. Quelch
My time is limited, but I wish to say a few words regarding the surplus disposal program of the United States. The former government was very critical of that program, and I gather the present government is not very much more favourably disposed towards it. I feel the United States is to be highly commended upon that program because under it the United States today is making surplus food available to the hungry people of nations that are not able to obtain food through the normal channels of trade. At the same time the United States is paying the farmers a fair price for that food.
Let me state very briefly the history of this surplus. It will be recalled that in the latter years of the war the food and agricultural organization warned the nations of the world that two-thirds of the population of the world was hungry. They further warned that unless the nations that had the ability to expand the production of their food did everything in their power to do so there may be worldwide starvation. The United States went all out to expand production of food. They paid very substantial support prices to their farmers, and as a consequence the United States did build up a substantial reserve of food in the form of farm products.
Unfortunately the food and agricultural organization did not provide the international machinery to distribute this surplus to the nations that needed it. It is true that they did bring forth a proposal for a world food bank but that was rejected by member nations. Then, I think it was in 1950, they proposed an international commodity clearing house. Personally, I felt that was an excellent idea, but again the member nations rejected it. So, we found we had a situation where the surpluses of each country were left on their own doorsteps.
It was then that the United States expanded the program by which they would be able to distribute surplus food to the nations that needed it. They proclaimed, in effect, that any nation that was not able to obtain the food they needed through the normal channels of trade would be able to obtain their food from the United States, if the United States had it in surplus quantity, by the acceptance of their currency, by barter agreement or, in a case of dire distress, by outright gift. Let me point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that the United States did not wait for some nation to ask them to accept their currency. They saw the problem and they believed the solution to that problem was to accept foreign currency. As a result of that the United States has sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food for foreign currency. I am

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell not suggesting for one minute that we should go as far as the United States did, but I am suggesting we could go as far as I have suggested. We could accept inconvertible sterling for the goods we export to the sterling area, and then spend that inconvertible sterling in the sterling area to buy the goods which we are at present buying from the United States.
In that way we might accomplish the proclaimed purpose of the Prime Minister. I can recall that some years ago, the Prime Minister supported a motion to accept sterling. I am therefore hopeful that he will regard that proposal in a sympathetic way. I believe the proposal I put forward is the logical way in which to achieve the Prime Minister's objective of diverting 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the sterling area.
I listened to the long statement of the Minister of Finance this afternoon. After we have read that statement we shall have an opportunity to sift the wheat from the chaff, if we can find any. But I must say that on the face of it that statement does not seem to provide much hope for any considerable increase in trade. I say that for the reason that it does not provide for any substantial change in policy.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, my first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. Incidentally, may I say that I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding as between me and the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) as to the order of our speaking.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a special personal pleasure in congratulating the mover because for some years I was the deskmate in this house of his father whom I remember being referred to by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) who said so truly that we all loved him. I had the good fortune to be his seatmate and it is a pleasure to be in this house and to see the worthly son of a worthy father taking his place in the house. As to the seconder, I congratulate him as I congratulate every citizen of this country who is bilingual. It is my greatest regret that I am not bilingual. I especially congratulate the hon. member who seconded the motion on his excellent English.
It is perhaps natural, Mr. Speaker, for one who sat on the opposite side of the house for 12 years in the opposition to make some comments on the change which has
[Mr. Quelch.l
taken place. As I look across the floor sometimes it is hard for me to believe that I am looking at the same men. A change seems to have come. There is a strange look of selfconscious modesty, shall I say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It works both ways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If people can be modest in success, that is good. As I say, there is a certain selfconscious modesty to which we were not accustomed. We were accustomed to looking at men who seemed to have a good deal of, shall I say, self-esteem. I do not wish to put it more strongly than that. Indeed, I remember suggesting to them once that they might follow the prayer of the highland minister who said to his flock: "Oh Lord, if it be possible, make us worthy in some measure of the high esteem in which we hold ourselves". I hope that the then ministers took cognizance of what I said.
But the other thing that struck us sitting opposite them in those days was that the high esteem brought with it also a feeling of indispensability. It is surprising that even with the most modest men, when they have power for more than a certain amount of time I think a feeling of indispensability creeps over them. I had an illustration of it once some years ago when we in the opposition had won several by-elections. I had a very pleasant letter from a member of the government who congratulated me on the victory but who said, "Of course it could not happen in a general election, could it?"
I think that was the attitude that crept over members of the government. They felt that, among other things, we were not competent, that we could not form a government. I think the Canadian people felt differently and have demonstrated differently. But when the election came I think it was hardly dreamt of in their philosophy that anyone could take their place. I might describe their feeling I think as the feeling that the change could hardly have happened. I might describe it by the answer of the little boy who had learned his twelve times twelve tables and who when asked thirteen times two said "You can't". I feel that in the same way the members of the government, after being defeated on June 10, really felt "You can't".
After the Prime Minister's speech which was mild and, I felt, almost apologetic, I was reminded of Benjamin Disraeli's description of the treasury bench sitting opposite to him so many years ago. Here are his words describing the Liberal treasury bench sitting opposite:
Some took refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated between a menace and a sigh. As I sat opposite the treasury bench, the ministers reminded me of one of those marine

landscapes not very unusual on the coasts of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.
It is true that since then there have not been what I would call earthquakes, I would rather call them small tremors like the small outbursts from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and the milder one from the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler). But in general the attitude of the opposition has been conciliatory.
As for the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the former minister of health and welfare, it is interesting to see him in the opposition. We remember his technique in the government. We remember how. in answering questions, he would give more or less of an answer; he would use words having some vague relation to the question and then the desk would open and a prepared speech would be produced in which we had eloquent testimony to the excellence of the government. The question was just a peg on which to hang it. It was a well developed technique. Then the minister, as I said, would soar away, using the question as a springboard.
But I think the greatest surprise was the former minister of agriculture. Instead of a lion we had a lamb or, perhaps better, a dove of peace bearing olive branches. The only thing that seemed to be the same was the glass of water. The minister is fortunate because no one will doubt that it was a glass of water. No one will suspect that he did what Disraeli is reported to have done in one of his several-hour speeches. He was drinking frequently of a white liquid and it is said that the liquid was not water at all but gin and that he consumed two bottles of it during his speech. I admit that the speech was several hours long. No one will suspect the former minister of agriculture of doing that.
I was touched by the height of patriotic devotion he showed in explaining the attitude of the party. He claimed that it was in effect "high and lifted up", that it was going to concern itself only with the welfare of the country and not with any party advantage. He admonished the other parties in the house that they should do the same thing.
If the minister will allow me to do so, I should like to put in a little plug for him by relating a remark which I understand he made when he was first in this house. I have quoted it previously and I hope he will not
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell mind my quoting it here. The former minister. as all hon. members will observe, has not run to many unnecessary inches as have some other people in this house. Indeed, when the ex-minister stands up, not very much happens.
As I understand, the first time he stood up in this house a big fellow on the other side, as long as I am, twice as wide and three times as thick, said when the minister was already on his feet, "Stand up". There was a little titter at this but the then minister replied "In the part of the country where I come from, a man is reckoned according to what he has above the shoulders".
The former minister of transport, now the hon. member for Laurier, (Mr. Chevrier), several years ago left the Ottawa for the St. Lawrence but has now returned to the Ottawa. Whether he feels he chose the best moment to return I am not quite clear. I propose to say something about his speech of the other day later on.
In general I would wish to be encouraging to the opposition. I would like to say to them that we have always felt, and I think they have felt also, that the opposition was a necessary feature of government. They wanted the country to believe in democratic party government and you could not have democratic party government without an opposition. Therefore the government felt there must be an opposition, but of course it must not expect to win. Once a member of the government was reported to have made the statement that he did not know what the opposition was for. However, I think most of them knew what it was for and they felt that as long as it kept its place it was very useful. Now I would like to say to the opposition they will learn the duties of the opposition in time. After all they are men of intelligence and they are going to have plenty of time to learn their new duties.
I would say a word about the member for Algoma East. He has been pretty mild on the whole. I am just wondering whether he is going to sit it out. Really "he ain't saying nothing", and it may be that he has in fact decided to sit it out and wait to see what happens in January.
Now I would like to return to the Prime Minister's speech. I realize I have done the same thing as my leader has done. I correct myself and say I would like to return to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have done it twice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, have I done it twice? Well then I am equal to my Prime Minister and I hope I will not do it a third time.
326	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell It did not seem to me that the Leader of the Opposition put very much heart into it. Coming back to the words of Disraeli that it was between a menace and a sigh, I would not say there was much menace in it, I would say it was nearer to a sigh. He stood there with the remnants of his cabinet around him, hardly crediting the situation. I do not speak of the ones who are absent. There are certain absent faces, absent with the full consent of the Canadian people and these are casualties which, as I say, we remember very well and we should let them rest in peace.
Now the speech of the Leader of the Opposition seemed to me to be in defence, naturally, of the record of his cabinet and to contain a mild assertion that in any event whatever the last government had not done could not be done. Now no one denies the difficulties which have been left to us, but from both Britain and the United States we get a clear indication about the old government. I quote the words of the Cleveland Plain Dealer commenting on the Prime Minister's Dartmouth speech when he was discussing the Canadian-American problems:
Since the war the Liberal government preceding the Diefenbaker government administration was willing enough to let matters ride.
Similarly from the Financial Times of London on July 8 comes the comment that for a long time attempts to improve economic cooperation in the commonwealth had been handicapped by Canadian indifference. How convincing this is to me, having sat here for 12 years. How often in this house did the present Prime Minister and the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, seek to stir the government to action. It seemed to me like pushing a dead weight; they did not seem really interested. At best there was acquiescence in the idea of a conference. They were content to ride the crest of the American boom. One could never think of them as crusaders; they were more like camp followers. Now what do we get from the opposition? Well, we get words of discouragement. Things are not good, they say, but nothing can be done. That was the situation really, as outlined by the Prime Minister and by the member for Coast-Capilano-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the third time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, that is terrible and I apologize. It is hard to get over the results of 12 years and I still find it awfully difficult to turn to the left in order to bow to the Speaker.


James Sinclair: You are a real Tory, you do not change.
[Mr. MacdonnellJ


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I might be forgiven for my mistake.
No one denies the difficulties left us. The members of the late government should know that more than anyone else because we are their legatees of the problems of unsold wheat, a huge balance of imports from the the United States, the fear of rising United States tariffs to which the member for Coast-Capilano referred very properly the other day, unemployment and so on. We know we are the legatees from the opposition of these difficulties and we must recognize that legacy, but we will also try to remember what Churchill said on D-day "Don't talk to me of the difficulties, the difficulties will argue for themselves."
I believe and I am happy to believe that the new government has introduced a new spirit. I believe that the Prime Minister has taken, virtually from the dust-bin, ideas in which the previous government were not interested, and he has made people think and talk about them in a way that they have not done for years.
I think we can say that instead of gloom and hesitation, we now have action and hope. The trade difficulties with Britain and the United States are fully recognized but they have been grappled with. This has been recognized both at home and abroad. The Financial Times of London, in speaking of the commonwealth conference in London, referred to it as unusually successful and they gave credit to the present Prime Minister. I have already mentioned the statement that co-operation in the past was handicapped by Canadian indifference. Now on July 8 the Financial Times of London, referring to the commonwealth economic conference as a desirable achievement, said that the Prime Minister has "shaken up the settled and defeatist thinking which had already abandoned hope of the expansion of commonwealth trade". Those are their words and I believe them to be true, in fact they so exactly express my own feelings that I wish I had written them myself.
This I think describes well what has been done. If the spirit is right impossible things can be accomplished. I remember the music hall catch phrase, "where there is a will there are three ways". Well, I think there has not been a will and while difficulties remain and we do not have any magic wand with which to brush them off, nevertheless there is a new spirit.
The Montreal Gazette stressed the importance of the conference and mentions very properly the anxiety that Britain might move more and more into the European trade orbit. This is an appealing reason for vigorous

action and for this reason, to quote again the Gazette, "the Prime Minister's proposal comes just at the moment when the needs and opportunities of commonwealth trade ought to be put forward."
Let us now turn to the United States. There are problems there which we all know exist and there again the Prime Minister has spoken and his remarks on the American situation and the general attitude he has expressed have been seriously and favourably received by the American press. The Washington Post refers to the Prime Minister's frank yet friendly remarks and goes on to say that "the traditional friendship of the two countries can only be preserved and fostered by such straightforward exchange of views." This speech of the Prime Minister incidentally was carried over the C.B.S. national network and the New York Times refers to it as "a sobering indictment coming from one who is clearly a champion of Canadian-United States unity." Further on, referring to the Prime Minister's "spirit of candor" and willingness to seek mutually satisfactory solutions, it said these provide a setting for ironing out the present irritants.
We are not content with words; action is not lacking. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has been to Europe and is organizing an imposing delegation of well-known businessmen to go there again soon. I think it is fair to say that what vigour, courage and imagination can accomplish has been and will be done.
It is true that time has been lost. The last government was content to ride the crest of the wave and even now there is evidence that the former government does not know the score. The former minister of finance in a speech the other day complained that the new government was upsetting "normal and healthy trade lanes". I wonder if he has heard of the imbalance of trade? I wonder if he has heard of the danger of higher tariffs and all the other difficulties which confront us? I wonder if, in the light of that, he is complaining that there is a vigorous and sincere attempt being made to marshal the countries in the commonwealth to deal with them, an effort which has been set on foot by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and in which he is so ably seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to digress a moment in order to speak about one thing which was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in his quality as a socialist. I am never very clear whether the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is a real socialist, but certainly this sounded like a socialist utterance. He referred to price controls during the last war and spoke of the
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell kind of public planning that was used then and seemed willing to return to it. I wonder how far the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is ready to go. Does he really want the wartime controls back? Does he really want, for example, wage controls? Does he want to go back to the hordes of officials which existed then?
I am going to read to the house for a few moments a few sentences describing what controls were like before they were abolished. Here is a brief picture of controls as they existed at the end of the war: First, we have the chairman, the deputy chairman and members of the board. Then we have what are called the head office divisions, of which there are twelve, each with a supervisor or secretary or controller, as the case may be. Then we come to what are called the associated companies, of which there are several. Then we go on to what are called co-ordinations. These include capital equipment, foods, pulp and paper, textiles and clothing, and emergency shelter. Then we go on to a directory of administrations, and here we really plunge into big things, because on a short count I find that the directory of administrations includes about 150. I should like to direct your attention to just a few of them. There is one for books and writing paper; for cork and cork products; for fertilizers and pesticides; clothing and woollens; honey. There is jewellery, which is divided into seven categories. There is meat and meat products; there is fruit. There is one category which I find very interesting: cleaning, decorating, hairdressing, painting, renovating, undertaking, warehousing and storage.
Is this really what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar wants? May I remind him that the British labour party has been steering away from controls for some years. Several years ago at their annual meeting there was a striking vote against nationalization. At their recent meeting their policy with regard to nationalization was watered down to the following further extent:
"Labour will reserve the right to extend public ownership in any industry or part of industry which, after thorough investigation, is found to be seriously failing the nation. This will not necessarily mean taking over the entire industry; it may be that the solution will lie in the acquisition for the community of one or a number of firms."
In other words, this is a striking illustration of the way in which United Kingdom labour policy is turning away from nationalization. And this is indicated particularly by its new policy to allow the proposed national pension fund to invest in equities provided these acquisitions are to be guided solely by investment considerations and will not be aimed at securing control.
328	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
May I tell the hon. member at once that we are not against planning. No sensible man is against planning. But who is to do the planning? Is it to be done by a few bureaucrats, or is to be done by hundreds of thousands of individuals each working to the limit of his power? Where government enters is in the field of regulation. There must be regulation-no one denies that-but this idea of control, this blessed word "planning" seems to me to be entirely contrary to our way of life and to our welfare. Planning, after all, means executing. There is no use attempting to plan unless you make people conform to those plans. We have had enough evidence in the past 20 years to enable us to know what planning means, and I never will understand how my socialist friends believe you can have planning and controls and still have freedom. As the negro gentleman said: "Dem two t'ings don't paralyse".
I hope the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar can, perhaps, answer me on another occasion. I am very sorry he is not here now, because we all have a great respect for him, and it surprises me beyond measure to hear him use those words about planning and controls.
Incidentally, with regard to controls as a cure for inflation, the hon. member will find, if he will look up the records, that prices rose during war time. I remember, too, being told by someone who went into a shop that he could not get what he wanted because manufacturers sheered away from making the standard things, the ordinary articles in common use, and tried to manufacture substitutes which were not under control and which would not come under the letter of the law. I have no time to say more than that.
I want to say something now about the hon. member for Laurier. He was in this house a few years ago and he then had the esteem of us all. I will say that I used to observe sometimes that when he got into the constituencies his language did not seem to be entirely the same as the language he used here in the house. But be that as it may, he was a good friend and we liked him.
I was very sorry indeed to hear the line he took the other day. It seems to me he was trying to create disunity. It seems to me he was trying to set one province against another. He went back half a century in this quest and, what was even more regrettable, he gave a lead to others who seemed to follow on the same lines. I suggest he might have gone a little further back still and if he had done so he might have found that when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was first prime minister and went to Europe he had these words to 

say, speaking in Paris, about his country. Speaking of the motto of the French republic: "liberty, fraternity and equality" he said:
All that there is of worth, of greatness, of generosity in that device, we have today in Canada:	that is our conquest. We have liberty,
absolute, complete, . . . liberty for our religion, with its worship, its ceremonies, its prayers, its customs: liberty for our language, which is the official language as English is. Equality is ours; fraternity is ours. There is with us no domination of one race over another . . .
I suggest to the hon. member for Laurier that he might have been better employed in bringing this to our attention rather than in seeking, seeking, seeking for past events on which to base suggestions of discord.
I wish to say this. I believe that the present Leader of the Opposition-I got it right that time-so far as he was personally concerned was completely in the Laurier tradition and I hope the hon. member for Laurier may perhaps from here on follow the Laurier tradition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He always has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The word "always"
covers a lot of territory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He always has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was at pains to say that I thought he sometimes did and I hope he always will in the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any doubt.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Our Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he is in the tradition which was followed by Laurier and which was established by Macdonald in his day when there was complete understanding and sympathy between the provinces. This divisive influence came in later. I will not be too specific about that, but we all know where it came from. I say our present Prime Minister seeks nothing but full, complete understanding between the races and I am quite sure he will do everything to promote it.
(Translation):
I hope and believe that those who served with me in this house will agree that I have always sincerely desired racial understanding and good will. The day before yesterday, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) eloquently expressed my views. Surely, racial feeling between the two original races should be put away once and for all. We of the two old races have shared joys and sorrows in peace and war, and I believe that our party, now that it is in power, will give such a lead that we may look confidently to closer and closer racial sympathy and understanding.

(Text):
What I have been trying to say in my poor French is this: I hope and believe those who have served with me in this house will agree that I have sincerely desired racial understanding and good will. The day before yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) eloquently expressed my views. Surely racial feeling between the two original races should be put away once and for all. We of the two old races have shared joys and sorrows in peace and war and I believe that our party, now that it is in power, will give such a lead that we may look confidently to closer and closer racial sympathy and understanding.
It is four months since the election. What is the record? Speaking with, I believe, some detachment, because I have not the burden of a department, I can say that never in my experience have men worked harder. Paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill, I might say never was more work done by so few in so short a time. They have worked desperately hard.
Now as to quality. If we judge by one of the great acid tests, the answering of questions in this house,-and bear in mind that they had only a few months to master situations which some of the questioners had been familiar with for years-my feeling, with whatever detachment I am capable of, is that we in this party have everything to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of in what they have done. I believe the people of Canada will so regard us. Legislation has come forward and will come forward rapidly, giving complete evidence of the implementing of promises which were made. The Prime Minister has made a distinct impression on the economic thinking of the United States and of the commonwealth and has paved the way, not for magic solution, but for patient and enduring struggle with the problems which exist between us and the United States on the one side and between us and the commonwealth on the other. I believe that when the people of Canada survey what has been done if we are able to carry on as we have done, as I believe we surely shall, when the time comes for another election there will be no doubt as to the result and we shall come back with a complete and over-all majority.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the address my first words must be to thank Her Majesty with great respect for opening this parliament in person and for reading in person the address which we are now debating. The participation of Her Majesty in these historic ceremonies gave 96698-22
The Address-Mr. Pearson them a deeper meaning, I think, to all of us and emphasized the continuity of our historical development and the depth of our roots. For her visit we are all, I think, better Canadians and better members of the commonwealth of nations.
Then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to congratulate you on your elevation to this office of dignity and importance. If I may be pardoned a personal remark perhaps I have known you for as long a time as any member in this house. Our friendship has been warm and close; for, among other things, we played hockey together at college. While we have been opponents in recent years in our political activities we have never allowed, and never will allow, that to interfere with our friendship.
May I also, and in no mere perfunctory manner, congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The seconder will not, I think, take it amiss if I say to the mover a special word, not only because it was his maiden speech, as it was the maiden speech of the seconder, but because, as so many hon. members have remarked, of the position which his father held in this house for such a long time. His memory will always be regarded by those of us who were fortunate enough to know him with respect and affection.
This, Mr. Speaker, of course, is the first speech I have made on this side of the house, and I confess, with hon. members opposite, particularly perhaps the hon. member who just sat down who referred three times to one of us over here as the prime minister, it is not easy to get accustomed to this change of venue. The way I show my uncertainty, if I may use that word, is that even now when I come into the house I invariably turn left and bow, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will not consider that a reflection on yourself but rather an indication of my continuing esteem and affection for my leader who sits to my left. He was my minister when I was a deputy. He was my prime minister when I was a minister and he will always be my chief whatever may happen in the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the interesting and amiable political musings of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. He perhaps did not give us as much information about the policies of the government of which he is a member as we might have hoped for. He spent a good deal of his time, and this is another indication that he has forgotten where he is sitting, in criticizing those of us over here who are now the opposition. Nevertheless we should be thankful
330	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson because he is, I think, the only minister who has taken part in this debate up to the present time.
When he mentions the self-esteem, as he put it, which gathered around us when we sat on that side-I am not quarrelling with him for his interpretation of our attitudes, he might remember his own words; I hope they are not going to portray the attitude of the present government to the opposition-when he indicated to us that the role of the opposition might be, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill quoted by him, "Don't tell me of the difficulties". I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that we will do just that.
If I may I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of the government and, indeed, the members of the government party for the measure of success which they achieved at the last general election and also perhaps for the easy and ostensibly comfortable way that they are adapting themselves to their new positions. They are, however-I hope they will pardon me for saying this-beginning to show certain of the attitudes which when they imputed them so often to us, and unfairly, I think, they found very disagreeable.
I noticed with some interest that the Prime Minister in a speech outside the house insisted that he and his government were not going to be pushed around by the opposition and I detected just a faint note of expectancy that perhaps that attempt would be made with results that he might be able to exploit to his political advantage and which might serve for the time being at least as a substitute for the heavy responsibility of trying to fulfil his electoral promises.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the hon. gentleman who has just sat down mentioned the circumstances of their accession to power. You might have thought from, if I may call it that, the characteristic exuberance of the language of the Prime Minister that they had inherited declining revenues, a shrinking national income, a deteriorating economy, an arrested national development and foreign markets gone or going. Of course, as all of us know, no matter on what side of the house we sit that would be a caricature of the real situation because the fact is that the government inherited a situation in this country where over years of Liberal administration Canada had experienced, in spite of the many gloomy opposition forecasts that the contrary would happen; I can remember so many of them from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell)-a period of unprecedented economic progress, of national development and international achievement unparallelled in the history of the country.


And when, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party took over, the position of this country-[DOT] we all know this to be true-financially, economically and internationally was the envy of the world. What happens from now on will inevitably be compared with that position, and I am sure the opposition will not complain about that. I admit, of course, as we all admit -the hon. member who just sat down referred to it-that they inherited problems, many serious problems; problems that faced us in June and face us today, and which we have always admitted. But they were problems of development, not of depression; they were problems of advance, not of retreat.
I confess that a good many of these problems seem to me to have been discussed in the recent past by some members of the government in a way which indicated that they were rather not expecting to have the responsibility of solving them. They did, however, during those days and weeks and months make specific, categorical and confident statements that they would solve them, not at some vague and future date but quickly and decisively because the Prime Minister is a quick and decisive gentleman. It is in the light of these statements and the implementation of the promises that they contain that this government will be judged.
I had thought, Mr. Speaker, of talking about external affairs today because it is the subject about which I am normally expected to talk, but I am not going to do so for two reasons. One is that the Prime Minister has promised, and I hope the promise will be implemented without delay, a debate on the international situation. In view of the character, the stress and strain and dangers of that situation the sooner we can have that discussion the better it will be for parliament and perhaps even for the country. The other reason why I am not going to refer to external affairs on this occasion is the statement that was introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and which has certainly intensified my own interest and my own desire to say something about the matters which he dealt with in the house this afternoon on motions.
The first of the matters he dealt with and the first which I will try to deal with is the promise to divert 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. We know, I think, although not much reference was made to it this afternoon, of the origin of what I consider to be an extraordinary, using "extraordinary" in the very literal sense of the word, initiative in economic diplomacy. This proposal originated in a statement by the Prime Minister to the press after a trans-Atlantic air flight from

London where he had been attending the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting. At that time he is reported as having said that he would like to see about a 15 per cent diversion and he did not think that this would be detrimental to Canada-United States business generally.
There was some speculation-indeed, I took part in the speculation myself-that this 15 per cent figure had been chosen without much consideration of what it really meant and that it might soon be forgotten. Not at all. In Ottawa on July 23, not long afterwards, the Prime Minister reaffirmed this figure and that 15 per cent of Canada's purchases in the United States of America could be diverted to the United Kingdom without damaging this country's commercial relations with our neighbour. I think it is fair to say that the impression was created, whether or not it was meant to be created- it certainly was created in my mind-that just as his predecessor, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, had promised shortly after he was elected to blast his way into the markets of the world, so the present Prime Minister thought it would be possible to blast 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will just go on, Mr. Speaker. As I was hoping to explain, it would take quite an atomic blast. Let us just see what is involved. I think this is one of the most careless assertions ever made by any head of a Canadian government. In saying that I do not for one minute suggest that if it could be done by the right method, and without doing this country any harm in other ways, it would not be a good thing to do. However, let us just see whether or not it could be done in that way. This 15 per cent might seem to be a small amount, but it means the diversion of $625 million worth of trade from one country to another. This would not be done, of course, over the next 20, 40 or 50 years; that is not the impression that was given. It would be done by switching from one tap to another, in the doing of which we would help the United Kingdom, whom we are all anxious to help and we *help ourselves in doing so. Also in doing it we would escape or help to escape United States domination. This is a phrase we heard quite often from members of the present government before June 10, but not nearly so much since.
Let us get back to a consideration of what this actually means. It means an increase in United Kingdom exports to Canada of 130 per cent over the 1956 figure. In 1956, the
96698-22J
The Address-Mr. Pearson United Kingdom took 8.5 per cent of our exports, and a 15 per cent increase in that figure would bring it up to 19.5 per cent. The only time since 1921 that that figure was ever reached was during the depression of 1932 to 1936. We know the reason for the high United Kingdom percentage then. I admit, of course, that there was some diversion by reason of the Ottawa conference arrangements, but even more that change was due to the fact that the depression cut down United States imports far more than those of the United Kingdom because of the nature of the United Kingdom imports. However, more important than that is the fact that while at that time the United Kingdom percentage was higher, it was only a bigger slice of a much smaller pie.
Surely, we do not want to take any steps which might bring about an experience of that kind of diversion in 1957. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that since those days the United States share of our market has grown, and we know why. There has been a change in consumer demand in Canada away from the United Kingdom and towards the United States type of goods; the ability of the United States salesmanship to take advantage of this; the United States distribution and transportation arrangements give them an advantage over the United Kingdom. Then there are the price and supply advantages generally.
Then, and this is very important; it is due in part at least, and in no small part, to a great increase in United States investment in Canada, which was bound to increase the United States imports because capital export must mean an export of goods. This export from the United States, without which our development of recent years could not have proceeded in the way it did proceed, came at a time when the United Kingdom, because of the sacrifices which she had made in world war II and of which we are all the beneficiaries, was not in a position to make similar investments. The United Kingdom was not in a position to take advantage to the fullest extent of the Canadian market. The question of sterling balances in London made it of the utmost importance that they seek markets for their goods in areas where competition would not be so keen. All this I think, Mr. Speaker, puts this proposed change in our pattern of trade in the proper perspective.
Now, what about this 15 per cent diversion as a practical proposition? The statistics and nature of our trade show that in perhaps 60 per cent of our imports from the United States little, if any, diversion is possible. In order to reach 15 per cent of the total, or that figure of $625 million, we would have to

The Address-Mr. Pearson divert one-third of the other imports where there is at least a possibility of such diversion. This means that the United Kingdom's share of the Canadian market in these categories of goods would have to be more than trebled. I refer to such things as textiles, chemicals, iron and steel products, transportation and industrial equipment. I ask the question, could that possibly be done without seriously affecting Canadian industry?
How, whatever the result, could it be attempted? There are various methods. First, of course, it might be done by persuasion, by the use of the slogan "Buy British" and all that kind of thing. We have been trying that in this country officially and nonofficially for a good many years. We have in being at the present time a very efficient and very industrious dollar-sterling export board under the leadership of Mr. Duncan which has done as much as any board could do towards diverting trade through this means. We have sent trade missions and they have sent trade missions. There is nothing new in that. I do not think it will be done by voluntary action, though anything that can be done would be welcome by all of us.
What about governmental action? What form could that take? First, perhaps it could take the form of tariff reductions, but there are a few facts on this score that bear on such a proposal. The first one is that 60 per cent of United Kingdom imports into this country are free of duty now. Of the 40 per cent remaining, a large proportion of them come in under very low duties. In 1949 when the devaluation of the British pound gave the British exporter an additional 20 per cent advantage over his competitor from the United States by a reduction in tariffs, which was brought about by that devaluation, the United Kingdom was not aided very much in increasing exports to Canada or displacing United States goods. What about renegotiated tariff schedules upwards under GATT, without discrimination, and keeping British preferences? Mr. Speaker, this procedure might keep out a few United States goods, and it might bring in a few more British goods. However, it might also bring in a few more goods from countries such as Japan and Germany as well as the United Kingdom. It might also, indeed I think it would, reduce our trade generally and, going back to the old days, to the thirties, only give the United Kingdom a higher proportion of a smaller market. It would be a return to the restrictive tariff principles of the early thirties with the result which I am sure we do not wish to repeat in 1957. It would increase prices and costs of production in


Canada and make it more difficult for our exporters to compete in world markets. In short, it would have a restrictive effect on trade, something for which this party has never stood and will not stand.
There then remains direct discrimination against United States exports to Canada. This brings up at once the question of GATT, to which my friends opposite have once again pledged their support in the communique from Washington. What about our efforts to broaden the basis of trade, to increase our trade with the United Kingdom in an expanding and not a restrictive international market? More important even than that, what about United States retaliation? There is a very real danger, as my hon. friends probably know, of that happening. When we were in office we tried hard, we did our best, to keep the United States government from adding to its duties and its controls against our products. We were not able to accomplish all the things we had hoped, but we did have very considerable success in that regard.
But if the Canadian government now threatens, or even more if they were actually successful in bringing about a diversion by discriminatory governmental action,-and what other way is there to do it short of free trade?-how long will this government be able to persuade-and I quote just one example which is very much in our mind now-Washington not to raise the present duty on fish or not to put a duty on fish? The pressures in that direction are already very great, as the report, from the tariff commission over there indicates. Those pressures would probably be intolerable for any United States administration if there was any threatening of discriminatory action from this side of the border. I think the government should be warned on this matter.
So we come to the final method by which it might be done, namely the establishment of a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada. The United Kingdom government took seriously the Prime Minister's offer of the 15 per cent diversion, although I confess that some unkind people put it that they decided to call the Prime Minister's bluff. The result-an indication that they took it seriously-was the free trade proposal made by the United Kingdom government through the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the only practicable way of implementing the Canadian proposal. We know that in September of this year the minister of agriculture of the United Kingdom had not put forward, as we learned this afternoon, any formal proposal to this end but had indicated in Ottawa that this idea was very much in their mind.

The public offer, however, was first made- and I admit it was an unusual way in which to make it-at a press conference held in connection with the Mont Tremblant conference of finance ministers. Some of the details surrounding it, however, were, I was going to say, made clear-perhaps that is not exactly the right expression-were given to us this afternoon. What was the Canadian government's reaction to this offer by the United Kingdom government through the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Mont Tremblant? It was not what we had a right to expect it would be. It was one of surprise and consternation. Why the surprise, apart from the fact that there may have been earlier informal consideration of this matter. This was the only possible way in which the offer could be implemented. As the Manchester Guardian put it on September 20:
The total of 15 per cent looks impracticable unless Mr. Diefenbaker is prepared to risk both unpopularity and upsetting the rhythm of parts of industry in Canada.
So the United Kingdom proposal was made and made seriously. Then silence fell on the Canadian Prime Minister and his colleagues where silence, though still golden, has lately not been customary. It was no doubt hoped that the whole unhappy business could be swept under the rug. There was not a word from the Prime Minister. There was not a word from the Minister of Finance except that it was a difficult proposition. There were a great many words from the Minister of Finance this afternoon but not many that threw much light on the government's attitude towards this proposal.
Then we remember-those of us who watched television-the appearance of the Minister of Finance when he was explaining this Mont Tremblant conference. I gathered the impression-and I hope that I am not being unfair to him-that on this occasion and in connection with this particular proposition he had lost some of his steely confidence. Why no welcome of this proposal, at least in principle, because it was the only way by which the 15 per cent could be diverted without direct discriminatory action against the United States. Why no appraisal of it for parliament or the people of Canada, even if that appraisal had to be an agonizing one.
Some journalists at Mont Tremblant reported that there was a Canadian government reaction and that it was one of "alarm and hostility". Is that right? Is there any information concerning it in the communique issued after the United Kingdom-Canadian talks in Ottawa? There is none. It was set aside as something of a long-term nature only. That was supposed to satisfy us in
The Address-Mr. Pearson
parliament and to satisfy the people in the country in connection with a proposal which has not been exceeded in importance in economic matters for many years in this country.
Instead of any indication of the government's decision on that proposal, we were given in the communique three decisions to increase British exports to this country. In so far as those proposals can be worked out they are to be welcomed. But what about the 15 per cent, no part of which would be affected by the proposals in the Ottawa communique? As Mr. Blakely of the Gazette said on October 7, and I think perhaps he is right in this: "The hair raising British free trade area proposal has been shelved". But, Mr. Speaker, it has not been shelved without some damage already being done to Anglo-Canadian relations because recriminations have already begun on both sides and misunderstandings have been created as to the nature of this proposal and as to whether it is, in fact, to be implemented.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let me just try to give some evidence of what I have said,-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Try.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and which seems to amuse the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). The Hamilton Spectator, no great supporter of the Liberal party, says this:
-it was callous of the British government merely to ridicule PM's offer by making proposals that were manifestly absurd.
Then there is the Globe and Mail of Toronto which was friendly enough to this proposal on October 2 when it first commented on it. Then something seems to have happened, because a few days later the same paper became extremely violent about the chancellor of the exchequer to whom it referred in terms which it often has used in respect of Americans whom it has disliked. That editorial-and this again surely does not help Anglo-Canadian relations-talks about
-casual even callous action-
Referring to Mr. Thorneycroft:
-his flambuoyant outburst . .	. calamitous
lapse of taste and judgment ... by one ill-considered action he did serious harm to Anglo-Canadian relationships .	.	. his diplomacy of a
kind we expect from Moscow not London.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why such an attack as this is made on the British government for taking a serious and obvious step in reply to a proposal made by the Canadian Prime Minister. The Economist, a magazine which my friend the hon. member for Greenwood so often quotes in this house, said on October
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson 5 that Mr. Thorneycroft,-referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer-in putting his proposal forward,
-is saying, in clinical terms, what the statement by all the commonwealth finance ministers said in the usual pious phraseology on Tuesday, at the end of their meeting at Mont Tremblant, when they advocated in aid of the pound sterling the promotion of "freer and expanding trade and payments."
Then also this editorial in The Economist commented as follows:
What is needed in commonwealth trade is a sense of shock and a clearing away of doubletalk. Mr. Thorneycroft has administered the first; now is the time to get on with the second.
Mr. Speaker, I commend that advice to the government. They have had their shock, so let us clear away the doubletalk.


Mr. Hodgson:: I think you fellows had a shock too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us hear what their policy is going to be with respect to this matter. We have heard nothing about it yet.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: What is your policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our policy over here is to get the government which is responsible to tell the people of Canada what their policy is.


An hon. Member:: Well it is a lot better than yours ever have been, anyway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to add a few comments about the Mont Tremblant conference and the upshot of that conference in respect to the commonwealth economic situation, but I see that my time is running short and I will reserve my comments on that subject for another day.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why do you not go back and tell us about the Suez affair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to talk to my hon. friend either inside or outside the house on that matter at any time that it is proper to do so.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I hope you will have an opportunity to talk to me outside the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend referred to the Suez affair and I commend him to the new Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Smith, who took such a realistic attitude with respect to that matter.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You probably will not have time to talk to me about that outside of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now the Prime Minister
spoke with his customary vigour at Charlottetown a few weeks ago. According to the press, and that is all I have to go on, he


indicated that as a result of his Dartmouth speech, which we have all read with so much interest, the United States had made a new appraisal of its trade policies and of certain measures which had not been passed at the recent session of congress. Therefore, in the light of that optimistic forecast respecting the influence of the Canadian government in Washington we might have been pardoned for expecting great results from this Washington meeting. Well, did they occur? I think it has never been better put than by Mr. Blakely the columnist in the Montreal Gazette, when he wrote that there had been other pilgrimages to Washington-and I have taken part in them myself- which could be said to have produced nothing, but it is doubtful there have been any which could be said to have produced less than this one. The Gazette, I think although I am not sure it was on the same day, in its editorial columns, in explaining some of the difficulties that have to be faced, described this pilgrimage as a force less than irresistible which met an object not perceptibly movable.
Now with respect to the Washington communique which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance discussed at some length this afternoon, I might say I know something about communiques issued after international conferences and I have had a good deal of experience in reading between their lines. I have indeed compared this one with two other communiques previously issued after such conferences, but in this case we do not have to read between the lines. The secretary of commerce is reported to have said, which statement was explained in this house this afternoon, "We fixed them". I know it was explained by the Minister of Finance that he was speaking in a jocular way and I am sure he did not expect those words to be reproduced in the press. Perhaps that makes them all the more impressive.
The Minister of Finance referred this afternoon to the fine atmosphere of the conference and I am sure the atmosphere was fine. He said, although he did not use these words, that we really laid it on the line and made known the Canadian position exactly and in much stronger terms than previously. However, the United States undersecretary of state in charge of economic affairs, as reported in Washington, is said to have expressed some satisfaction-and perhaps the satisfaction is understandable in view of the feeling he would have had in advance of the arrival of this delegation-and to have said that the general climate on the wheat problem at these talks was better than that at the meeting he attended in Ottawa before the election. I suspect it was because at

that earlier meeting the United States government was left in no doubt as to our views and there was no desire on their part at that time to issue a communique in which we would have expressed our views.
The communique speaks for itself-the Americans will do "what they can" to help us. They will do away with these barter transactions of which my hon. friend made so much this afternoon, without emphasizing the fact that this position was taken by them before the election. It was taken, as I understand it, not in the summer as he suggests, but last April. Then the Minister of Finance explained that it was different this time in Washington. To quote from a press statement made by him on leaving that city he said:
The barter suspension has been confirmed in a Canadian context-
Whatever that may mean.
__and this places it now on a level of an international agreement beyond domestic pressures.
I would say to my hon. friend that in the light of the experience I have had in negotiating and discussing economic matters with the United States I would never have gone out on that limb. I think he probably will very soon regret his confidence.
There has been domestic pressure brought before on their congress to alter an arrangement made previously by the administration. Well, Mr. Speaker, we will see what will happen. I, like all members of this house, hope that the result will be as forecast and that the Americans will abandon these arrangements and these practices. However the most important one and perhaps the most dangerous one has not even been mentioned in the communique. That is the question of tied-in sales. In short I think we will be making a great mistake if we go overboard with optimism on the results of this conference. This talk took place-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, the rather positive speech which we have just heard reminds me of when I first entered Victoria college in 1946. I noticed a mark up on the wall and I inquired as to how it got there-it was a sort of grease stain. I was told that a number of years ago a very radical undergraduate in a moment of protest had hurled a plate of butter at the wall. I inquired as to the name of the undergraduate and what had happened to him and it was reported that he was the secretary of state for external affairs. Now the story is probably apocryphal but it is very interesting for me as a new member to sit here and watch him
The Address-Mr. Fisher spread butter in an entirely new way. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to add my mite-spelled "mite"-to the congratulatory credits which have been accorded to you, to your deputy and to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the motions.
A maiden speech is usually or reportedly a moment of emotion and, at emotional times, I tend to turn to my favourite poet Sarah Binks, the prairie songstress. But not only do we have some Saskatchewan songsters here in my own party, we have a really sonorous and melodious songster on the treasury bench and so I am going to move on without any metered flourishes to the flat directness of northwestern Ontario. I plan to cover the following topics.
Firstly, the significance of the electoral result in the constituency of Port Arthur; secondly the role of the press and television in the political campaign; thirdly the problems of the constituency of Port Arthur; and fourthly, some questions on the principles and ideas of Liberals and Conservatives. That is to say the parties, not the small "1" liberal or the small "c" conservative.
Love and liking have been very noticeable in the drama which has so far unfolded in the House of Commons. Everybody loves democracy, everybody loves the monarchy, everybody loves the French language, everybody loves the old age pensioner, almost everybody loves the speech from the throne, everyone likes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) and everyone has a great deal of respect for the Speaker.
In this sweet atmosphere I felt that I could do no less than express from a distance my appreciation of an association even in a minor way, with some of the great figures of this house.
For example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)-it is a conviction of mine that members of parliament do to some extent reflect the personality or the character of their constituents. A number of years ago, I earned my living in Toronto by delivering beer. Some routes in the city were much more prized than others. The member who represents Cabbagetown, or whose constituency covers that ward, may be interested to know, for example, that this area was a favourite one-one of the most prized in the city-because of the tips that were given- and one occasionally got something else as a reward for bringing the product around. One section of the city was very unpopular. That was the area of prosperity above St. Clair and centring on Eglinton. There the good women invariably insisted on a backdoor delivery, often asked that the truck be parked several doors up the way, and were very careful to give only the exact change.
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fisher If the hon. minister reflects such circumspect frugality, he will make an ideal minister of finance. Of course, I will watoh him closely, because we all remarked how the occasional Eglinton area housewife liked to scrub out a ketchup bottle and slip it in so as to pose as a lager bottle and reap the three cents.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very interested in watching the development of the party on my extreme left. I am sorry that there is to be no debate on health insurance or anything like that in the immediate future, because 1 would like to know the attitude of that party toward naturopathic medicine. I am wondering, too, whether they have any views on the McGill fence.
One last bit of personalia, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the illustrious graduate of Victoria who is soon going to face problems in that direction. I hope the ghostly pipers of the 1948 Liberal convention will not march again, and if they do that they will not march successfully. We in this comer hope no young Lochinvar from the border comes and grabs the Liberal maiden early in 1958.
The two constituencies to the west of Port Arthur and the two constituencies to the east of Port Arthur returned Liberal members on June 10. A careless observer might say that Port Arthur's failure to do so reflected a weakness in the candidate. With all respect to the successful Liberals, such reasoning will not do. There are some reasons which I would offer for the failure of the former minister of trade and commerce to return here. I am not impudent enough to be Mr. Howe's valedictorian. The great corporations and trusts of Canada will do and are doing that chore. I would suggest, however, that our electoral victory in Port Arthur does represent a vindication for the view that the Canadian people want parliament to retain its right of free discussions, and that an abstract issue can be taken seriously by the voters. Further, the campaign in Port Arthur reveals, in my opinion, that when a C.C.F. candidate is in a fairly equal position in presenting his party's policies, a goodly portion of the electorate can appreciate its merits. One accolade one can bestow on Mr. Howe is that he never used his tremendous

power to build up a personal machine in his riding. There was no P.F.R.A. in the constituency of Port Arthur.
On this matter of party warfare and party machines I would like to refer one of the members of the treasury branch to a newsletter, No. 177, of the Canadian chamber of commerce which said:
Not very long ago a prominent provincial politician is reported to have said 'It is no secret that the country represented by the (party in power) member has a better chance of getting government help than a country where (an opposition) member is elected . . . That is only human nature, and there is nothing we can do to change that. This, in effect, tells the voters of that particular area that unless they vote the right way they can expect nothing from the government.
Recently a minister of the new government, on a lightning foray into the lakehead, made the remark that he was unaware of a certain contentious problem until the defeated Conservative candidate directed it to his notice. Gamesmanship such as this is of the spirit that the Canadian chamber of commerce deplores in its newsletter. May we have no more of it, even if in this case, Liberal members were the whipping boys.
On motion of Mr. Fisher the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorow we shall proceed with the resolution to provide for cash advances on grain. In view of the fact that we are not going on with the debate on the speech from the throne, I think the house will meet at 2.30 p.m. rather than at eleven o'clock in the morning. If there should be time left after this resolution has been dealt with the house will proceed to consider the four resolutions having to do with old age pensions, old age assistance, blind persons' pensions and disability pensions, and if we should succeed in completing all this business we will come back to the speech from the throne.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the announcement which has been made regarding tomorrow's business, this house stands adjourned until 2.30.


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

Questions

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

Mr. Shaw: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of renovations made to the armoury at Innisfail, Alberta?
2.	What is the estimated cost of completing such renovations?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of
National Defence):
1.	Total cost of renovations since 1952- $20,600.
2.	It is estimated that an additional sum of $775 will be required to complete these renovations.


C.B.C.-BOOSTER STATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is it imperative that the C.B.C. radio booster stations now serving small isolated communities do continue to broadcast only the trans-Canada network programs, even though the dominion network programs are readily available to these stations?
2.	Has the C.B.C. received any requests from the communities served by such stations to have a switch to the dominion network from the trans-Canada network or to have an intermixing of such programs?
3.	Have any of the operators of such stations been threatened with dismissal for making the switch for certain programs on their own initiative?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minisier of
National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
advises:
1.	It is necessary for operating and financial reasons that the C.B.C. radio relay stations in question generally carry trans-Canada network service, except that, in some instances where arrangements can be made without disrupting main network services, certain special programs from the dominion network are fed to the relay stations.
2.	No. A few requests have been received from individuals.
3.	No information available as the operators in question are not employees of the C.B.C.


C.B.C.-NOTICE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How long is it since the C.B.C. issued a consolidated printing of the rules and regulations regarding the activities of private radio and television broadcasters?
2.	If such a consolidation has not been made recently, is one contemplated?
3.	How many regulations have been issued annually in each of the last three calendar years?
4.	When a regulation is cancelled or superseded what action is taken to give the private stations a convenient record of the matter?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of Naiional Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises:
1.	The last complete issue of C.B.C. regulations for broadcasting stations was made in mimeograph form as of December 1, 1955.
2.	Since the present issue is still up to date no further issue is contemplated until there is a change in the regulations.
3.	1955-3 changes in regulations; 1956 and 1957-none.
4.	All stations are advised by special letter; in addition shortly afterwards they are supplied with a new revised issue of the regulations.


PLAYING FIELD, R.M.C., KINGSTON
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the final cost of the playing field and stands constructed at the Royal Military College, Kingston, near the causeway?
2.	Is this field used to any extent?
3.	If this field is not used what are the reasons for it?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of Naiional Defence):
1.	$24,700.
2.	Yes. This field is used by the R.M.C. cadets for football games and track training practices.
3.	Not applicable.


LOBSTER CONSERVATION, N.B.  ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries published in New Brunswick's daily or weekly newspapers any ads or publications having to do with the conservation of the lobster population, during the period January 1 to September 30, 1957?
2.	If so, what were the names of the daily or weekly newspapers and number of ads published in each?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
1.	Yes.
No. of
2. Newspaper	Ads
Fundy Fisherman, Black's Harbour 1
St. Croix Courier, St. Stephen__	1
King's County Record, Sussex ...	1
The Gleaner, Fredericton	 1
Telegraph-J ournal-Times-
Globe, Saint John	 1
Tribune Post, Sackville	 2
Commercial World, Chatham_______	6
Gazette, Chatham	 6
North Shore Leader, Newcastle.. 6

Thursday, October 24, 1957


CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT VOIDING ELECTION IN YUKON CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received from Hon. Mr. Justice J. E. Gibben of the territorial court of the Yukon and Hon. Mr. J. O. Wilson, of the supreme court of British Columbia, the two judges selected for the trial of an election petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment in the matter of the election in the electoral district of Yukon, held June 10, 1957, declaring such election void. It is as follows. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: This document will be tabled and printed in the Votes and Proceedings. It is the judgment in the electoral hearing. Is it agreed that I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I should also inform the house that the learned judges have stated that it was not possible to complete the notes of evidence so they could accompany the reasons for judgment, but they have advised that the typewritten evidence will be forwarded with the minimum of delay.
I have also the honour to inform the house that in conformity with section 69 of the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 87, revised statutes, 1952, I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON RECENT CONFERENCES
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on October 15 the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked me certain questions pertaining to matters arising out of recent trade conferences, and I indicated at that time that I should be glad to make a statement, if it were the wish of the house, on the subject of the trade proposals and the various recent trade conferences. The following day the
hon. member pursued his question further and asked if I would include in the statement reference to the conference at Washington. Similar questions were asked by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin).
I should like to bring that statement to the house now; and as the conferences were three in number, somewhat different in character and circumstances, and all of some importance, the reports I am about to make are not as short as I should have wished they might be.	The first of these
conferences-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend permit an interruption? Would he not think it would be more convenient if the statement could be made under circumstances which would permit interrogations?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity for the submission of questions on the statement on the orders of the day, in accordance with the practice of the house. I shall be glad to deal with them.
The first of these conferences was the conference of commonwealth finance ministers held at Mont Tremblant. That conference was proposed by the Prime Minister when he attended the conference of prime ministers at London last June. It has been the practice for the commonwealth finance ministers each year to hold a meeting following the annual meeting of the governors of the international bank and the international monetary fund at Washington. Those meetings have normally been held at Washington. On this occasion our Prime Minister proposed that the conference should be held in Canada, and that invitation was accepted.
The conference was attended by all the finance ministers of the commonwealth with the exception of New Zealand, which was represented by its minister for external affairs. The Canadian representation consisted of my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), and myself, and we were supported by a very strong team of Canadian officials drawn from the departments of finance, trade and commerce and external affairs.
The preparation for the conference was intensive. It continued throughout the entire summer.

Trade Conferences
The selection of Mont Tremblant as the venue of the conference was indeed a happy one, and the circumstances there contributed very greatly to the creation of a friendly atmosphere which was conducive to understanding and to agreement.
The agenda of that conference consisted of three topics. The first concerned matters in relation to the pound sterling and problems of exchange in relation to sterling. The second topic concerned the proposed European free trade area or the European economic integration, as it is called.
These two topics were discussed at the sessions of the conference on the Saturday. On the Monday and Tuesday the conference devoted its consideration to the Canadian proposals for enlarging trade within the commonwealth and improving economic relations among the countries of the commonwealth. As hon. members are aware, the conference achieved agreement, and the extent of the agreement and the enthusiasm with which that agreement was hailed by the ministerial representatives of the commonwealth countries are alike testimony to the success of the conference. It is a pleasure indeed to assure the house that as the result of the unanimous decision that was taken at that Mont Tremblant conference, a full dress commonwealth trade and economic conference will be held some time next year. The place has not been finally decided. The date has not been finally decided. The Canadian government has extended to the governments of the other countries of the commonwealth an invitation to hold the conference in Canada. In due course we expect a final answer to that invitation.
I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that a great deal of preparation, as was recognized by the ministers of finance, will be required for such a conference, and plans have been made and are proceeding for a conference of officials, drawn from the various countries, to be held at a time and place yet to be agreed upon. The officials will have the responsibility at such a meeting for shaping the agenda for the conference and arranging plans.
I wish, in concluding my remarks on the Mont Tremblant conference, to say that in the closing meeting of the conference, which was public, minister after minister testified to his belief that the conference had achieved significant results and had done something worthy in strengthening commonwealth consciousness and fellow feeling. By leave of the house, Mr. Speaker, I now table the communique that was issued at the close of the conference by the ministers there present.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this document be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I turn now to the second
subject, which concerns bilateral discussions between Canada and the United Kingdom. Prior to the Mont Tremblant conference we had received information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the wish of the United Kingdom ministers who were attending the conference to come to Ottawa at the conclusion of the Mont Tremblant conference for a discussion of matters of mutual interest. We had no indication of the particular matters they proposed to discuss with us when that suggestion was made to us. We, of course, said the Canadian ministers concerned would be more than pleased to make themselves available to meet with their counterparts in the British government in any discussions. I stress the fact that there was no indication of an agenda, and that there was no suggestion of a formal conference. I think that fact needs to be clearly understood.
On the Saturday, during the progress of the first day's sittings of the Mont Tremblant conference, a news story appeared in the Montreal Daily Star, and copies of that newspaper became available during the afternoon recess at Mont Tremblant. That news story purported to refer to the intention of the United Kingdom ministers to propose the establishment of a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada. I had been designated by the conference as its chairman and also as the individual to give to the press each day statements on such matters as were discussed at the conference. The house will realize, of course, that the proceedings of the conference were closed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Secret.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A meeting was arranged with the press that evening for that purpose. In the course of the meeting questions were asked concerning the proposal that had been reported in the news report to which I have just referred. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I were both present and took part in the conference. In reply to those questions the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined a proposal which he indicated he intended to submit to the Canadian government when he came on to Ottawa the following week at the conclusion of the Mont Tremblant conference. It was a proposal, as he indicated in reply to various questions, for the establishment of a free trade area between the two countries, and to achieve it on a progressive basis over a period of years.

It was obviously a very far-reaching proposal. In the course of that conference I was invited to state the attitude of the Canadian government with respect to that proposal. Obviously it would have been improper of me to do such a thing under the circumstances. The proposal had not yet been submitted. Obviously it had never been before the Canadian government. I was just listening in the course of Mr. Thorneycroft's answers to the questions put to him at the conference as to the features of the proposal as he unfolded them at that time, and I declined- and I think quite properly so-to make any comment on that proposal except to say that I thought it would be realized that it would involve formidable difficulties in any consideration that might be given to it by the Canadian government. However, until the proposal had been set forth and submitted, I indicated that I could not undertake to make any comments on it.
That, Mr. Speaker, was the end of that matter so far as the Mont Tremblant conference was concerned. That matter was never discussed at the Mont Tremblant conference. It never had any place whatever in the proceedings of the conference. Indeed, it would not have been permissible to introduce it. In that conference we were engaged in a discussion of commonwealth trade and the Canadian proposal for the holding of a commonwealth trade and economic conference. I may say to the house that no bilateral arrangements were discussed in the course of the conference proceedings.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that what I have said will leave no room for doubt, and that there will be an end to such confusion as has been evidenced on this subject.
At the conclusion of the Mont Tremblant conference two of the British ministers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Thorney-croft, and the president of the board of trade, Sir David Eccles, came on to Ottawa. In the course of two or three days of meetings here the United Kingdom ministers submitted a proposal in relation to the establishment of a free trade area between Canada and the United Kingdom to be brought about over a period which, we were told, might be in the neighbourhood of, say, 12 to 15 years.
I wish here to say one word by way of clarification of a matter which has been referred to more than once in this connection. That is the matter which the Prime Minister mentioned on his return to Ottawa from the conference of prime ministers last summer, when at the airport he pointed out in reply to questions put to him that the diversion from the United States to the United Kingdom of 15 per cent of the purchases which
Trade Conferences
Canadians are now making in the United States would redress a trade situation which I think must and does give a great many Canadians serious concern.
This concern is based upon two principal considerations, the first being the extent to which the Canadian trading eggs are being laid in one basket, in other words the extent to which Canadian external trade is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that this is one of those difficult problems with which Your Honour will have to deal, namely the latitude to be allowed to ministers in making statements on the order for motions. You will find in the records of this house plenty of discussions on this point in which my hon. friends opposite have taken part. It does seem to me that the house is willing to accept the practice that ministers be permitted, either on motions or on orders of the day, to make announcements, statements of ministerial changes or explanations of government policy having the character of an announcement or being of an urgent nature. This is shown by the fact that the house was generous today in not objecting to what the Minister of Finance asked for at the start. But with all respect it does seem to me he is now really indulging in debate. He has not announced anything new. He has commented on things that have been said about statements made by the Prime Minister and, with respect, I think Your Honour should consider whether this is the time to make a statement like this.
I am not quarrelling very much as to the difference between making statements on motions and on orders of the day. That difference is not great. If a statement is made on motions we can ask questions on orders of the day, but I think it has been ruled in the past that it is better to make such statements on orders of the day so that members can ask questions right away. I question, however, whether this statement should be made on either orders of the day or on motions. It is not an announcement of government policy; it is a matter of debate, and I think the minister should have waited his turn to take part in the debate on the address. That is still in progress, and I think it is not in order for the Minister of Finance to make such a statement at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when I intervened at the opening of my hon. friend's statement today I asked if he could not make his statement under circumstances which would permit interrogation. I had in mind precisely the point now raised by the

Trade Conferences
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Under the rules of this house I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that this kind of statement at this particular juncture and under these circumstances is not in order. My hon. friend can take the time of the house in respect to this very important matter, even today, during the debate which is now formally before the house. That would afford other speakers on this side and elsewhere an opportunity to make speeches in reply.
A more preferable arrangement, I strongly suggest to the Minister of Finance, would be, for instance, when we are discussing, let us say, international affairs along the lines indicated by the Prime Minister himself the other day, when I assume we would be in committee and would have the opportunity of putting to the Minister of Finance questions arising out of the very important matter about which he is seeking now to make so inadequate a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate what hon. members have drawn to my attention, and perhaps I shpuld say a word before any further steps are taken along this course. As I understand it, what was done in the last two parliaments, at least when there was an important statement to be made by a minister, was for that statement to be made either at this time or on the orders of the day. Then the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other two opposition parties were given an opportunity to make a brief comment or to ask a question about the statement in order that it might not simply be a unilateral statement, if it was an extended statement such as this.
I had that practice in mind when I allowed the matter to proceed, thinking that it might be satisfactory to the house if, when the Minister of Finance had finished, the leaders of the opposition parties were to do that.
Of course there is no question before the house, and we cannot carry on a general or an extended debate; we are under the limitation restricting comments and replies in that way. Since we have gone this far, and I trust that the minister's statement is practically finished, I suggest we might follow the course I had in mind, and that the house will consider it a satisfactory way of dealing with this matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should make any comment except to say that there are many precedents which can be pointed out, and that I had prepared the statement at the request of the hon. member for Essex East.
Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning the background of the matters discussed in the informal discussions here in Ottawa. The basis of

what the Prime Minister said on the occasion I mentioned, having regard to the deficit in our trade with the United States, was to seek a diversion from the United States to the United Kingdom of purchases that Canada is now making from the United States. It was not part of that proposal to divert to the United Kingdom purchases by Canadians of Canadian products. The proposal of the United Kingdom ministers therefore introduced quite a new dimension into the considerations which had arisen out of the Prime Minister's reference.
In these several days of discussion here in Ottawa many matters pertaining to the trade interests of the two countries were discussed. The proceedings were very informal in character; the discussions were frank and friendly. The discussions were necessarily of a preliminary character because, for instance, the United Kingdom ministers were not authorized to discuss the question of imports of Canadian agricultural products into the United Kingdom.
It was agreed in the light of the discussion, and of the circumstances, that it was important to achieve the holding of the commonwealth trade conference next year, and as the proposal of the United Kingdom was of a long-range nature, which neither required nor was expected to be given immediate consideration by the Canadian government, or even consideration prior to the commonwealth trade and economic conference, that the matter should rest there in the form in which it was referred to later in the communique which was issued.
As to the proposals advanced by the Canadian government, I mention this only briefly to indicate that we propose to seek, wherever possible, to transfer government purchases that are now being made in the United States to the United Kingdom on terms that are fair to all concerned; to enlarge as soon as may be the amounts of goods purchased that tourists may bring back with them following visits to the United Kingdom.
Then in the third place-and this, in the view of the government, is one of very considerable importance, sir-we propose to send to the United Kingdom next month the most important trade mission which Canada has ever sent abroad. It will be a large trade mission; it will be a mission sponsored by the Canadian government, and it will include leading representatives of business, industry, labour, agriculture and other primary production from all areas of Canada.
In leaving that subject, sir, may I table the communique or agreed statement that

*was issued by the ministers of the two governments, the United Kingdom and Canada, at the conclusion of the Canada-United Kingdom talks on October 4.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this communique be tabled?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The third of the conferences, Mr. Speaker, was held at Washington. It was the third meeting of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic matters. The first two meetings of that committee had been held in March, 1954, and September, 1955, respectively. This, therefore, was the first meeting of that committee in more than two years; and, having regard to the fact that there had been a change of government in Canada, it was particularly opportune that the meeting should then be held.
The Canadian ministers who were members of the committee went to Washington then at the invitation of the United States government. The committee has definite limits set upon the scope of its consideration. Its terms of reference are limited, sir. They are, first, to consider matters affecting the harmonious economic relations between the two countries; second, in particular, to exchange information and views on matters which might adversely affect the high level of mutually profitable trade which has been built up; third, to report to the respective governments on such discussions in order that consideration may be given to measures deemed appropriate and necessary to improve economic relations and to encourage the flow of trade. The purpose of the conference, therefore, broadly speaking was an exchange of points of view.
The committee has no power of its own to arrive at definite conclusions.
The purpose of the Canadian delegation, which consisted of four ministers, my colleagues the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and myself, assisted by a very strong team of officials from the four departments concerned, was to place before the four members of the United States cabinet the point of view that we considered to be a true representation of the feeling of the Canadian people concerning the trend of trade between the two countries, and the effect upon the well-being of Canadian agriculture of the policies being followed by the United States administration in the disposal of agricultural surpluses.
The proceedings were informal, intimate, frank and friendly. The discussions were
Trade Conferences
characterized by a vigorous presentation of the points of view of both governments, and I may say that so far as the presentation of the Canadian point of view was concerned it was put forward just as vigorously as it has been put forward at any time by the persons concerned on the floor of this House of Commons.
Now, sir, the proceedings continued for two days. As to the results of the conference,
I think briefly they can be put under four headings. First, I think there was value in the conference in that it afforded an opportunity for a frank exchange of points of view; second, it afforded an opportunity for the exchange of information, and in that exchange I think representatives of both countries derived information that will be of benefit to them in shaping their policies in certain respects. Third-perhaps this may not be so important-it afforded an opportunity for the ministers of both countries to become acquainted with their opposite numbers; and fourth-and perhaps of most direct interest- was the decision that was arrived at in reference to one particular feature of the methods pursued by the United States administration in the disposal of agricultural surpluses. We received from the four United States secretaries an affirmation in these terms:
The United States members affirm to the Canadian ministers their intention in all surplus disposal activities to avoid, in so far as possible, interfering with normal commercial marketings.
They gave assurance that under the present revised commodity credit corporation barter program each barter contract must result in a net increase in exports of the agricultural commodity involved, and that interest must be paid until the strategic materials are delivered or payment is otherwise effected for the agricultural commodities.
The United States administration, through the secretary for agriculture, had made a somewhat similar statement about the middle of the summer in regard to the barter feature of the methods pursued by the United States administration in disposing of agricultural surpluses. This is the first time to our knowledge that this has become a matter of undertaking on the part of the United States administration to any other government. While we would like to have seen some assurances that all the objectionable features in the methods pursued by the United States administration-that is, objectionable from the Canadian point of view-in their agricultural disposal program would be eliminated, at any rate this was an assurance that, so far as it went, we were glad to receive.
Now, sir, I think I should ask the leave of the house to table the communique that was agreed upon at the conference and was

Trade Conferences
issued on October 8, embodying the conclusions and reviewing the nature of the discussions on various topics carried on at that conference.
I make just this one observation in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. While the realm of positive agreement resulting from the Washington meetings is necessarily limited, limited by the nature of the meeting and limited by the powers of the committee, it was felt by the Canadian ministers who attended that conference that the conference had served a very useful purpose.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you at once that I am not going to overlook your warning that this could not be the occasion for a debate. Hon. members on both sides will have their own views as to how near or how close to a debate on the subject the Minister of Finance chose to tread. The conferences in question have all had to do very much with all the external trade policies of the Canadian government, and certainly cannot be dealt with in the limits that are indicated in the warning you gave when a point of order was submitted to you a few moments ago.
There will certainly be other opportunities, because there are very diverging views as to the achievements the hon. gentleman has mentioned in the statement he made today. The substance, I think, is summarized as glamorously as it could be made to appear in the communiques which have been laid on the table and which we have all had the opportunity of reading in the press before this day. The views that have been expressed about the limited extent of those achievements are not apt to be very much affected by the statement we have just heard from the Minister of Finance.
It may very well be that there will be some questions on the orders of the day or at another more opportune moment to elucidate some of the points touched upon by the Minister of Finance in his statement, and there is no doubt that, Canada being in proportion to its population perhaps the most active trading nation in the world, there should be all sorts of complications resulting from the channels trade takes in the interests of those who are engaged in that trade.
It may be that the hon. gentlemen feel that the methods that were resorted to by the previous government can be pursued with greater vigour by them than they were by their predecessors, but that also is a matter about which there are very serious diverging views. The only new suggestion that seems to have arisen with respect to this attempt to divert trade, not from Canadian

production but from United States sources to United Kingdom sources, is the increase in the allowance that tourists may have for purchases made in the United Kingdom on the occasion of a trip to that country. That would not have any substantial effect in diverting trade from United States sources to British sources and would perhaps have some effect, although not serious, upon a possible diversion of some trade from Canadian production to the producers of the country the tourists would have visited.
These are all matters that deserve very careful consideration, and about which more will be required than the statement just made by the Minister of Finance to destroy the impression that nothing very new has transpired.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you first that it might be well to look into what constitutes a ministerial statement, because in reality I think the statement made by the minister today should have been made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne so that we might have debated the matter. However, I am going to ask the minister a question. One cannot deal with the United Kingdom proposition, one cannot deal with commonwealth trade, one cannot deal with commercial relations with the United States in one question, but I am going to confine myself to one question.
In view of what the minister said about the satisfactory outcome of the discussions with the secretary of agriculture and others in the United States, may I ask him this question. Has he seen the report that the secretary of agriculture of the United States, Mr. Benson, is about to proceed to Japan, where he hopes to enter the wheat market which we have so assiduously cultivated over the last number of years and where we have gained a very pronounced entry to our benefit, with a view to entering into a trading agreement with Japan whereby the United States will take Japanese currency for American wheat and invest the proceeds in Japan? Has the minister seen that report? If not, I would refer him to the financial page of the Montreal Gazette of today's date.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report in question, but I can assure the hon. member that no ground was given by the Canadian ministers at Washington-
Some hon Members: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -in regard to the methods being pursued by the United States in disposing of their agricultural surpluses. There has been very strong denouncement and very strong disapproval expressed of the methods

being pursued, particularly with regard to the way they are hurting the marketing of Canadian agricultural products.


Major James William Coldwell: Then I say that the minister's presentation to the house this afternoon was merely a confession of failure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Far from being a confession of failure, it was a report to the house on the strong position taken by the Canadian ministers at Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No stronger position could have been taken by any Canadian government. Indeed, it was the strongest position that has ever been taken by any Canadian government in such discussions at Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there is no spokesman for the Social Credit party I would ask other members to hold their questions, if they have further questions, until we reach orders of the day, so that we may at least preserve the appearance of not having engaged in a debate.


Harold Edward Winch: That was the very point on which I was rising. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the completely new precedent of cabinet ministers making statements before the orders of the day also embraces the opportunity for others to comment and debate, as was actually done by the minister, or is this a new precedent that can be made use of only by the Conservatives on the government side of the house?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It could be a new kind of closure.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to ask a question or to say anything at this stage on the statement made by the Minister of Finance. I did not do so for the reason that my colleague the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), still has about seven or eight minutes of his time left in the speech from the throne debate, and he will be commenting on the statement in the course of what he has to say.


Harold Edward Winch: Is it possible to have an answer?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to ask the Speaker hypothetical questions. I take it that the hon. member's comments have been heard by the house. They were probably out of order as well as some of the other things that have been done here. I may say
Trade Conferences
to the house that it has been quite customary for ministers to make important statements on the order for motions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Never like that.


Mr. Speaker:: No one knows in advance what will be their content or extent, or how far they will develop into an argument, and we just have to take these matters as they come. I think the house will agree that no further discussion should take place at this time.

On the orders of the day:


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance if I am right in concluding that the first time he heard of the British proposals was on the occasion of the recent visit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or is it not a fact that he first learned of this proposal from the mouth of the Minister of Food and Agriculture on September 10 last, and that a few days later the president of the board of trade journeyed from Washington to visit the Prime Minister when he was at the United Nations to acquaint him with the details of the proposal for a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada?
I should like also to ask the Minister of Finance if he would not table the proposals which he said were put forward by the government of Canada through him at Mont Tremblant. Would he not table the details of the British proposal itself, because I say to him with great respect, realizing the limitations of time today, I do not think we are clear yet as to what are the full details of the British proposals.
Also he may tell us whether, when he was in Washington, there was a serious discussion of a proposal made by the Prime Minister of Canada as to the diversion, to the extent of 15 per cent, of Canada's purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. Is the press accurate in saying that the Minister of Finance said that the Prime Minister's proposal really was an afterthought, and not to be taken too seriously?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I lost track of the number of questions, and I am not sure that I can remember them in their multitudinous profusion. I shall deal with them as well as I can remember them.
First of all let me say this, that the first time the Canadian government received any formal proposal or anything at all that could be said to be definite in regard to that proposal-


George James McIlraith: Formal?

Trade Conferences


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who is giving the answer?
May I give the answer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you answer
the question?


George James McIlraith: Nobody is giving the
answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member for
Bonavista-Twillingate wishes to give the answer, perhaps the time of the house can be saved. If he knows all the answers then he should satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Essex East.
The first time the Canadian government received that proposal, as a proposal with any aspect of definiteness to it at all, was when on returning from Mont Tremblant and arriving in Ottawa I received a written communication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer embodying the proposal; that was the first time. The hon. member asks about the visit of the British Minister of Food and Agriculture, Right Hon. Derick Heathcoat-Amory. When Mr. Amory was here in the course of a tour across Canada he touched very lightly on the possibility that the United Kingdom ministers, when they came here later on, might be putting forward some suggestion of a free trade area. But he did not put forward any proposal, on behalf of his government, as a proposal to the Canadian government. Let me make that very clear.
What was next in this group of questions? Oh, yes; the hon. member referred to some trip that Sir David Eccles is supposed to have made to this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the trip Sir David Eccles made from Washington to visit the Prime Minister when he was at the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not true.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister says that is not true. I think that is plain. Sir David Eccles was one of the British ministers attending the Mont Tremblant conference with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He came to Ottawa for the several days of discussion. There was a third member of the British cabinet, Right Hon. Reginald Maudling, the paymaster general, who attended the Mont Tremblant conference but who did not come on to Ottawa.
The next question the hon. member asked was whether this had not been discussed in Washington. The hon. member shakes his head, so may I get the question right?


Mr.   Marlin.@Essex Easl: The question I asked about Washington was whether or not my hon. friend discussed the proposal made to the press gallery by the Prime Minister of

Canada, that there should be a diversion of Canadian purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. The report is that the Minister of Finance said that that proposal was a long-term one, and the impression was created from reading the particular article that the Minister of Finance did not believe the proposal by the Prime Minister of Canada was to be taken too seriously.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for Essex East has got his facts all wrong, as usual. Let me say this. There was nothing said by the Minister of Finance to the press at Washington or elsewhere to indicate or suggest that what the Prime Minister of Canada had said about a diversion of trade from the United States to the United Kingdom was not to be taken seriously. On the contrary, what the Minister of Finance said on all such occasions was that obviously this is something that cannot be accomplished overnight. It never was suggested it could be accomplished overnight, but it was put forward by the Prime Minister as an objective and it remains an objective of the Canadian government. If the hon. member wants the reasons I can give them to him.


George James McIlraith: Do it on a proper occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, I see. It is all right for the questions to be asked with all the insinuations in them, but the questions are not to be answered when it does not suit the purposes of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the same old closure complex.


George James McIlraith: You have no respect for any of the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: How many helpers has he?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am trying to remember question No. 5, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps my hon. friend will assist me.


Mr.   Marlin.@Essex Easl: Question No. 3 was whether or not my hon. friend would table the British proposal. Question No. 4 was this. WiR he table the Canadian proposal which he said the government brought to the conference at Mont Tremblant?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member well knows that exchanges between governments cannot be tabled. They are secret communications and are always privileged. How many times have I heard the hon. gentleman and his colleagues assert that position in the house: "These were secret communications". The communication by the Canadian government of its proposal in this respect to the other commonwealth governments was a secret proposal, as the hon. gentleman well knows, and the communication that we received from

the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a secret communication and is privileged. The hon. member should not attempt to try to give anybody the impression that this is a departure from the position that he and his colleagues took day in and day out in the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And you objected to it.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it true that following on his visit to Washington he was "fixed"? Is it equally true that after the British proposal on free trade he was transfixed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no. The hon. member, of course, refers to a remark which the United States secretary for commerce, Mr. Sinclair Weeks, dropped on his way out of one of the sessions of the conference. In order that the record may be fair on this point I think I should say that, when I was in Washington, I heard about this remark that was attributed to Mr. Weeks, the remark being "We fixed 'em". I realized at once that it was purely a jocular remark-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: because it had no validity as applied to anything that happened in the conference. Naturally, under the circumstances, I was a little disappointed to find that some newspapers not friendly to the new government took this comment up and tried to make much of it. I therefore communicated with Mr. Weeks about it, realizing that this use that was being made of a chance jocular remark did not do him justice. Mr. Weeks issued, from the United States embassy here in Ottawa several days ago, the following statement:
I was deeply concerned to learn that the meaning of a chance colloquialism of mine is being misrepresented to give a false impression of the fine accomplishments and excellent team work resulting from the recent conferences between representatives of Canada and the United States.
As I left one of the meetings I was asked for comments and in a hurried jest without even pausing for discussion I responded, "We fixed 'em" -obviously meaning only that we, all of us, Canadians and Americans together, had fixed or settled a lot of things. The fact is that never have I said or implied or felt that the meeting was other than a great success from the standpoint of our mutual objectives. This year's meeting was the third in which I have sat and one of the best of the whole series.
No peoples are more closely bound by friendship and respect than are Canadians and Americans. The grave problems of this age are compelling reasons for greater mutual understanding and cooperation.
It is this spirit of respect and friendship and not distorted chance remarks that reveal my appreciation of the representatives of Canada and their
Trade Conferences
great independent nation. Such esteem, I assure you, is shared by all Americans associated in the recent conference.


Peter Stefura: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given consideration to the acceptance of sterling in an effort to increase Canadian exports to Britain and other commonwealth nations? If so, has a decision been reached, and what was the nature of that decision?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No such proposal was made to the Canadian government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the recent discussions in Washington. Was the minister made aware of the tie-in or tie-up between the metal crisis at this time and the disposal program of the United States government? This is a matter of a good deal of interest at this time because of the crisis existing in metals in Canada at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that matter was discussed. It was a matter of considerable concern to the Canadian government, and we were extremely anxious to know what were the plans of the United States government both with regard to the possibility of continued stockpiling and also with reference to the possibility of tariff action against Canadian metals, in particular zinc and lead. This matter was fully discussed, and in the communique the hon. member will find reference to the subject.
So far as the first matter is concerned, namely the policy on stockpiling, I may tell him that the United States government is not continuing the policy of stockpiling of these particular metals which Canada has been exporting in quantity to the United States. So far as the possibility of future United States tariff action against Canadian lead and zinc is concerned, the communique contains the following:
The Canadian ministers expressed concern over the effect on Canadian producers which would result from any future action by the United States to raise duties on imported lead and zinc. The United States members explained the situation confronting their domestic producers. They called attention to the continued need for imports of certain minerals and metals and indicated that any United States tariff action that might be taken to relieve serious injury to United States producers would have the primary objective of maintaining a normal relationship between imports and domestic production. They noted that any such action would be applied in accordance with the procedures of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
I am sure the hon. member is aware that the United States tariff rates on importations of lead and zinc-and this applies to imports

Trade Conferences
of these two base metals from Canada-are bound by the general agreement on tariffs and trade. If the United States congress at the next session proceeds to increase tariffs on imports of lead and zinc so far as Canada is concerned, it will mean that the United States will have to obtain, from the countries which are signatories to GATT, agreement to waive the provisions in that respect. That will give the countries concerned the right, if they so choose, to demand concessions.
In conclusion I may assure the hon. gentleman that the Canadian government regards this as a matter of serious concern, and pressed the case of the Canadian producers of zinc and lead very firmly and very hard.


Mr, Byrne:: Pressed it how?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, we pressed the case for the Canadian producers of all metals. There was extensive discussion on the subject.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Financial Post article dated October 19 last seems to indicate that there was a close tie-up between the American disposal program and the present price of metals. That was my question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article to which my hon. friend refers, but if the Financial Post is no more accurate in that article than in the one appearing during the week before which was quoted last Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition, then, believe me, there is not one jot or tittle of accuracy in it.


James Sinclair: The freedom of the press.


Major James William Coldwell: I would like to ask a supplementary question which has a bearing on the main question asked. When the minister was at Washington may I ask if there was any understanding arrived at regarding any limitation of our exports of coarse grains to the United States? Several years ago we agreed that we would limit the exportation of oats. I remember that distinctly, and I am wondering if perhaps some other farm commodities were discussed; or is the arrangement still in effect whereby we voluntarily limit the export of certain farm commodities to the United States? If so, does the minister not think, in view of the United States actions in regard to our foreign markets, we might withdraw such an undertaking if it is still in effect?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That subject was not discussed at Washington. Obviously it was not the sort of subject which was in our interest to raise, and the United States secretaries did not raise it either.
[Mr. Fleming.}


Major James William Coldwell: Why not? Why is it not in
our interest to raise this subject when it is our limitation? We had agreed several years ago on the limiting of exports of certain coarse grains to the United States, in the interests of the United States because they had a large production surplus. Is that agreement still in effect? The minister might look into it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, but I might assure my hon. friend that that subject was not raised. There was an extended discussion as to the marketing by both countries of their agricultural products, we being in the position of complaining about the methods pursued by the United States administration; but so far as the subject of agreed quotas is concerned, such quotas being imposed by the exporting country on its own exports, that subject was not raised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I may not have fully understood some of the answers given this afternoon, may I ask the Prime Minister this very simple question. Did he attend a meeting with the United Kingdom president of the board of trade in New York at the opening of the United Nations assembly?


John George Diefenbaker: When I was in New York to speak at the United Nations a luncheon was arranged at which one of the guests was Sir David Eccles, who was en route to Washington. There was no meeting at any time with him in New York with reference to any questions which have been raised here today. It was simply a social gathering at noon at which, by reason of our relevant positions, we were placed side by side.


Gérard Légaré: I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's picture having been published in 12 of the last 16 issues of Time magazine, is it the intention of the government to abolish the special tax on Canadian editions of American publications?


Peter Stefura: I would like an answer to the question which I asked previously. That was, has the government given consideration to the acceptance of sterling in an effort to increase Canadian exports to Britain and other commonwealth countries? If so, has a decision been reached and what was the nature of that decision?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already told my hon. friend that question has not even been raised by anyone.


Peter Stefura: Not among yourselves?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister yet been able to determine in his own mind if the backstairs entry of two trade commissioners into China is an official mission?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Perhaps the hon. member will confine the inquiry to the intricacies of his own mind.


Some hon. Members:: That is a proper question.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would like to ask a supplementary question to one which was asked previously by the member for Vegreville (Mr. Stefura). Will the Minister of Finance and his government give serious consideration to the acceptance of sterling in part payment at least for our exports to Great Britain? The reason I ask this question is that I consider it to be very serious, particularly in our part of the country; and this was something which was promised by the Conservatives in the last election.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I must correct the hon. gentleman's statement which he appended to his last question. There was no such promise made in the campaign at all.


James Sinclair: There was by my opponent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, it was not a promise made on behalf of the Conservative party. My hon. friend can hold his local debates to his heart's content, but I make the assertion that no such undertaking was given to the Canadian people during the last election.
To deal with the question, however, until somebody asks us to accept sterling in part payment for Canadian exports 1 see no reason why we should go out looking for the opportunity to purchase sterling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
you not trying to sell our wheat?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are interested in the flow of two-way trade between Canada and the United Kingdom, and we are interested in the flow of commonwealth trade. We think this would be a good thing in rectifying the weaknesses in the Canadian trade position. However, until some of the countries on a sterling basis regard this as a matter of sufficient importance to them to come and ask us to accept such an arrangement, I do not see any reason why we should go out proposing to take sterling. We are interested
Proposed Legislation
in the two-way flow of trade and payment by commodities that are being purchased from non-commonwealth sources.


Victor Quelch: Did anybody ask the United States to accept foreign currency for their exports?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think that question had better be directed to the United States administration. I find it keeps me occupied in trying to answer for my own job in Canada.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to fifty-five dollars per month, to reduce the basic residence requirements for pensioners from twenty years to ten years and to increase the length of permissible temporary absences of pensioners from Canada from three to six months.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act. to reduce the basic residence requirement for recipients from twenty years to ten years and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person, and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Blind Persons Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount

Inquiries of the Ministry of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jay Waldo Monteith: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to increase to fifty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, to provide, subject to regulations, for payments in respect of certain additional persons who are patients in institutions, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and twenty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and two hundred and forty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he advise the house as to whether it is his intention to bring forward for consideration at this session legislation concerning the development and improvement of the national capital?


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. The cabinet has considered this matter but has decided regretfully that it must be deferred until the next session. In saying that, may I point out that a bill was placed on the order paper in the records of the house during last session. It was not proceeded with at that time and many matters in connection with it will have to be considered. Furthermore, having regard to some of the emergent matters of this session, it is felt that in order to give full and comprehensive consideration to this very important matter and to ensure that Canada's capital will be worthy of her nationhood the whole question might well be postponed until the ensuing session.


lLater:1


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO END POLLUTION OF OTTAWA RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I also ask a question with regard to the national capital plan. I direct my question to the Prime Minister now that he resides on the banks of the beautiful Ottawa river. When the capital plan comes up for consideration will he try to get the authorities responsible to do something to stop the pollution of this very beautiful river?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
interest of the hon. gentleman in this matter. This is one of those problems which over the years have received very intensive study on my part-the necessity of action being taken in order to preserve and maintain the purity of our waters. It is a problem which is surrounded by many complexities when an interprovincial river is concerned, but I can assure the hon. member of this: The interest I have taken in the past has not been diminished in any way by the position I now occupy, and I feel that this is a matter which deserves the most serious attention of parliament. I am having it looked into. Naturally, I have not missed the controversies that have been going on within this city within the last few days. All over this country there is a general demand that something should be done by the federal government and the provincial governments in co-operation, to maintain the flow uninterrupted, and also unimpaired by pollution, of the rivers and waters of our country.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance based on a statement found on page 2 of the preliminary report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects to the effect that a comprehensive final report is in preparation and will appear some time in 1957, also giving a list of the studies to be published by the commission. My question is: Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the final report of the Gordon commission has yet been made? Can he also tell us whether the study intituled "Canadian Energy Prospects", referred to in appendix "C" of the preliminary report, has yet been published, and if it has not been published when we may expect that it will be published?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be precise in my answer to the first question asked, but the chairman of the royal commission intimated to me some time ago that he hoped to complete the final report, I think he said this autumn. This has been a very heavy task and, as hon. members may be aware, the secretary of the royal commission, Mr. LePan, was taken ill during the summer and is only back at his post on a part-time basis. Accordingly, the completion of the report has been somewhat delayed.
So far as the various studies are concerned, they have been proceeding, and there is one due this week. As to the one about which the hon. member inquired, the study on energy, I have no knowledge that it has been issued, and I think I would have been made aware of the fact if it had been issued recently. But I will be glad to make inquiries as to how far it is advanced and give the hon. member that information.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that when a farmer makes application for a loan from the Canadian farm loan board the board, before acknowledging the request, informs implement companies in the area of the application and of the board's disposition of the request for the loan? If the minister finds this to be the case, will he assure the house that he will instruct the board to cease immediately this unethical, high-handed and deplorable practice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member telephoned me fifteen minutes before the session opened this afternoon to inform me that he was aware of a case in which, while an application by a farmer to the Canadian farm loan board was pending and the farmer had not yet been notified as to the disposition of the case, an implement firm to which he was indebted was notified by the board that the board was declining the application. I expressed some surprise at that. I can assure the hon. member, and I can assure the house, that if the board has done what he intimates, it will not do it again.
As I understand it, an application by a farmer to the loan board is not a public matter and it is certainly not a matter to be discussed with persons who may be interested in the affairs of an applicant farmer.
Inquiries of the Ministry I have asked the hon. member to give me particulars of the case in question. I can assure the house that I will make it my business to go to the bottom of this matter; and if this sort of thing is happening I can assure him that as far as I am concerned I shall see to it that it has happened for the last time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When will the minister carry out the recommendation by the Newfoundland board of trade for the ferry William Carson to carry passengers on her run between Argentia and North Sydney?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of this question. The question of the M.V. William Carson carrying passengers and automobiles in addition to freight on its temporary run between North Sydney and Argentia has been before the management of the Canadian National Railways and the former minister of transport on several occasions in the past. In announcing the service the former minister spoke in the house on July 20, 1955, as follows:
In the meantime the William Carson will, within the next few weeks, be placed in service by the C.N.R. on a limited basis between North Sydney and Argentia. Because the ship is designed to fit into specialized unloading and loading facilities that are available only at North Sydney and Port aux Basques, this temporary service to Argentia will be for freight movement only and will not provide for passengers or the carrying of automobiles. This temporary service to Argentia will provide valuable experience as to the operation of this highly specialized ship and should bring about an improvement in the carriage of freight to and from Newfoundland.
Since then, as I say, the matter of carrying passengers and automobiles was considered from time to time but no action was taken. I am advised that the William Carson is a highly specialized vessel in many respects, and in particular the ship requires special shore facilities in order to function properly; and that to accommodate passengers and automobiles on the run to Argentia would mean a substantial expansion of facilities.
I discussed this matter with the Newfoundland board of trade when 1 was in St. John's a month or two ago, and they told me that in their opinion automobiles could be landed and taken off this vessel at Argentia. I asked

Inquiries of the Ministry them if they had actually seen it done, or taken cars on and off the vessel, and they said they had not. I said: if you can go down to Argentia and demonstrate to the officials of the C.N.R. that cars can be moved on and off that vessel without danger I will recommend to the C.N.R. that cars should be loaded. I have not heard from the Newfoundland board of trade on the matter since that time.



L'ISLE AUX COUDRES-ST. JOSEPH DE LA RIVE   REQUESTED WINTER FERRY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Auguste Maltais: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the coming winter season will steps be taken to bring about the establishment of a winter ferry service between L'lsle aux Coudres and St. Joseph de la Rive on the St. Lawrence north shore?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. When I was in the province of Quebec this summer I was asked by prominent citizens of L'lsle aux Coudres to look into the possibility of providing such a ferry. They told me that they had been asking the previous government for a number of years past to provide such a ferry and that they had not met with any success. I told them that it would be impossible to know whether or not such a ferry could be provided until an inspection could be made of the ice and current conditions during the winter season and that my department would have an inspector look into those conditions when winter arrived.


Auguste Maltais: May I ask the minister if there is any truth in the statement he then made that the people of L'lsle aux Coudres might expect to get this ferry if they would vote Conservative at the next federal election?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, but after my talk with the estimable citizens of L'lsle aux Coudres I am convinced that the very high quality of their mentality makes them realize that with a new government in power they have more chance of obtaining it.


Auguste Maltais: Another supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think there have been enough supplementaries on that point. The discussion might degenerate into another debate.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the shortage of livestock box cars in certain sections of western Canada and, if so, what action, if any, has been taken to correct this situation?


George Harris Hees: I should like to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. Since receiving the notice I have checked with my department and I can find no instance of our being advised of such a shortage. If he will advise me of any specific shortages that he knows of I shall be very glad to pass that information along to the railways concerned.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what are his plans regarding the future of a well-known architectural landmark on a street in the city of Toronto, namely the Bank of Canada building, which many Torontians are anxious to see preserved.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if this is a proper matter to raise on the orders of the day I will say to the hon. member that this matter has been inquired into. The premises in question are the property of the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Canada has planned to erect a new building suitable for its purposes in Toronto. It is true that the building in question has stood there for a long time, and that it has architectural features which one would like to see preserved. The difficulty is that this is a relatively small building standing on a very valuable piece of property on the west side of Toronto street and under the pressure of increasing demand for space in that part of the city it becomes a question whether the Bank of Canada is to be expected to preserve that building on a property very much more valuable than would warrant the continuation of a small building.
Anybody who wishes to preserve architectural features I suppose can make his proper complaint about this matter, but it is the fact-it may be an unfortunate fact-that the property on which that building stands is

so valuable now that the Bank of Canada, after considering all these questions, feels that it must put the land to other uses.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask a question of the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. It is a matter of procedure. Usually the questions that appear on the order paper are not answered until the debate on the address has been concluded. I understand we are to take up other business tomorrow. I am wondering whether he could arrange to have the questions that are on the order paper as well as the motions for production of papers proceeded with.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that and see what can be done to meet the hon. member's request.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: On Friday last the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) asked me the following question:
How many people are registered as unemployed in Montreal? Could I also, perhaps, have the comparative figures for the same period last year?
The answer is that the number of persons registered in Montreal on October 4, 1956, was: men, 8,612; women, 7,152; total, 15,764. On October 3, 1957, men, 17,371; women, 8,247; total, 25,618.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister consider making a brief statement at an early date as to what precise changes have been made in the operation of the national employment service to implement the policy which was recently announced?


Michael Starr: I think, Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question by saying that a directive has been sent out over my signature asking all managers
Inquiries of the Ministry of all offices to alert their staffs and to give instructions to their staffs to accelerate their action in securing employment for those who are registered as unemployed in the offices across Canada. I might add that I have received a number of letters from managers complimenting and thanking me for the instruction and saying that the directive will be carried out with, it is expected, good results.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Has the minister made provision for any extra facilities or additional staff to deal with the situation in the manner which his directive states it should be dealt with?


Michael Starr: The managers of various offices have been told and know that if necessary staff has to be hired they have the authority to do so under ordinary circumstances through the civil service commission.


Bert Raymond Leboe: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the minister look into the situation at Quesnel at an early date? We have been seeking an unemployment insurance commission office there for some time and it would facilitate the very thing that the minister is proposing.


Michael Starr: We shall be glad to look into the situation.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Yesterday the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) asked this question, Mr. Speaker:
Has the minister been informed of the systemic treatment by trolene for the control of warbles in cattle? If so, can he inform the house whether the government has any plan to undertake the free distribution of this treatment, as has been done with certain serums, in order to wipe out most of the annual loss of $14 million now estimated to be caused by warble fly infestation?
The answer is: the Department of Agriculture has investigated several systemic treatments, including trolene, for the control of warble fly. Trolene has been registered under the Pest Control Products Act. The government has no plans for the free distribution of this material. I might perhaps add that it is quite an expensive treatment and we have considerable hopes that a much cheaper treatment, and one which can be much more easily administered, will soon be available.

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



REPLACEMENT OF M. V. &quot;BURIN&quot; ON PLACENTIA BAY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What steps are being taken, or are being contemplated, either by the government of Canada or by the Canadian National Railways to replace the coastal boat M. V. Burin now employed by the C.N.R. on the Placentia bay service with another boat having more and better passenger accommodation?


George Harris Hees: I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The question of the Newfoundland coastal steamship service is one of the matters that are being studied by my department at the present time, and the particular question he has asked will certainly be included in that study. I should like to advise him at this time that the Canadian National Railways expect to announce shortly improvements in the Placentia bay service.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in and speak to the appropriate ministers about the plight of retired Candian National Railways employees and superannuated civil servants whose pensions are in the lower brackets, about whom he and his colleagues quite often went on record and had a good deal to say in days gone by? Can he give the hope that something might be done to improve the pensions of these groups of people at an early date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the factual recitation that I have shown an interest in this matter in the past is in accordance with the facts. It is of interest to know that it is expected of this government that everything be done in a matter of a few weeks. The matter to which he refers is one that is particularly close to me by reason of my father having been a civil servant and I can assure him that the attention that this government has already paid in raising the salaries of civil servants is but an indication of one of the steps to be taken which ultimately will, I am sure, remove the causes of complaint to which he has made reference.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED DECREASE IN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on the decline in Canadian exports of wheat during the present crop year, now some 7 million bushels below the very low exports during the same period last year? Would the minister inform the house as to what steps the government is taking to increase exports during the present crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to thank the
hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I propose to give a review of the situation at the second reading stage of the bill on cash advances, if he would not mind waiting until then. That will likely be Friday, all being well.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. As a result of a phone call received yesterday morning I was given to understand that this afternoon I would receive an answer to my question as to what action, if any, is going to be taken by his department on the question of kick-backs in the medical profession. In accordance with the phone call yesterday, is the minister now prepared to give me an answer? If not, just how soon may we expect the answer?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think there must have
been some misunderstanding about the telephone call. I did not understand I had to give any further answer. When the hon. member asked me the question the other day with respect to kickbacks and asked whether any investigation was now being carried on with respect to that practice I was not aware of the newspaper clippings at the time; I have since read them and I have also read the decision of the court.
The reason for the discovery of this practice, apparently, as suggested by the hon. member, is that it fell from heaven. Actually, of course, it was as a result of the investigation carried on by this department prior to the appeal which resulted in the disclosure. In other words, all of the evidence

was adduced by the lawyers representing the department as the result of an investigation which they carried on and there was no adventitious disclosure whatsoever. As a matter of fact, this department is always conducting investigations of various matters such as this, sometimes to a degree which is sometimes resented by the taxpayers of this country.


Harold Edward Winch: That was not my question.
I know it was because of their investigation they discovered over $300,000 of kick-backs in two cities alone in one province. My question was: Because of that are you now going to make an investigation of the entire situation of kick-backs in the entire profession?


George Clyde Nowlan: The officers of the department are as usual and as always carrying on investigations of all matters affecting the affairs of the taxpayers of this country.



REPORTED DECISION TO INCREASE TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jacob Schulz: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is it correct that, according to press reports, the government has decided to proceed with plans to boost tariffs on a wide range of steel products and has notified a number of countries which come under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the United States, of its intention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not hear all of my hon. friend's question. Would he mind repeating it, please?


Jacob Schulz: I notified the minister of the question beforehand. Is it correct that, according to press reports, the government has decided to proceed with plans to boost tariffs on a wide range of steel products and has notified a number of countries which come under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the United States, of its intention?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, having regard to some of the language used here and the strength of some of the terms employed, I suppose I would be justified in giving a summary negative answer but I think that would not be altogether fair to the house. I propose, when I table some recent reports of the Canadian tariff board, which I hope to do within the next several days, to make a statement that will cover the question that my hon. friend has asked, as well as other matters.
Inquiries of the Ministry FOOD



INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR POOLING OF SURPLUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government taken any action to promote an international agency for the pooling of surplus food products? If so, what has been done?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this being a matter which comes under the Department of Agriculture the Prime Minister has referred it to me. The answer is as follows: FAO proposed a world food board at Copenhagen in 1946. In subsequent months the proposal was reviewed in Washington by a special international commission. The commission, in which Canada was represented, recommended against the formation of such a body. This was subsequently followed by several other proposals, one for the establishment of an international commodity clearing house. None of these has met with acceptance by the member nations of FAO.
FAO then established its committee on commodity problems to review commodity situations and to consider surpluses. This was followed by the establishment of a special subcommittee in Washington which meets frequently to review surplus problems and to provide a forum for discussion. The committee prepared a set of principles relating to surplus disposal, designed among other things to eliminate or reduce competition with commercial transactions when surpluses are disposed of on concessional terms. Some 30 countries, including the leading trading nations, have subscribed to these principles. Canada has been an active participant in the committee on commodity problems and in the deliberations of the subcommittee on surplus disposal.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder
whether I might ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether the present government would be prepared to reverse the position taken by the previous administration and come out positively now in support of an international world food pool as one means of disposing of our surplus agricultural products?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would not be prepared to make a statement on that at the moment.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to ask is perhaps based on the fact that a similar decision to the one you have just made was

Inquiries of the Ministry not made with regard to the answer to a previous question. The question had to do with a decision made by the FAO concerning the suggestion that there should be a method of dealing with surpluses. A very definite statement was made as to the position taken by Canada at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not a question, and I know it is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am asking the question because the answer, which was given following the discussion that has taken place, was also out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I headed the delegation at that time, and the position that was reported here is not in accordance with the position taken by Canada at that time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raoul Poulin: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister tell the house whether the previous government initiated an inquiry respecting the erection of an administration building at St. Georges de Beauce and, if so, is it the intention of the government to carry on such inquiry?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question and this is the answer. Inquiry into the necessity of a new federal building at St. Georges de Beauce was initiated during 1956-57. The report indicated that increased space for the Post Office Department was justified and that a new building could accommodate the unemployment insurance commission, at present in leased premises.
Difficulty was experienced in deciding upon a new site and it is only recently the conclusion was reached that the most suitable site was property adjacent to the present building. Plans for the new building are in the early stage of preparation and work will continue on them. Construction will commence when the necessary funds are voted by parliament.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister be good enough to tell the house through which municipality the new bridge will pass before crossing the St. Lawrence river via Nuns' island to connect with Laprairie?


George Harris Hees: Yes. The new bridge will first pass through the municipality of Verdun.



SOUND SYSTEM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: May
I have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of directing a question to you, strictly non-political? I believe there are over 90 members in the house who do not realize that the loudspeaker system is arranged in such a manner that if you are on the three back benches on either side, unless you direct your voice in a certain way and do not turn around, as some do, and talk to the curtains, you cannot be heard. May I ask if it is not possible for you, within the next few days, to arrange something similar to what occurred in 1953, that is at the opening hour those who are interested could have an explanation of the use of the loudspeaker system. Personally I am interested in hearing what everyone has to say, and on occasion even with our loudspeakers I have not been able to hear. I believe my voice can be heard, but I want to hear what others say.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member and I must say I am sorry that some members are having difficulty in hearing the very interesting things that have been said this afternoon. I shall take that under consideration and see if any improvement can be made in that respect.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not questioning the system, I am merely stating you have to understand how to use the system.



YUKON-INQUIRY AS TO THE DATE OF BYELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has yet made a decision as to the date of the by-election to be held in the Yukon constituency?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


James Sinclair: The sooner the better.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Can the Minister of Finance inform the house whether or not it is the intention of the government to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act so as to increase the availability of loans and extend the supervision of loans so as to give counsel and advice to farmers procuring such loans?


Donald Methuen Fleming: My hon. friend sent notice of this question to my office, but it was late in arriving and I received it only ten minutes ago in the house. I may say to my friend that the question he asks obviously touches on a matter of government policy and no statement can be made at this time in regard to that subject.
May I ask him to bear this in mind in relation to this question and similar questions. There is a limit to the amount of business parliament can cram into one short fall session. There is a limit to what the government can propose to parliament. Under the circumstances, we are doing our best to bring forward, as fast as the transaction of business in the house will permit, all the legislation possible in the time available for this session.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South) for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Coldwell, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Victor Quelch: Shortly before the adjournment last night, I had been advocating an extension of trade with the sterling area, the acceptance of inconvertible currency and the spending of that sterling to buy goods in the sterling area that we are presently buying from the United States. In that way we would enable the sterling area to achieve a greater degree of balance with Canada, and would enable Canada to achieve a greater degree of balance with the United States, or at least to reduce our imbalance of trade with that country.
96698-21i
The Address-Mr. Quelch
My time is limited, but I wish to say a few words regarding the surplus disposal program of the United States. The former government was very critical of that program, and I gather the present government is not very much more favourably disposed towards it. I feel the United States is to be highly commended upon that program because under it the United States today is making surplus food available to the hungry people of nations that are not able to obtain food through the normal channels of trade. At the same time the United States is paying the farmers a fair price for that food.
Let me state very briefly the history of this surplus. It will be recalled that in the latter years of the war the food and agricultural organization warned the nations of the world that two-thirds of the population of the world was hungry. They further warned that unless the nations that had the ability to expand the production of their food did everything in their power to do so there may be worldwide starvation. The United States went all out to expand production of food. They paid very substantial support prices to their farmers, and as a consequence the United States did build up a substantial reserve of food in the form of farm products.
Unfortunately the food and agricultural organization did not provide the international machinery to distribute this surplus to the nations that needed it. It is true that they did bring forth a proposal for a world food bank but that was rejected by member nations. Then, I think it was in 1950, they proposed an international commodity clearing house. Personally, I felt that was an excellent idea, but again the member nations rejected it. So, we found we had a situation where the surpluses of each country were left on their own doorsteps.
It was then that the United States expanded the program by which they would be able to distribute surplus food to the nations that needed it. They proclaimed, in effect, that any nation that was not able to obtain the food they needed through the normal channels of trade would be able to obtain their food from the United States, if the United States had it in surplus quantity, by the acceptance of their currency, by barter agreement or, in a case of dire distress, by outright gift. Let me point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that the United States did not wait for some nation to ask them to accept their currency. They saw the problem and they believed the solution to that problem was to accept foreign currency. As a result of that the United States has sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food for foreign currency. I am

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell not suggesting for one minute that we should go as far as the United States did, but I am suggesting we could go as far as I have suggested. We could accept inconvertible sterling for the goods we export to the sterling area, and then spend that inconvertible sterling in the sterling area to buy the goods which we are at present buying from the United States.
In that way we might accomplish the proclaimed purpose of the Prime Minister. I can recall that some years ago, the Prime Minister supported a motion to accept sterling. I am therefore hopeful that he will regard that proposal in a sympathetic way. I believe the proposal I put forward is the logical way in which to achieve the Prime Minister's objective of diverting 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the sterling area.
I listened to the long statement of the Minister of Finance this afternoon. After we have read that statement we shall have an opportunity to sift the wheat from the chaff, if we can find any. But I must say that on the face of it that statement does not seem to provide much hope for any considerable increase in trade. I say that for the reason that it does not provide for any substantial change in policy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, my first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. Incidentally, may I say that I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding as between me and the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) as to the order of our speaking.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a special personal pleasure in congratulating the mover because for some years I was the deskmate in this house of his father whom I remember being referred to by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) who said so truly that we all loved him. I had the good fortune to be his seatmate and it is a pleasure to be in this house and to see the worthly son of a worthy father taking his place in the house. As to the seconder, I congratulate him as I congratulate every citizen of this country who is bilingual. It is my greatest regret that I am not bilingual. I especially congratulate the hon. member who seconded the motion on his excellent English.
It is perhaps natural, Mr. Speaker, for one who sat on the opposite side of the house for 12 years in the opposition to make some comments on the change which has
[Mr. Quelch.l
taken place. As I look across the floor sometimes it is hard for me to believe that I am looking at the same men. A change seems to have come. There is a strange look of selfconscious modesty, shall I say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It works both ways.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If people can be modest in success, that is good. As I say, there is a certain selfconscious modesty to which we were not accustomed. We were accustomed to looking at men who seemed to have a good deal of, shall I say, self-esteem. I do not wish to put it more strongly than that. Indeed, I remember suggesting to them once that they might follow the prayer of the highland minister who said to his flock: "Oh Lord, if it be possible, make us worthy in some measure of the high esteem in which we hold ourselves". I hope that the then ministers took cognizance of what I said.
But the other thing that struck us sitting opposite them in those days was that the high esteem brought with it also a feeling of indispensability. It is surprising that even with the most modest men, when they have power for more than a certain amount of time I think a feeling of indispensability creeps over them. I had an illustration of it once some years ago when we in the opposition had won several by-elections. I had a very pleasant letter from a member of the government who congratulated me on the victory but who said, "Of course it could not happen in a general election, could it?"
I think that was the attitude that crept over members of the government. They felt that, among other things, we were not competent, that we could not form a government. I think the Canadian people felt differently and have demonstrated differently. But when the election came I think it was hardly dreamt of in their philosophy that anyone could take their place. I might describe their feeling I think as the feeling that the change could hardly have happened. I might describe it by the answer of the little boy who had learned his twelve times twelve tables and who when asked thirteen times two said "You can't". I feel that in the same way the members of the government, after being defeated on June 10, really felt "You can't".
After the Prime Minister's speech which was mild and, I felt, almost apologetic, I was reminded of Benjamin Disraeli's description of the treasury bench sitting opposite to him so many years ago. Here are his words describing the Liberal treasury bench sitting opposite:
Some took refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated between a menace and a sigh. As I sat opposite the treasury bench, the ministers reminded me of one of those marine

landscapes not very unusual on the coasts of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest. But the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes and ever and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.
It is true that since then there have not been what I would call earthquakes, I would rather call them small tremors like the small outbursts from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and the milder one from the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler). But in general the attitude of the opposition has been conciliatory.
As for the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the former minister of health and welfare, it is interesting to see him in the opposition. We remember his technique in the government. We remember how. in answering questions, he would give more or less of an answer; he would use words having some vague relation to the question and then the desk would open and a prepared speech would be produced in which we had eloquent testimony to the excellence of the government. The question was just a peg on which to hang it. It was a well developed technique. Then the minister, as I said, would soar away, using the question as a springboard.
But I think the greatest surprise was the former minister of agriculture. Instead of a lion we had a lamb or, perhaps better, a dove of peace bearing olive branches. The only thing that seemed to be the same was the glass of water. The minister is fortunate because no one will doubt that it was a glass of water. No one will suspect that he did what Disraeli is reported to have done in one of his several-hour speeches. He was drinking frequently of a white liquid and it is said that the liquid was not water at all but gin and that he consumed two bottles of it during his speech. I admit that the speech was several hours long. No one will suspect the former minister of agriculture of doing that.
I was touched by the height of patriotic devotion he showed in explaining the attitude of the party. He claimed that it was in effect "high and lifted up", that it was going to concern itself only with the welfare of the country and not with any party advantage. He admonished the other parties in the house that they should do the same thing.
If the minister will allow me to do so, I should like to put in a little plug for him by relating a remark which I understand he made when he was first in this house. I have quoted it previously and I hope he will not
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell mind my quoting it here. The former minister. as all hon. members will observe, has not run to many unnecessary inches as have some other people in this house. Indeed, when the ex-minister stands up, not very much happens.
As I understand, the first time he stood up in this house a big fellow on the other side, as long as I am, twice as wide and three times as thick, said when the minister was already on his feet, "Stand up". There was a little titter at this but the then minister replied "In the part of the country where I come from, a man is reckoned according to what he has above the shoulders".
The former minister of transport, now the hon. member for Laurier, (Mr. Chevrier), several years ago left the Ottawa for the St. Lawrence but has now returned to the Ottawa. Whether he feels he chose the best moment to return I am not quite clear. I propose to say something about his speech of the other day later on.
In general I would wish to be encouraging to the opposition. I would like to say to them that we have always felt, and I think they have felt also, that the opposition was a necessary feature of government. They wanted the country to believe in democratic party government and you could not have democratic party government without an opposition. Therefore the government felt there must be an opposition, but of course it must not expect to win. Once a member of the government was reported to have made the statement that he did not know what the opposition was for. However, I think most of them knew what it was for and they felt that as long as it kept its place it was very useful. Now I would like to say to the opposition they will learn the duties of the opposition in time. After all they are men of intelligence and they are going to have plenty of time to learn their new duties.
I would say a word about the member for Algoma East. He has been pretty mild on the whole. I am just wondering whether he is going to sit it out. Really "he ain't saying nothing", and it may be that he has in fact decided to sit it out and wait to see what happens in January.
Now I would like to return to the Prime Minister's speech. I realize I have done the same thing as my leader has done. I correct myself and say I would like to return to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have done it twice.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, have I done it twice? Well then I am equal to my Prime Minister and I hope I will not do it a third time.
326	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell It did not seem to me that the Leader of the Opposition put very much heart into it. Coming back to the words of Disraeli that it was between a menace and a sigh, I would not say there was much menace in it, I would say it was nearer to a sigh. He stood there with the remnants of his cabinet around him, hardly crediting the situation. I do not speak of the ones who are absent. There are certain absent faces, absent with the full consent of the Canadian people and these are casualties which, as I say, we remember very well and we should let them rest in peace.
Now the speech of the Leader of the Opposition seemed to me to be in defence, naturally, of the record of his cabinet and to contain a mild assertion that in any event whatever the last government had not done could not be done. Now no one denies the difficulties which have been left to us, but from both Britain and the United States we get a clear indication about the old government. I quote the words of the Cleveland Plain Dealer commenting on the Prime Minister's Dartmouth speech when he was discussing the Canadian-American problems:
Since the war the Liberal government preceding the Diefenbaker government administration was willing enough to let matters ride.
Similarly from the Financial Times of London on July 8 comes the comment that for a long time attempts to improve economic cooperation in the commonwealth had been handicapped by Canadian indifference. How convincing this is to me, having sat here for 12 years. How often in this house did the present Prime Minister and the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, seek to stir the government to action. It seemed to me like pushing a dead weight; they did not seem really interested. At best there was acquiescence in the idea of a conference. They were content to ride the crest of the American boom. One could never think of them as crusaders; they were more like camp followers. Now what do we get from the opposition? Well, we get words of discouragement. Things are not good, they say, but nothing can be done. That was the situation really, as outlined by the Prime Minister and by the member for Coast-Capilano-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the third time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, that is terrible and I apologize. It is hard to get over the results of 12 years and I still find it awfully difficult to turn to the left in order to bow to the Speaker.


James Sinclair: You are a real Tory, you do not change.
[Mr. MacdonnellJ


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I might be forgiven for my mistake.
No one denies the difficulties left us. The members of the late government should know that more than anyone else because we are their legatees of the problems of unsold wheat, a huge balance of imports from the the United States, the fear of rising United States tariffs to which the member for Coast-Capilano referred very properly the other day, unemployment and so on. We know we are the legatees from the opposition of these difficulties and we must recognize that legacy, but we will also try to remember what Churchill said on D-day "Don't talk to me of the difficulties, the difficulties will argue for themselves."
I believe and I am happy to believe that the new government has introduced a new spirit. I believe that the Prime Minister has taken, virtually from the dust-bin, ideas in which the previous government were not interested, and he has made people think and talk about them in a way that they have not done for years.
I think we can say that instead of gloom and hesitation, we now have action and hope. The trade difficulties with Britain and the United States are fully recognized but they have been grappled with. This has been recognized both at home and abroad. The Financial Times of London, in speaking of the commonwealth conference in London, referred to it as unusually successful and they gave credit to the present Prime Minister. I have already mentioned the statement that co-operation in the past was handicapped by Canadian indifference. Now on July 8 the Financial Times of London, referring to the commonwealth economic conference as a desirable achievement, said that the Prime Minister has "shaken up the settled and defeatist thinking which had already abandoned hope of the expansion of commonwealth trade". Those are their words and I believe them to be true, in fact they so exactly express my own feelings that I wish I had written them myself.
This I think describes well what has been done. If the spirit is right impossible things can be accomplished. I remember the music hall catch phrase, "where there is a will there are three ways". Well, I think there has not been a will and while difficulties remain and we do not have any magic wand with which to brush them off, nevertheless there is a new spirit.
The Montreal Gazette stressed the importance of the conference and mentions very properly the anxiety that Britain might move more and more into the European trade orbit. This is an appealing reason for vigorous

action and for this reason, to quote again the Gazette, "the Prime Minister's proposal comes just at the moment when the needs and opportunities of commonwealth trade ought to be put forward."
Let us now turn to the United States. There are problems there which we all know exist and there again the Prime Minister has spoken and his remarks on the American situation and the general attitude he has expressed have been seriously and favourably received by the American press. The Washington Post refers to the Prime Minister's frank yet friendly remarks and goes on to say that "the traditional friendship of the two countries can only be preserved and fostered by such straightforward exchange of views." This speech of the Prime Minister incidentally was carried over the C.B.S. national network and the New York Times refers to it as "a sobering indictment coming from one who is clearly a champion of Canadian-United States unity." Further on, referring to the Prime Minister's "spirit of candor" and willingness to seek mutually satisfactory solutions, it said these provide a setting for ironing out the present irritants.
We are not content with words; action is not lacking. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has been to Europe and is organizing an imposing delegation of well-known businessmen to go there again soon. I think it is fair to say that what vigour, courage and imagination can accomplish has been and will be done.
It is true that time has been lost. The last government was content to ride the crest of the wave and even now there is evidence that the former government does not know the score. The former minister of finance in a speech the other day complained that the new government was upsetting "normal and healthy trade lanes". I wonder if he has heard of the imbalance of trade? I wonder if he has heard of the danger of higher tariffs and all the other difficulties which confront us? I wonder if, in the light of that, he is complaining that there is a vigorous and sincere attempt being made to marshal the countries in the commonwealth to deal with them, an effort which has been set on foot by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and in which he is so ably seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to digress a moment in order to speak about one thing which was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in his quality as a socialist. I am never very clear whether the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is a real socialist, but certainly this sounded like a socialist utterance. He referred to price controls during the last war and spoke of the
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell kind of public planning that was used then and seemed willing to return to it. I wonder how far the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is ready to go. Does he really want the wartime controls back? Does he really want, for example, wage controls? Does he want to go back to the hordes of officials which existed then?
I am going to read to the house for a few moments a few sentences describing what controls were like before they were abolished. Here is a brief picture of controls as they existed at the end of the war: First, we have the chairman, the deputy chairman and members of the board. Then we have what are called the head office divisions, of which there are twelve, each with a supervisor or secretary or controller, as the case may be. Then we come to what are called the associated companies, of which there are several. Then we go on to what are called co-ordinations. These include capital equipment, foods, pulp and paper, textiles and clothing, and emergency shelter. Then we go on to a directory of administrations, and here we really plunge into big things, because on a short count I find that the directory of administrations includes about 150. I should like to direct your attention to just a few of them. There is one for books and writing paper; for cork and cork products; for fertilizers and pesticides; clothing and woollens; honey. There is jewellery, which is divided into seven categories. There is meat and meat products; there is fruit. There is one category which I find very interesting: cleaning, decorating, hairdressing, painting, renovating, undertaking, warehousing and storage.
Is this really what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar wants? May I remind him that the British labour party has been steering away from controls for some years. Several years ago at their annual meeting there was a striking vote against nationalization. At their recent meeting their policy with regard to nationalization was watered down to the following further extent:
"Labour will reserve the right to extend public ownership in any industry or part of industry which, after thorough investigation, is found to be seriously failing the nation. This will not necessarily mean taking over the entire industry; it may be that the solution will lie in the acquisition for the community of one or a number of firms."
In other words, this is a striking illustration of the way in which United Kingdom labour policy is turning away from nationalization. And this is indicated particularly by its new policy to allow the proposed national pension fund to invest in equities provided these acquisitions are to be guided solely by investment considerations and will not be aimed at securing control.
328	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
May I tell the hon. member at once that we are not against planning. No sensible man is against planning. But who is to do the planning? Is it to be done by a few bureaucrats, or is to be done by hundreds of thousands of individuals each working to the limit of his power? Where government enters is in the field of regulation. There must be regulation-no one denies that-but this idea of control, this blessed word "planning" seems to me to be entirely contrary to our way of life and to our welfare. Planning, after all, means executing. There is no use attempting to plan unless you make people conform to those plans. We have had enough evidence in the past 20 years to enable us to know what planning means, and I never will understand how my socialist friends believe you can have planning and controls and still have freedom. As the negro gentleman said: "Dem two t'ings don't paralyse".
I hope the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar can, perhaps, answer me on another occasion. I am very sorry he is not here now, because we all have a great respect for him, and it surprises me beyond measure to hear him use those words about planning and controls.
Incidentally, with regard to controls as a cure for inflation, the hon. member will find, if he will look up the records, that prices rose during war time. I remember, too, being told by someone who went into a shop that he could not get what he wanted because manufacturers sheered away from making the standard things, the ordinary articles in common use, and tried to manufacture substitutes which were not under control and which would not come under the letter of the law. I have no time to say more than that.
I want to say something now about the hon. member for Laurier. He was in this house a few years ago and he then had the esteem of us all. I will say that I used to observe sometimes that when he got into the constituencies his language did not seem to be entirely the same as the language he used here in the house. But be that as it may, he was a good friend and we liked him.
I was very sorry indeed to hear the line he took the other day. It seems to me he was trying to create disunity. It seems to me he was trying to set one province against another. He went back half a century in this quest and, what was even more regrettable, he gave a lead to others who seemed to follow on the same lines. I suggest he might have gone a little further back still and if he had done so he might have found that when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was first prime minister and went to Europe he had these words to 

say, speaking in Paris, about his country. Speaking of the motto of the French republic: "liberty, fraternity and equality" he said:
All that there is of worth, of greatness, of generosity in that device, we have today in Canada:	that is our conquest. We have liberty,
absolute, complete, . . . liberty for our religion, with its worship, its ceremonies, its prayers, its customs: liberty for our language, which is the official language as English is. Equality is ours; fraternity is ours. There is with us no domination of one race over another . . .
I suggest to the hon. member for Laurier that he might have been better employed in bringing this to our attention rather than in seeking, seeking, seeking for past events on which to base suggestions of discord.
I wish to say this. I believe that the present Leader of the Opposition-I got it right that time-so far as he was personally concerned was completely in the Laurier tradition and I hope the hon. member for Laurier may perhaps from here on follow the Laurier tradition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He always has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The word "always"
covers a lot of territory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He always has.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was at pains to say that I thought he sometimes did and I hope he always will in the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any doubt.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Our Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he is in the tradition which was followed by Laurier and which was established by Macdonald in his day when there was complete understanding and sympathy between the provinces. This divisive influence came in later. I will not be too specific about that, but we all know where it came from. I say our present Prime Minister seeks nothing but full, complete understanding between the races and I am quite sure he will do everything to promote it.
(Translation):
I hope and believe that those who served with me in this house will agree that I have always sincerely desired racial understanding and good will. The day before yesterday, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) eloquently expressed my views. Surely, racial feeling between the two original races should be put away once and for all. We of the two old races have shared joys and sorrows in peace and war, and I believe that our party, now that it is in power, will give such a lead that we may look confidently to closer and closer racial sympathy and understanding.

(Text):
What I have been trying to say in my poor French is this: I hope and believe those who have served with me in this house will agree that I have sincerely desired racial understanding and good will. The day before yesterday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) eloquently expressed my views. Surely racial feeling between the two original races should be put away once and for all. We of the two old races have shared joys and sorrows in peace and war and I believe that our party, now that it is in power, will give such a lead that we may look confidently to closer and closer racial sympathy and understanding.
It is four months since the election. What is the record? Speaking with, I believe, some detachment, because I have not the burden of a department, I can say that never in my experience have men worked harder. Paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill, I might say never was more work done by so few in so short a time. They have worked desperately hard.
Now as to quality. If we judge by one of the great acid tests, the answering of questions in this house,-and bear in mind that they had only a few months to master situations which some of the questioners had been familiar with for years-my feeling, with whatever detachment I am capable of, is that we in this party have everything to be proud of and nothing to be ashamed of in what they have done. I believe the people of Canada will so regard us. Legislation has come forward and will come forward rapidly, giving complete evidence of the implementing of promises which were made. The Prime Minister has made a distinct impression on the economic thinking of the United States and of the commonwealth and has paved the way, not for magic solution, but for patient and enduring struggle with the problems which exist between us and the United States on the one side and between us and the commonwealth on the other. I believe that when the people of Canada survey what has been done if we are able to carry on as we have done, as I believe we surely shall, when the time comes for another election there will be no doubt as to the result and we shall come back with a complete and over-all majority.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the address my first words must be to thank Her Majesty with great respect for opening this parliament in person and for reading in person the address which we are now debating. The participation of Her Majesty in these historic ceremonies gave 96698-22
The Address-Mr. Pearson them a deeper meaning, I think, to all of us and emphasized the continuity of our historical development and the depth of our roots. For her visit we are all, I think, better Canadians and better members of the commonwealth of nations.
Then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to congratulate you on your elevation to this office of dignity and importance. If I may be pardoned a personal remark perhaps I have known you for as long a time as any member in this house. Our friendship has been warm and close; for, among other things, we played hockey together at college. While we have been opponents in recent years in our political activities we have never allowed, and never will allow, that to interfere with our friendship.
May I also, and in no mere perfunctory manner, congratulate the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The seconder will not, I think, take it amiss if I say to the mover a special word, not only because it was his maiden speech, as it was the maiden speech of the seconder, but because, as so many hon. members have remarked, of the position which his father held in this house for such a long time. His memory will always be regarded by those of us who were fortunate enough to know him with respect and affection.
This, Mr. Speaker, of course, is the first speech I have made on this side of the house, and I confess, with hon. members opposite, particularly perhaps the hon. member who just sat down who referred three times to one of us over here as the prime minister, it is not easy to get accustomed to this change of venue. The way I show my uncertainty, if I may use that word, is that even now when I come into the house I invariably turn left and bow, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will not consider that a reflection on yourself but rather an indication of my continuing esteem and affection for my leader who sits to my left. He was my minister when I was a deputy. He was my prime minister when I was a minister and he will always be my chief whatever may happen in the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to follow the interesting and amiable political musings of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. He perhaps did not give us as much information about the policies of the government of which he is a member as we might have hoped for. He spent a good deal of his time, and this is another indication that he has forgotten where he is sitting, in criticizing those of us over here who are now the opposition. Nevertheless we should be thankful
330	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson because he is, I think, the only minister who has taken part in this debate up to the present time.
When he mentions the self-esteem, as he put it, which gathered around us when we sat on that side-I am not quarrelling with him for his interpretation of our attitudes, he might remember his own words; I hope they are not going to portray the attitude of the present government to the opposition-when he indicated to us that the role of the opposition might be, in the words of Sir Winston Churchill quoted by him, "Don't tell me of the difficulties". I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that we will do just that.
If I may I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of the government and, indeed, the members of the government party for the measure of success which they achieved at the last general election and also perhaps for the easy and ostensibly comfortable way that they are adapting themselves to their new positions. They are, however-I hope they will pardon me for saying this-beginning to show certain of the attitudes which when they imputed them so often to us, and unfairly, I think, they found very disagreeable.
I noticed with some interest that the Prime Minister in a speech outside the house insisted that he and his government were not going to be pushed around by the opposition and I detected just a faint note of expectancy that perhaps that attempt would be made with results that he might be able to exploit to his political advantage and which might serve for the time being at least as a substitute for the heavy responsibility of trying to fulfil his electoral promises.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the hon. gentleman who has just sat down mentioned the circumstances of their accession to power. You might have thought from, if I may call it that, the characteristic exuberance of the language of the Prime Minister that they had inherited declining revenues, a shrinking national income, a deteriorating economy, an arrested national development and foreign markets gone or going. Of course, as all of us know, no matter on what side of the house we sit that would be a caricature of the real situation because the fact is that the government inherited a situation in this country where over years of Liberal administration Canada had experienced, in spite of the many gloomy opposition forecasts that the contrary would happen; I can remember so many of them from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell)-a period of unprecedented economic progress, of national development and international achievement unparallelled in the history of the country.


And when, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party took over, the position of this country-[DOT] we all know this to be true-financially, economically and internationally was the envy of the world. What happens from now on will inevitably be compared with that position, and I am sure the opposition will not complain about that. I admit, of course, as we all admit -the hon. member who just sat down referred to it-that they inherited problems, many serious problems; problems that faced us in June and face us today, and which we have always admitted. But they were problems of development, not of depression; they were problems of advance, not of retreat.
I confess that a good many of these problems seem to me to have been discussed in the recent past by some members of the government in a way which indicated that they were rather not expecting to have the responsibility of solving them. They did, however, during those days and weeks and months make specific, categorical and confident statements that they would solve them, not at some vague and future date but quickly and decisively because the Prime Minister is a quick and decisive gentleman. It is in the light of these statements and the implementation of the promises that they contain that this government will be judged.
I had thought, Mr. Speaker, of talking about external affairs today because it is the subject about which I am normally expected to talk, but I am not going to do so for two reasons. One is that the Prime Minister has promised, and I hope the promise will be implemented without delay, a debate on the international situation. In view of the character, the stress and strain and dangers of that situation the sooner we can have that discussion the better it will be for parliament and perhaps even for the country. The other reason why I am not going to refer to external affairs on this occasion is the statement that was introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and which has certainly intensified my own interest and my own desire to say something about the matters which he dealt with in the house this afternoon on motions.
The first of the matters he dealt with and the first which I will try to deal with is the promise to divert 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. We know, I think, although not much reference was made to it this afternoon, of the origin of what I consider to be an extraordinary, using "extraordinary" in the very literal sense of the word, initiative in economic diplomacy. This proposal originated in a statement by the Prime Minister to the press after a trans-Atlantic air flight from

London where he had been attending the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting. At that time he is reported as having said that he would like to see about a 15 per cent diversion and he did not think that this would be detrimental to Canada-United States business generally.
There was some speculation-indeed, I took part in the speculation myself-that this 15 per cent figure had been chosen without much consideration of what it really meant and that it might soon be forgotten. Not at all. In Ottawa on July 23, not long afterwards, the Prime Minister reaffirmed this figure and that 15 per cent of Canada's purchases in the United States of America could be diverted to the United Kingdom without damaging this country's commercial relations with our neighbour. I think it is fair to say that the impression was created, whether or not it was meant to be created- it certainly was created in my mind-that just as his predecessor, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, had promised shortly after he was elected to blast his way into the markets of the world, so the present Prime Minister thought it would be possible to blast 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will just go on, Mr. Speaker. As I was hoping to explain, it would take quite an atomic blast. Let us just see what is involved. I think this is one of the most careless assertions ever made by any head of a Canadian government. In saying that I do not for one minute suggest that if it could be done by the right method, and without doing this country any harm in other ways, it would not be a good thing to do. However, let us just see whether or not it could be done in that way. This 15 per cent might seem to be a small amount, but it means the diversion of $625 million worth of trade from one country to another. This would not be done, of course, over the next 20, 40 or 50 years; that is not the impression that was given. It would be done by switching from one tap to another, in the doing of which we would help the United Kingdom, whom we are all anxious to help and we *help ourselves in doing so. Also in doing it we would escape or help to escape United States domination. This is a phrase we heard quite often from members of the present government before June 10, but not nearly so much since.
Let us get back to a consideration of what this actually means. It means an increase in United Kingdom exports to Canada of 130 per cent over the 1956 figure. In 1956, the
96698-22J
The Address-Mr. Pearson United Kingdom took 8.5 per cent of our exports, and a 15 per cent increase in that figure would bring it up to 19.5 per cent. The only time since 1921 that that figure was ever reached was during the depression of 1932 to 1936. We know the reason for the high United Kingdom percentage then. I admit, of course, that there was some diversion by reason of the Ottawa conference arrangements, but even more that change was due to the fact that the depression cut down United States imports far more than those of the United Kingdom because of the nature of the United Kingdom imports. However, more important than that is the fact that while at that time the United Kingdom percentage was higher, it was only a bigger slice of a much smaller pie.
Surely, we do not want to take any steps which might bring about an experience of that kind of diversion in 1957. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that since those days the United States share of our market has grown, and we know why. There has been a change in consumer demand in Canada away from the United Kingdom and towards the United States type of goods; the ability of the United States salesmanship to take advantage of this; the United States distribution and transportation arrangements give them an advantage over the United Kingdom. Then there are the price and supply advantages generally.
Then, and this is very important; it is due in part at least, and in no small part, to a great increase in United States investment in Canada, which was bound to increase the United States imports because capital export must mean an export of goods. This export from the United States, without which our development of recent years could not have proceeded in the way it did proceed, came at a time when the United Kingdom, because of the sacrifices which she had made in world war II and of which we are all the beneficiaries, was not in a position to make similar investments. The United Kingdom was not in a position to take advantage to the fullest extent of the Canadian market. The question of sterling balances in London made it of the utmost importance that they seek markets for their goods in areas where competition would not be so keen. All this I think, Mr. Speaker, puts this proposed change in our pattern of trade in the proper perspective.
Now, what about this 15 per cent diversion as a practical proposition? The statistics and nature of our trade show that in perhaps 60 per cent of our imports from the United States little, if any, diversion is possible. In order to reach 15 per cent of the total, or that figure of $625 million, we would have to

The Address-Mr. Pearson divert one-third of the other imports where there is at least a possibility of such diversion. This means that the United Kingdom's share of the Canadian market in these categories of goods would have to be more than trebled. I refer to such things as textiles, chemicals, iron and steel products, transportation and industrial equipment. I ask the question, could that possibly be done without seriously affecting Canadian industry?
How, whatever the result, could it be attempted? There are various methods. First, of course, it might be done by persuasion, by the use of the slogan "Buy British" and all that kind of thing. We have been trying that in this country officially and nonofficially for a good many years. We have in being at the present time a very efficient and very industrious dollar-sterling export board under the leadership of Mr. Duncan which has done as much as any board could do towards diverting trade through this means. We have sent trade missions and they have sent trade missions. There is nothing new in that. I do not think it will be done by voluntary action, though anything that can be done would be welcome by all of us.
What about governmental action? What form could that take? First, perhaps it could take the form of tariff reductions, but there are a few facts on this score that bear on such a proposal. The first one is that 60 per cent of United Kingdom imports into this country are free of duty now. Of the 40 per cent remaining, a large proportion of them come in under very low duties. In 1949 when the devaluation of the British pound gave the British exporter an additional 20 per cent advantage over his competitor from the United States by a reduction in tariffs, which was brought about by that devaluation, the United Kingdom was not aided very much in increasing exports to Canada or displacing United States goods. What about renegotiated tariff schedules upwards under GATT, without discrimination, and keeping British preferences? Mr. Speaker, this procedure might keep out a few United States goods, and it might bring in a few more British goods. However, it might also bring in a few more goods from countries such as Japan and Germany as well as the United Kingdom. It might also, indeed I think it would, reduce our trade generally and, going back to the old days, to the thirties, only give the United Kingdom a higher proportion of a smaller market. It would be a return to the restrictive tariff principles of the early thirties with the result which I am sure we do not wish to repeat in 1957. It would increase prices and costs of production in


Canada and make it more difficult for our exporters to compete in world markets. In short, it would have a restrictive effect on trade, something for which this party has never stood and will not stand.
There then remains direct discrimination against United States exports to Canada. This brings up at once the question of GATT, to which my friends opposite have once again pledged their support in the communique from Washington. What about our efforts to broaden the basis of trade, to increase our trade with the United Kingdom in an expanding and not a restrictive international market? More important even than that, what about United States retaliation? There is a very real danger, as my hon. friends probably know, of that happening. When we were in office we tried hard, we did our best, to keep the United States government from adding to its duties and its controls against our products. We were not able to accomplish all the things we had hoped, but we did have very considerable success in that regard.
But if the Canadian government now threatens, or even more if they were actually successful in bringing about a diversion by discriminatory governmental action,-and what other way is there to do it short of free trade?-how long will this government be able to persuade-and I quote just one example which is very much in our mind now-Washington not to raise the present duty on fish or not to put a duty on fish? The pressures in that direction are already very great, as the report, from the tariff commission over there indicates. Those pressures would probably be intolerable for any United States administration if there was any threatening of discriminatory action from this side of the border. I think the government should be warned on this matter.
So we come to the final method by which it might be done, namely the establishment of a free trade area between the United Kingdom and Canada. The United Kingdom government took seriously the Prime Minister's offer of the 15 per cent diversion, although I confess that some unkind people put it that they decided to call the Prime Minister's bluff. The result-an indication that they took it seriously-was the free trade proposal made by the United Kingdom government through the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the only practicable way of implementing the Canadian proposal. We know that in September of this year the minister of agriculture of the United Kingdom had not put forward, as we learned this afternoon, any formal proposal to this end but had indicated in Ottawa that this idea was very much in their mind.

The public offer, however, was first made- and I admit it was an unusual way in which to make it-at a press conference held in connection with the Mont Tremblant conference of finance ministers. Some of the details surrounding it, however, were, I was going to say, made clear-perhaps that is not exactly the right expression-were given to us this afternoon. What was the Canadian government's reaction to this offer by the United Kingdom government through the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Mont Tremblant? It was not what we had a right to expect it would be. It was one of surprise and consternation. Why the surprise, apart from the fact that there may have been earlier informal consideration of this matter. This was the only possible way in which the offer could be implemented. As the Manchester Guardian put it on September 20:
The total of 15 per cent looks impracticable unless Mr. Diefenbaker is prepared to risk both unpopularity and upsetting the rhythm of parts of industry in Canada.
So the United Kingdom proposal was made and made seriously. Then silence fell on the Canadian Prime Minister and his colleagues where silence, though still golden, has lately not been customary. It was no doubt hoped that the whole unhappy business could be swept under the rug. There was not a word from the Prime Minister. There was not a word from the Minister of Finance except that it was a difficult proposition. There were a great many words from the Minister of Finance this afternoon but not many that threw much light on the government's attitude towards this proposal.
Then we remember-those of us who watched television-the appearance of the Minister of Finance when he was explaining this Mont Tremblant conference. I gathered the impression-and I hope that I am not being unfair to him-that on this occasion and in connection with this particular proposition he had lost some of his steely confidence. Why no welcome of this proposal, at least in principle, because it was the only way by which the 15 per cent could be diverted without direct discriminatory action against the United States. Why no appraisal of it for parliament or the people of Canada, even if that appraisal had to be an agonizing one.
Some journalists at Mont Tremblant reported that there was a Canadian government reaction and that it was one of "alarm and hostility". Is that right? Is there any information concerning it in the communique issued after the United Kingdom-Canadian talks in Ottawa? There is none. It was set aside as something of a long-term nature only. That was supposed to satisfy us in
The Address-Mr. Pearson
parliament and to satisfy the people in the country in connection with a proposal which has not been exceeded in importance in economic matters for many years in this country.
Instead of any indication of the government's decision on that proposal, we were given in the communique three decisions to increase British exports to this country. In so far as those proposals can be worked out they are to be welcomed. But what about the 15 per cent, no part of which would be affected by the proposals in the Ottawa communique? As Mr. Blakely of the Gazette said on October 7, and I think perhaps he is right in this: "The hair raising British free trade area proposal has been shelved". But, Mr. Speaker, it has not been shelved without some damage already being done to Anglo-Canadian relations because recriminations have already begun on both sides and misunderstandings have been created as to the nature of this proposal and as to whether it is, in fact, to be implemented.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let me just try to give some evidence of what I have said,-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Try.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and which seems to amuse the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). The Hamilton Spectator, no great supporter of the Liberal party, says this:
-it was callous of the British government merely to ridicule PM's offer by making proposals that were manifestly absurd.
Then there is the Globe and Mail of Toronto which was friendly enough to this proposal on October 2 when it first commented on it. Then something seems to have happened, because a few days later the same paper became extremely violent about the chancellor of the exchequer to whom it referred in terms which it often has used in respect of Americans whom it has disliked. That editorial-and this again surely does not help Anglo-Canadian relations-talks about
-casual even callous action-
Referring to Mr. Thorneycroft:
-his flambuoyant outburst . .	. calamitous
lapse of taste and judgment ... by one ill-considered action he did serious harm to Anglo-Canadian relationships .	.	. his diplomacy of a
kind we expect from Moscow not London.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why such an attack as this is made on the British government for taking a serious and obvious step in reply to a proposal made by the Canadian Prime Minister. The Economist, a magazine which my friend the hon. member for Greenwood so often quotes in this house, said on October
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pearson 5 that Mr. Thorneycroft,-referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer-in putting his proposal forward,
-is saying, in clinical terms, what the statement by all the commonwealth finance ministers said in the usual pious phraseology on Tuesday, at the end of their meeting at Mont Tremblant, when they advocated in aid of the pound sterling the promotion of "freer and expanding trade and payments."
Then also this editorial in The Economist commented as follows:
What is needed in commonwealth trade is a sense of shock and a clearing away of doubletalk. Mr. Thorneycroft has administered the first; now is the time to get on with the second.
Mr. Speaker, I commend that advice to the government. They have had their shock, so let us clear away the doubletalk.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I think you fellows had a shock too.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us hear what their policy is going to be with respect to this matter. We have heard nothing about it yet.


Richard Albert Bell: What is your policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our policy over here is to get the government which is responsible to tell the people of Canada what their policy is.


An hon. Member:: Well it is a lot better than yours ever have been, anyway.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to add a few comments about the Mont Tremblant conference and the upshot of that conference in respect to the commonwealth economic situation, but I see that my time is running short and I will reserve my comments on that subject for another day.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Why do you not go back and tell us about the Suez affair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to talk to my hon. friend either inside or outside the house on that matter at any time that it is proper to do so.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I hope you will have an opportunity to talk to me outside the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend referred to the Suez affair and I commend him to the new Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Smith, who took such a realistic attitude with respect to that matter.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You probably will not have time to talk to me about that outside of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now the Prime Minister
spoke with his customary vigour at Charlottetown a few weeks ago. According to the press, and that is all I have to go on, he


indicated that as a result of his Dartmouth speech, which we have all read with so much interest, the United States had made a new appraisal of its trade policies and of certain measures which had not been passed at the recent session of congress. Therefore, in the light of that optimistic forecast respecting the influence of the Canadian government in Washington we might have been pardoned for expecting great results from this Washington meeting. Well, did they occur? I think it has never been better put than by Mr. Blakely the columnist in the Montreal Gazette, when he wrote that there had been other pilgrimages to Washington-and I have taken part in them myself- which could be said to have produced nothing, but it is doubtful there have been any which could be said to have produced less than this one. The Gazette, I think although I am not sure it was on the same day, in its editorial columns, in explaining some of the difficulties that have to be faced, described this pilgrimage as a force less than irresistible which met an object not perceptibly movable.
Now with respect to the Washington communique which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance discussed at some length this afternoon, I might say I know something about communiques issued after international conferences and I have had a good deal of experience in reading between their lines. I have indeed compared this one with two other communiques previously issued after such conferences, but in this case we do not have to read between the lines. The secretary of commerce is reported to have said, which statement was explained in this house this afternoon, "We fixed them". I know it was explained by the Minister of Finance that he was speaking in a jocular way and I am sure he did not expect those words to be reproduced in the press. Perhaps that makes them all the more impressive.
The Minister of Finance referred this afternoon to the fine atmosphere of the conference and I am sure the atmosphere was fine. He said, although he did not use these words, that we really laid it on the line and made known the Canadian position exactly and in much stronger terms than previously. However, the United States undersecretary of state in charge of economic affairs, as reported in Washington, is said to have expressed some satisfaction-and perhaps the satisfaction is understandable in view of the feeling he would have had in advance of the arrival of this delegation-and to have said that the general climate on the wheat problem at these talks was better than that at the meeting he attended in Ottawa before the election. I suspect it was because at

that earlier meeting the United States government was left in no doubt as to our views and there was no desire on their part at that time to issue a communique in which we would have expressed our views.
The communique speaks for itself-the Americans will do "what they can" to help us. They will do away with these barter transactions of which my hon. friend made so much this afternoon, without emphasizing the fact that this position was taken by them before the election. It was taken, as I understand it, not in the summer as he suggests, but last April. Then the Minister of Finance explained that it was different this time in Washington. To quote from a press statement made by him on leaving that city he said:
The barter suspension has been confirmed in a Canadian context-
Whatever that may mean.
__and this places it now on a level of an international agreement beyond domestic pressures.
I would say to my hon. friend that in the light of the experience I have had in negotiating and discussing economic matters with the United States I would never have gone out on that limb. I think he probably will very soon regret his confidence.
There has been domestic pressure brought before on their congress to alter an arrangement made previously by the administration. Well, Mr. Speaker, we will see what will happen. I, like all members of this house, hope that the result will be as forecast and that the Americans will abandon these arrangements and these practices. However the most important one and perhaps the most dangerous one has not even been mentioned in the communique. That is the question of tied-in sales. In short I think we will be making a great mistake if we go overboard with optimism on the results of this conference. This talk took place-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the rather positive speech which we have just heard reminds me of when I first entered Victoria college in 1946. I noticed a mark up on the wall and I inquired as to how it got there-it was a sort of grease stain. I was told that a number of years ago a very radical undergraduate in a moment of protest had hurled a plate of butter at the wall. I inquired as to the name of the undergraduate and what had happened to him and it was reported that he was the secretary of state for external affairs. Now the story is probably apocryphal but it is very interesting for me as a new member to sit here and watch him
The Address-Mr. Fisher spread butter in an entirely new way. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to add my mite-spelled "mite"-to the congratulatory credits which have been accorded to you, to your deputy and to the mover (Mr. Smith, Calgary South) and the seconder (Mr. Arsenault) of the motions.
A maiden speech is usually or reportedly a moment of emotion and, at emotional times, I tend to turn to my favourite poet Sarah Binks, the prairie songstress. But not only do we have some Saskatchewan songsters here in my own party, we have a really sonorous and melodious songster on the treasury bench and so I am going to move on without any metered flourishes to the flat directness of northwestern Ontario. I plan to cover the following topics.
Firstly, the significance of the electoral result in the constituency of Port Arthur; secondly the role of the press and television in the political campaign; thirdly the problems of the constituency of Port Arthur; and fourthly, some questions on the principles and ideas of Liberals and Conservatives. That is to say the parties, not the small "1" liberal or the small "c" conservative.
Love and liking have been very noticeable in the drama which has so far unfolded in the House of Commons. Everybody loves democracy, everybody loves the monarchy, everybody loves the French language, everybody loves the old age pensioner, almost everybody loves the speech from the throne, everyone likes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) and everyone has a great deal of respect for the Speaker.
In this sweet atmosphere I felt that I could do no less than express from a distance my appreciation of an association even in a minor way, with some of the great figures of this house.
For example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)-it is a conviction of mine that members of parliament do to some extent reflect the personality or the character of their constituents. A number of years ago, I earned my living in Toronto by delivering beer. Some routes in the city were much more prized than others. The member who represents Cabbagetown, or whose constituency covers that ward, may be interested to know, for example, that this area was a favourite one-one of the most prized in the city-because of the tips that were given- and one occasionally got something else as a reward for bringing the product around. One section of the city was very unpopular. That was the area of prosperity above St. Clair and centring on Eglinton. There the good women invariably insisted on a backdoor delivery, often asked that the truck be parked several doors up the way, and were very careful to give only the exact change.
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fisher If the hon. minister reflects such circumspect frugality, he will make an ideal minister of finance. Of course, I will watoh him closely, because we all remarked how the occasional Eglinton area housewife liked to scrub out a ketchup bottle and slip it in so as to pose as a lager bottle and reap the three cents.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very interested in watching the development of the party on my extreme left. I am sorry that there is to be no debate on health insurance or anything like that in the immediate future, because 1 would like to know the attitude of that party toward naturopathic medicine. I am wondering, too, whether they have any views on the McGill fence.
One last bit of personalia, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the illustrious graduate of Victoria who is soon going to face problems in that direction. I hope the ghostly pipers of the 1948 Liberal convention will not march again, and if they do that they will not march successfully. We in this comer hope no young Lochinvar from the border comes and grabs the Liberal maiden early in 1958.
The two constituencies to the west of Port Arthur and the two constituencies to the east of Port Arthur returned Liberal members on June 10. A careless observer might say that Port Arthur's failure to do so reflected a weakness in the candidate. With all respect to the successful Liberals, such reasoning will not do. There are some reasons which I would offer for the failure of the former minister of trade and commerce to return here. I am not impudent enough to be Mr. Howe's valedictorian. The great corporations and trusts of Canada will do and are doing that chore. I would suggest, however, that our electoral victory in Port Arthur does represent a vindication for the view that the Canadian people want parliament to retain its right of free discussions, and that an abstract issue can be taken seriously by the voters. Further, the campaign in Port Arthur reveals, in my opinion, that when a C.C.F. candidate is in a fairly equal position in presenting his party's policies, a goodly portion of the electorate can appreciate its merits. One accolade one can bestow on Mr. Howe is that he never used his tremendous

power to build up a personal machine in his riding. There was no P.F.R.A. in the constituency of Port Arthur.
On this matter of party warfare and party machines I would like to refer one of the members of the treasury branch to a newsletter, No. 177, of the Canadian chamber of commerce which said:
Not very long ago a prominent provincial politician is reported to have said 'It is no secret that the country represented by the (party in power) member has a better chance of getting government help than a country where (an opposition) member is elected . . . That is only human nature, and there is nothing we can do to change that. This, in effect, tells the voters of that particular area that unless they vote the right way they can expect nothing from the government.
Recently a minister of the new government, on a lightning foray into the lakehead, made the remark that he was unaware of a certain contentious problem until the defeated Conservative candidate directed it to his notice. Gamesmanship such as this is of the spirit that the Canadian chamber of commerce deplores in its newsletter. May we have no more of it, even if in this case, Liberal members were the whipping boys.
On motion of Mr. Fisher the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorow we shall proceed with the resolution to provide for cash advances on grain. In view of the fact that we are not going on with the debate on the speech from the throne, I think the house will meet at 2.30 p.m. rather than at eleven o'clock in the morning. If there should be time left after this resolution has been dealt with the house will proceed to consider the four resolutions having to do with old age pensions, old age assistance, blind persons' pensions and disability pensions, and if we should succeed in completing all this business we will come back to the speech from the throne.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the announcement which has been made regarding tomorrow's business, this house stands adjourned until 2.30.


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

Questions

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

Mr. Shaw: 1.	What has been the total cost to date of renovations made to the armoury at Innisfail, Alberta?
2.	What is the estimated cost of completing such renovations?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minisier of
National Defence):
1.	Total cost of renovations since 1952- $20,600.
2.	It is estimated that an additional sum of $775 will be required to complete these renovations.


C.B.C.-BOOSTER STATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is it imperative that the C.B.C. radio booster stations now serving small isolated communities do continue to broadcast only the trans-Canada network programs, even though the dominion network programs are readily available to these stations?
2.	Has the C.B.C. received any requests from the communities served by such stations to have a switch to the dominion network from the trans-Canada network or to have an intermixing of such programs?
3.	Have any of the operators of such stations been threatened with dismissal for making the switch for certain programs on their own initiative?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minisier of
National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
advises:
1.	It is necessary for operating and financial reasons that the C.B.C. radio relay stations in question generally carry trans-Canada network service, except that, in some instances where arrangements can be made without disrupting main network services, certain special programs from the dominion network are fed to the relay stations.
2.	No. A few requests have been received from individuals.
3.	No information available as the operators in question are not employees of the C.B.C.


C.B.C.-NOTICE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How long is it since the C.B.C. issued a consolidated printing of the rules and regulations regarding the activities of private radio and television broadcasters?
2.	If such a consolidation has not been made recently, is one contemplated?
3.	How many regulations have been issued annually in each of the last three calendar years?
4.	When a regulation is cancelled or superseded what action is taken to give the private stations a convenient record of the matter?
Answer by: Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of Naiional Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises:
1.	The last complete issue of C.B.C. regulations for broadcasting stations was made in mimeograph form as of December 1, 1955.
2.	Since the present issue is still up to date no further issue is contemplated until there is a change in the regulations.
3.	1955-3 changes in regulations; 1956 and 1957-none.
4.	All stations are advised by special letter; in addition shortly afterwards they are supplied with a new revised issue of the regulations.


PLAYING FIELD, R.M.C., KINGSTON
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the final cost of the playing field and stands constructed at the Royal Military College, Kingston, near the causeway?
2.	Is this field used to any extent?
3.	If this field is not used what are the reasons for it?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of Naiional Defence):
1.	$24,700.
2.	Yes. This field is used by the R.M.C. cadets for football games and track training practices.
3.	Not applicable.


LOBSTER CONSERVATION, N.B.  ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Robichaud: Thursday, October 24, 1957