1958-05-20

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Sir:
Ottawa, May 20, 1958
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of the report which has appeared in two recent issues of the Financial Post and the Globe and Mail that the eight ships that were struck by the seafarers' international union, belonging to the Canadian National Steamships, are now to be offered for sale? Has he any comment to make on that statement? I sent the minister a copy of the question earlier today.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have not seen the two reports referred to. I will be in touch with the management of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and I shall report to the house in the next day or so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this question already has been asked by the hon. member for Laurier. There is a question on the order paper to be answered orally which I think covers the same ground.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker. If I may say so, it covers the same subject matter but it does not cover the question of the sale of the ships. That is why I directed this question to the minister.



REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION OF CANADA-U.S. AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I hope this question perks him up. Would the Minister of National Defence assure the house now that he will carry out his undertaking, given on January 4 of this year when replying to the request of the hon. member for Essex East, to submit the NORAD agreement to parliament, by having the necessary arrangements made so the agreement will be submitted to parliament in the form of a regular motion for its consideration?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I am bubbling over to answer that question. The note was tabled yesterday, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that there would be opportunities for further discussion of the matter.


Mr. Mcllraith:: No.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister not give further consideration to the possibility of the House of Commons discussing this agreement in the form of a resolution for approval or disapproval by the house?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in answer to the question asked by my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that further opportunity would be given for discussion. The hon. gentleman now suggests that an opportunity might be provided by a general discussion of a resolution in this regard. I have looked over the records, and in view of the fact that this is part of the NATO concept I do not think there is any reason why this matter should be dealt with in that way. Also I would point out that I felt that naturally since the previous government had done all the preliminary work in connection with this matter and had arrived at a tentative arrangement, although it was not placed in the form of notes, there would not be any probability of opposition in the acceptance by the house of the agreement or the notes which have passed between those two countries.
244	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
However, my concept of my position, in view of the disproportionate percentage of government membership in the house, in the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite, and also because the opposition seems desirous of having a vote in order to show its opposition to the exchange of notes-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: -is that I would have no objection whatsoever to having a resolution submitted so that hon. gentlemen may have the opportunity to stand up and be counted on this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Has the Prime Minister not discovered in his researches on this subject that this matter, far from having been approved by the previous cabinet, never came before the previous cabinet for consideration? Will the Prime Minister not agree also that a vote in the house on this question might be very helpful, because it is such an important matter, in order to show that the house is unanimously behind the concept of collective defence?


John George Diefenbaker: As to the first point raised by the hon. gentleman, while I naturally have no right to examine the records of the previous cabinet, everything points to the fact that this question did receive consideration as revealed by the notes of the staff meetings in this connection.
As to the second point, that is why 1 am so anxious that hon. gentlemen have an opportunity to vote on this question, so we will know exactly where they stand and if they support the action, for up to the present time they have not shown any indication in that regard.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Is the Prime Minister not aware that, having now decided to accept the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, this agreement involving authorization to send Canadian forces outside Canada must by separate resolution be submitted to this house if we are to observe the constitutional and traditional practice of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into any argument in that connection. I simply say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out that this is part of the NATO plan for defence. That being so, any constitutional experience in the past has no application to the present situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this matter has been pursued to the point where it is becoming a debate and, that being so, such a


discussion should more properly take place at a later time when the matter is before the house.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF PROCEEDINGS OF U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would consider tabling the hearings before the special committee of the United States Senate on Canadian-American relations, in view of the wide-spread interest which I am sure exists on the part of all hon. members in this matter?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those papers in the department, and I do not know how I can comply with that proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: That document is one that is perhaps available to all hon. members from an outside source and is not especially available to members of the government. However, the matter has been dealt with, I think.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. L. Hanbidge (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have an editorial from the issue of that great family journal and independent political newspaper known as the Toronto Telegram of Saturday, May 17. The editorial is entitled, "Show Window in Brussels." I should like to ask the minister if he has read the editorial. Second, does the minister intend to take the advice given him and catch a plane to Brussels to straighten out matters over there?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have read the editorial. I would have no objection to going to Brussels immediately, but at the moment I do not see that any good purpose would be served by my doing so. The Canadian pavilion at the world fair at Brussels was designed and planned about two years ago. When we assumed office last summer the plans had been completed in final form. I was in Brussels last September. I saw the pavilion in the course of construction, and was given some indication of its general lay-out and the grounds surrounding it.

Subsequently, since the exhibition has been opened, statements have appeared in the press and some letters have been sent to me objecting to certain things over there. Objection has been taken to the meals served in the restaurant; there has been a query as to whether the ramp which leads to the second floor is a suitable method of gaining access to the second floor; some objection has been taken to the size of the building, and to the nature of the exhibits shown therein. It is extremely difficult, when you are dealing with a thing like this, to be sure what should be done. There is a difference of opinion amongst people with regard to art and architecture; not all people can be completely satisfied with regard to a pavilion such as this. I am no expert on art. I do not understand surrealism or modern painting. I did appreciate, however, a cartoon which appeared during the election campaign giving a surrealistic vision of Canada.
In so far as this particular pavilion is concerned, I have had a first-hand account from a competent observer who has just returned from Brussels and who spent five days there looking at the various pavilions, the Canadian pavilion in particular. If I have your permission, sir, I should like to report that Mrs. Michener told me yesterday that she made an extensive tour of all the pavilions at the world fair, and that the Canadian pavilion is a credit to Canada. She said that in her opinion the entire Canadian exhibit had been imaginatively planned and that it gives an adequate picture of the country as a whole. This, she said, is not true of the pavilions of other smaller countries. The exhibit of Canadian industries and arts is a better representation than that of the United States. She particularly mentioned the excellence of the fisheries exhibit. The automatic fish are so lifelike that a visitor attempted to feed them bread crumbs before she discovered her error. The gardens surrounding the building have been well laid out.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; surely this is not proper procedure by the ministry in answering a question. The minister has transgressed the rules by not being concise and relevant, and has transgressed on some other grounds which you, Mr. Speaker, could not fail to observe. He has transgressed the bounds of good taste as well.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has proceeded on his own responsibility. I feel this is not a matter that can be dealt with satisfactorily in the question period, and there will be an
Inquiries of the Ministry opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the Canadian exhibit in the debate that is now taking place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of the public interest in this matter and the fact that it is scarcely a subject for debate I thought a factual statement like this would be acceptable to the house under the circumstances.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiflam):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Why is it that asparagus growers in Ontario are receiving a higher floor price than those in British Columbia? Has the government accepted the principle of establishing regional price differentials under the new act?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the reason is that under the stabilization act, as the hon. member will perhaps recall, it was provided that a floor price would be established on the basis of the average price which had been received for that commodity at representative markets across Canada. The average price received for asparagus in British Columbia has been 1 cent a pound lower than the average price received for asparagus in Ontario. It is for that reason that the floor price established in British Columbia is 17 cents whereas the floor price established in Ontario is 18 cents.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a very proper supplementary question to the question asked by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam. Will the principle of regional support prices also apply to apples and eggs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of regional support prices; it is a matter of carrying out the terms of the Agricultural Stabilization Act which, as I stated a moment ago, provides that floor prices will be established on the basis of the 10 year average of prices at representative markets across the country, which means, of course, that the floor price in Toronto, we will say, will not be the same as the floor price in Winnipeg. Alternatively, one could take any other two points which are widely separated. This will be the situation in most cases.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary-question to the Minister of Agriculture. Was not the average price for grade A asparagus in Ontario 22 cents a pound in recent years, and was the floor price set at 80 per cent of that price? I should also like to know if the peach growers can expect a floor price for their peaches this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the price of asparagus was about 22 cents a pound, I think, approximately two years ago. Last year it was 21 cents a pound. This was for No. 1 grade A asparagus going to processing plants. I have forgotten the exact percentage at which this was set, but I believe it is somewhere around 80 per cent. I am not in a position to make any statement about peaches at the moment.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Does the minister propose to take any steps to prevent the proposed layoffs of employees at the C.N.R. repair shops in Moncton?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, matters of that kind come entirely under the jurisdiction of the management of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I have a supplementary question. Does the minister recall his statement made to members of the press in Moncton, as reported on March 28, to the effect that he had issued strict orders-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It strikes me that the hon. member for Gloucester is about to give information, not to ask for it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Did the minister make a statement to the press in Moncton, as reported on March 28, 1958, to the effect that he had issued strict orders to the Canadian National Railways that no further lay-offs should take place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Gloucester considers that question to be a proper one to ask on the orders of the day, namely to ask for verification of whether a statement was made sometime in March; was it March 28?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: March 28, 1958.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not a matter of urgency, but if the minister wishes to answer it he may do so.


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to answer the hon. member's question. When I was in Moncton I repeated in essence what I had said in the house, which statement the hon. member heard-I think it was in January- when I informed the house that the Canadian National Railways were embarking upon a make-work program during the winter in order to ease the employment situation throughout Canada, as it was hoped private industry was doing as well. I made no statement that the Canadian National Railways would lay off no more employees at any time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I, Mr. Speaker, follow this up with a supplementary question to that which was asked earlier by the hon. member for Gloucester. I should like the Minister of Transport to tell the house how many men have been laid off at the Moncton shops of the Canadian National Railways, and would he also tell the house what the Canadian National Railways or the government intends to do to find employment for these men.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the former minister well knows, these matters come solely within the jurisdiction of the Canadian National Railways. I will get in touch with the management and will find out what is the situation in that regard.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. There has been considerable disappointment expressed in my constituency-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hubert Badanai: All right; the question is this. Considerable disappointment has been expressed in my constituency over what appears to be a meagre appropriation for harbour improvements in Fort William. Out of $100 million earmarked for the province of Ontario the city of Fort William, with 42,000 population, can expect a federal expenditure of only $100,000.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Hubert Badanai: I should like to know whether these figures represent all that the federal government is going to spend in Fort William in 1958.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is not entirely familiar with the practice of the house. I think that question would best be answered if the hon. member would put it on the order paper. He can then get his statistical information accurately.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) made a suggestion with regard to the choice of a name for the new bridge over Nuns' island. I answered at the time that I would gladly consider the matter. I believe it highly desirable that the name which will be given to this bridge will recall the history of French-speaking Canadians of the city of Montreal.
I took up this matter with officials of the national harbours board and asked them to get in touch with the Montreal chamber of commerce and other interested bodies with a view to finding the most appropriate name.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) for his excellent reply and especially for the encouraging prospect we now have that a French name will be given to the new bridge over Nuns' island.
(Text):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister inform the house whether any foreign ships using the St. Lawrence system this shipping season without pilots have been involved in any accidents? If so, was the absence of a pilot a factor?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question.
The Department of Transport has received a report of only one accident in which a foreign ship using the St. Lawrence system, without pilotage, has been involved. In this case the German ship Auguste Levers and the Canadian laker Wallaceburg came in gentle contact when feeling their way past each other in the Cornwall canal. On neither ship was a pilot employed, and the resulting damage is said to have amounted to only one bent
Inquiries of the Ministry hand rail. Such incidents occasionally occur in the canals when ships are under the direction of pilots, and it is impossible to say whether or not, in this instance, the ships would have passed by each other without damage if pilots had been employed.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs the following question. Can the minister inform this house of the effect the forthcoming provincial hospital insurance plans may have on the hospitalization and treatment of veterans and upon the operation of hospitals administered by his department?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, the subject matter of which I know is of great interest to veterans all across the country. There is considerable detail involved in the answer; all the details are not in my possession at the present time, and I would therefore like to take this question as notice.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received the report on the survey carried out by the railway companies in regard to the Great Slave lake railroad and, if so, would he table the report?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The report referred to by the hon. member is a report prepared for the railway companies themselves at their own expense, Mr. Speaker, and as a courtesy they have given us a copy thereof. I am not certain, unless I get their permission, that I have the right to table it in this house. However, I will look into the matter and see what can be done.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister inform the house what progress, if any, is being

The Address-Mr. Caron made with respect to the settlement of the department was successful in this suit-in
the words of the Minister of National
strike against Canadian Pacific Steamships in British Columbia?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. My reply is that after the unsuccessful meetings which were held last Friday, May 16, prior to the strike, between the west coast representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the seafarers international union, I advised them that all the resources of the Department of Labour were available to assist them at any time. I have also instructed the west coast officer of the Department of Labour to make his services available to the parties at any time.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the answer of the minister that so far as he knows there are no further meetings planned under the auspices of his department. Although plans may be being laid, there is no meeting planned for any specific time?


Michael Starr: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we have no notice of any meeting to be held.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have not noticed the Secretary of State for External Affairs attempting to rise to reply to the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur with respect to the hearings before the United States Senate committee on foreign affairs last Friday. Presumably he proposes to reply at a later date; therefore I would ask him when he is studying the proceedings of that committee whether he would as well look into the interrogation of the United States ambassador to Canada, when he was asked by members of that committee why he had issued a statement saying that the lawsuit brought by the United States treasury against the Premium Iron Ore Company had nothing to do with the United States-Canadian tax treaty.
I would also like to know if the Secretary of State for External Affairs would inform the house as to whether or not before the United States ambassador made that statement, or since he made the statement, the government has made the ambassador aware of the views of this government as presented by the Minister of National Revenue on February 1, that if the United States tax 
Revenue-"we would feel that the convention had been violated."


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a somewhat similar question last week-
I do not recall the date-I gave that information to the house.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Lafreniere for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr. Speaker:: May I, in courtesy to the hon. member for Hull, whom I am about to recognize, advise him that he had exhausted all but one minute of his time when we concluded yesterday.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, even though I have only one minute left to me, I will try to make use of it.
Yesterday, during the debate, I spoke of this extraordinary business slowdown which displays at the same time inflationary tendencies. I stated my belief that taxes could be cut down, but I had not quite had my say. The objection will possibly be raised that new tax cuts would increase the danger of inflation. My suggestion is this. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and the government could take them just as it did during the war. At that time, because of the difficulties of the period, the government fixed prices. To my mind, the source of all this difficulty is instalment buying of luxury goods. I am of the opinion that the government could declare a state of emergency and order that no credit is to be allowed purchasers unless they can pay 25 per cent down.
Price control could also be established on food, because if we allow the prices of food to go up, workers will apply for raises in salary, followed by further price increases; thereby creating a vicious circle from which there will be no escape.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my time is so short.

(Text):


Mr. Arlhur Maloney (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the privilege of adding my name to the long list of those who have spoken before me in tribute to Your Honour on the occasion of your re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons, and to comment upon the significance of the fact that your election to this office was made unanimous by a group of opposition members who experienced such impartial, unbiased and fair treatment from Your Honour in the twenty-third parliament of this country.
I should like also to extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) for the appointments given to them. I wish also to add my name to the list of those who have already extended their congratulations to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere) and to the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for the excellent contribution they have made to the debate.
I take this occasion on behalf of those of us who have been veterans of this house since June 10 to welcome those members who are newly elected since March 31. If they derive as much enjoyment and pleasure out of service in this place as we have who were elected on June 10 they are about to enjoy an enriching and rewarding experience. They will find also that their participation in the proceedings of this house will not only be welcomed but will be encouraged.
I should like to comment upon the great contributions that have been made to parliamentary debate in the last few days by those of the newly-elected members who have already spoken on the address. I want to compliment, too, the 50 representatives from ancient French Canada. Their arrival in this house when it opened last week entitles me I think, to call myself a prophet. I refer to what I said on the occasion of my maiden speech in this house on October 21, 1957. In Hansard of that date, at page 202, I am recorded as having said:
At this moment on this side of the house there are not as many representatives of my French Canadian friends as I should like to see, but in the expectation that when the first opportunity presents itself this situation will be corrected we are holding in reserve as many as 50 places to accommodate the newcomers.
At that time I think there were approximately nine members from the province of Quebec on this side of the house.
I continued:
In the meantime, it will be the proud privilege of all of us on this side of the house to see to it that the ancient rights and privileges of French Canada are jealously maintained and safeguarded.
The Address-Mr. Maloney (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to quote an excerpt from the first speech I made in this house, on October 21, 1957:
At the moment, on this side of the house there are not as many representatives of my French Canadian friends as I should like to see but, in the expectation that when the first opportunity presents itself this situation will be corrected, we are holding in reserve as many as fifty places to accommodate the newcomers.
This proves that I am almost a prophet. (Text):
The success of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec was nothing more than confirmation of what we had always contended, namely that we were the party of all of the people of this country, the party of the Anglo-Saxon, the party of the French and the party of all the other ethnic groups in the country's population.
I would like at this stage to extend my warmest congratulations to the newly appointed Secretary of State (Mr. Courte-manche), and the newly apopinted Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley). Their past service in this house fully warrants our confident prediction that their service in these new and important posts will be of a very high calibre indeed. I should also like to express my congratulations to the newly named Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough).
Those of us who are on the Conservative side of the house are here today in such large numbers for a variety of reasons, and I do not for a moment intend to attempt to exhaust all those reasons. We are here today in the first place because we served our country in the fold of the Conservative party under the leadership of an inspired and dedicated Canadian, under the leadership of a Prime Minister whose whole background in his profession and as a parliamentarian, has been dedicated to the rights, under the law, of the average, ordinary, humble people of this country.
We are here today because of a record of accomplishment and of promises fulfilled that has not been equalled in so short a time in the history of this country, and we can boast of that record since June 10 last. We are here also because of the prominent and the influential role of youth in the councils of our party. In the twenty-third parliament of this country 35 of our members were under 40 years of age; and while I am not sure as to the accuracy of these statistics, I am under the impression that we have on our side of the house today almost 100 members under the age of 40, which gives to our

The Address-Mr. Maloney party an air of permanence and to the people of Canada a confidence in the country's future under our leadership.
I think we are also here today because of the aggressive steps the government has taken to solve the unemployment problem of this country. I should like to say a word about the matter of unemployment, because some of those from the opposition parties who have spoken in this debate before me have seen fit to speak about the question. There has been much discussion of it both inside and outside the house since early last fall. To hear some hon. members, and others who do not have the privilege of being members of this house, you would think we were in the middle of a depression. To hear others you would almost think they were disappointed with the idea that the government might succeed in getting us out of the situation.
I do not think any hon. member, regardless of his political party, can fairly deny that this government has done everything that any government could possibly have done. There has been a reallocation of public works funds in order to apply directly and as quickly as possible the full force of an extra $200 million, in addition to the last calendar year's expenditures, to our economy. No one can deny that the effect of this wise and forceful measure has been most positive and beneficial. In housing alone the result has been to more than double the number of starts in the first quarter of the year, 17,360 units this year compared with 8,410 last year. This stimulus has spread through many other facets of the economy, particularly those closely related to housing. As I say, the results are already evident and will begin to show even more powerfully over the next month or so.
I am one of those who believe that the policy-and in some places it has been erected into a policy-of viewing with constant alarm does only disservice to the country. It must be apparent to the members of the house, that the employment situation in Canada now is certainly much more buoyant than the prophets of doom had led us to expect last winter. At that time, when the Minister of Labour assured the house that he was confident that the natural buoyancy of our economy would reassert itself, he was shouted down by those who wanted to cry havoc! Today there is every indication that his confidence has been borne out and that their pessimism besides being destructive has neither been a fair nor accurate analysis of the situation.
The most recent dominion bureau of statistics figure was 590,000. This is a high figure for unemployment, about 10 per cent of the labour force. But people who say this is a depression figure should keep in mind

that a conservative estimate of unemployment during the depression period was from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. I do not know what a liberal estimate might be; perhaps considerably higher.


Paul Joseph James Martin: About 3 per cent.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: Well, you were never very good at arithmetic.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He studied it with the Minister of Finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Finance and I were classmates.


Arthur Edward Martin Maloney: And he got all the A's. A further dominion bureau of statistics report will be made available within a day or so, and then it will be made evident whether this figure of 590,000 was in truth the peak of the unemployment, as we on this side predicted it was during the recent election.
According to registration figures of the national employment service, there has been a decrease in registration since March 13 of more than 171,729, which surely is not suggestive of a depression. National registration figures are being held up at the moment because of the extension of seasonal benefits for a further six weeks. At the end of that time the current rate of decline of approximately 40,000 a week should be even sharper. Thus, while there are still problems facing the economy, the picture is not nearly so dark as some of our friends would have had the people of this country believe in the weeks that preceded the election when, in the press and on television, they made the air ring with their sad lamentations.
At this point I should like to offer my own personal tribute to the Minister of Labour for his staunch and steadfast demeanour in the face of adverse, uninformed and unfair criticism. I know that various measures of the government have been criticized on the ground that they would not individually solve unemployment. This point is true and well taken but only as far as it goes. These measures must be taken collectively and adjudged in their cumulative effect. I have in mind such measures as bringing forward immense public works expenditures, extending seasonal benefits, stimulating housing and construction and embarking upon large development programs in the north. Surely had these not been undertaken our economy would certainly not now be showing the buoyancy which is once again becoming evident. And it is certainly true to say that had the application of a tight money policy and high immigration, sponsored by the former administration, been left in effect, combined with the do-nothing attitude shown by that administration under similar circumstances

in 1955 then, Mr. Speaker, the general condition of the economy at this moment might well have borne out the most dire predictions of the prophets of doom.
Another reason to account for the large numbers who sit in support of the government in this house is the doctrine of national unity that was preached and practised by the Conservative party. Our philosophy as propounded and developed for the benefit of the people of Canada in the weeks that preceded the election of March 31 was the same for every part of the country. All of us who spoke in support of the party prior to the election had no qualms, no apprehensions about saying out west what we said in the maritimes, about saying in Ontario what we said in Quebec. That was good Conservative philosophy, and in following this course we were only adhering to the oldest traditions of our party.
I think too we must not ignore the representative character of our party. We were prior to the election and are today able to make boasts such as these, boasts of which we are very proud. Ours is the only party that can boast of having the first Chinese member in the person of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Jung), the first Italian member in the person of the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Martini), the first Danish member; of having appointed the first Icelander and the first native Indian to the Senate; the first cabinet minister who is a woman; the first cabinet minister of Ukrainian racial origin. Indeed, we can boast of six hon. members in the house of Ukrainian origin, and all sitting on the right side of the house, too.
These were boasts of which we were proud. These were boasts which the Conservative party was able to voice from coast to coast. In other words, the governing party in this country today is a party of diversity. It is a party whose inner councils are enriched by the contributions made to them by people of all walks of life, of all races, of all classes and of all creeds. It is only right that the governing party of our country should be a party of diversity because the nation itself is a nation of diversity, and it is never tedious to advert to that diversity and to comment upon it.
About two hundred years ago there were by today's standards and in contrast a handful of French Canadians numbering only 65,000 or 70,000. The pride of that small group of people in their race, their language, their culture, their religion and their customs was so strong that even though they were cut off from all contact and all national ties with the country of their origin they have
The Address-Mr. Maloney over a span of two centuries developed such a firm and lasting national spirit that it has not only permeated the province of Quebec but has gone with French Canadians who have migrated to other parts of Canada and to the United States of America as well, and their number in Canada today has grown to at least five million.
On the other hand, the political framework by which the French Canadian was to see the fulfilment of his ambition to retain his own national identity was not his own invention or handiwork at all. Long before the close of the American revolution people of British stock residing in what is now the United States of America, and to whom we refer historically as united empire loyalists, preferred to give up their established homes and to move north so as to be accorded the privilege of continuing to live under the British crown. They were not in this country very long before they voiced their demands for British institutions, an elective assembly, habeas corpus, Magna Carta, trial by jury and all the other adornments and safeguards of the criminal law to which we are so long accustomed.
At that stage in our country's history these two great races were living side by side. It suited the French Canadian because he had the assurance of his right to retain what he was so fiercely anxious to retain, his religion, his language, the traditions of his race. In the case of the English they in most cases had given up established homes and businesses to come to a country that at that time had by today's standards nothing to offer except the security of the British crown and British traditions. Over long years of trial and error the two races continued the process of living side by side; and as this process of living together continued there was, all the time, developing in this country a nationality that was distinctively Canadian, a nationality that was making us different from any other country and any other people in the world.
But that was not to be the end of the story of this country. More was to come; more was to be added to it. Attracted by this complete lack of uniformity, attracted by this diversity which was our national characteristic were thousands upon thousands of people whose racial origins were to be found in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states. They brought with them to this country their ancient cultures, their ancient traditions and customs. Each of them in its turn was to enrich our life, to add to it and to make the Canadian nationality something greater, something that it had not been before.

The Address-Mr. Maloney
When I think of some of these people who have come to this country from central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states; when I stop to think of some of the contributions they have made to the development of Canada and the richness they have brought to it, such thoughts as these go through my mind. I think of the people from the Baltic states, and I call to mind their terrible persecution as recently as June, 1940, and the frightful mass deportation of the Baltic peoples. They were taken out of their homes and the security of their countries and deported to the slave labour camps of Siberia. Husbands were separated from wives, families were broken up, brothers and sisters were separated, children were taken from their parents, and all were cruelly transported to slavery in Siberia where they now languish, some living only in the hope that their death will come all too soon.
When I think along these lines I think too of the Polish people, of the land of St. Casimir, their patron saint. I think of him as not only the patron saint of that country but one who might well be the patron saint of all who aspire to serve in public life, a saint who was the son of a powerful and noble king, a brother of not one but of two kings. On earth he was a young man who occupied a position of power, authority and influence. It is interesting as one reads his life to note that he used his position of power, authority and influence to help the downtrodden, the disconsolate and the poor. St. Casimir of Poland could well be an example to all of us in the parliament of Canada today who attempt to serve the people of our country, particularly the humblest, most ordinary people of the country.
I think too of the contributions that have been made to this country by people from Ukraine, bleeding and oppressed Ukraine, persecuted for centuries, never to lose its ethnic identity. I think of the great mass emigration of Ukrainians to this country in the late nineteenth century, their contribution to the growth of the west, to the construction of the railroads. I think of them coming here to escape economic oppression and settling in the west. I think of their piety so great that before they built their homes they built their churches; and they built their churches even before having ministers and priests to minister to their needs. I think of the great Ukrainians who today All such important roles in our country; the lawyers, doctors, parliamentarians on every level, and I think how greatly our life here has been enriched by them.

I think of the Hungarians and the frightful revolution of 1956 when, after ten years of communist indoctrination, even the youth stood up to fight and die as martyrs against the oppression of the Bolshevik tyrants. I think of people like Cardinal Mindzenty, a living martyr in the cause of freedom.
These then are some of the people who have come to our country in recent times and have served to enrich our life and culture. I think too of the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Croatians, the Serbs and the Byelorussians and all those people who now live under the heel of communist domination. These people were all given a message of hope when our Prime Minister, last December in Winnipeg, speaking to an audience of Ukrainians said this:
I am thinking, too, tonight of Canadians whose origins lie in countries which are likewise unfree to pursue their own aspirations-the Baltic states, eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, which live in the shadow of tyranny. Never will we abandon the hope that justice will be done, that the irrepressible forces of human freedom will triumph.
He went on to say:	,
As a guarantee of good faith if the U.S.S.R. would show the sincerity of its protestations for peace, if it would grant free elections in those countries under its captive control and would free the untold numbers who are in slave camps, then the free world could move forward to early discussions designed to ameliorate the causes of discord and suspicion.
These people are teaching us a lesson. They are reminding us of the potential dangers that lie ahead. I can do no better in describing what I now mean than to use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he spoke a few months ago in Toronto to an audience of Lithuanians. He said this:
From the sorrow of those whose freedom has been submerged, from the tragedy of those who are forced to live under serfdom by a government not of their own choice, we have derived a new determination, a sadder but wiser sense of direction in our own lives. Ever mindful of the fate of subjugated peoples, we know that in the enjoyment of our liberties, we must never become complacent, self-satisfied or apathetic. Our democracy is a virile and creative system, and its spirit is nowhere more alive than in the hearts of those who know only too well the cruel realities of oppression.
The election campaign which ended on March 31 was a great adventure in democracy in which all of us here present had the privilege of participating. I can recall numerous occasions when representatives of opposing political parties were invited to mingle with these people in their halls on their national days or to commemorate with them some great event in their history. I can recall how Liberals, Conservatives, and C.C.F.

used to foregather there under circumstances that were completely nonpolitical. When we spoke to such audiences they were witnessing something that was unknown in their homeland, the representatives of opposing political parties standing side by side. We, in our turn, we who aspired to public life, by being present with them, were reminded of the need to recall the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, never to become indifferent or apathetic.
When we came to their meetings and joined with them in their national celebrations we were reminded of the real purpose of our democracy and of the great election campaign in which we were engaged. We were reminded of the greatness of our democratic system, with its two mighty arms, the one to govern and the other to oppose; one charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country, the other charged with the responsibility of holding that administration up to the bright glare of criticism, examination and scrutiny,-both arms equally important, equally indispensable. It gave to all of us now on the Conservative side of the house who had the privilege of seeing such things a great respect and a great admiration for those who fulfil the important role of opposition. It recalled to our minds words this house has already heard from the Prime Minister, spoken first in days when he was in the opposition and which he reiterated as Prime Minister of the country. When speaking to the Empire club in Toronto in 1949 he said:
"Parliament will only remain the guardian of free institutions as long as His Majesty's loyal opposition is fully responsible and effective in the discharge of its functions."
Those were words of inspiration to us all. We on this side of the house, numerically more powerful I suppose than any government in the history of the country, are very sensitive to the importance of the role of the left arm of democracy in this place. It is not judged by its quantity. It is not judged numerically. It is judged by the quality of the contribution it makes in fulfilling the role of opposition. We have attempted so far to demonstrate our respect for the opposition. We have announced that it is our intention to appoint an opposition member to chair the important committee on public accounts. We made no effort whatever to prevent recognition, as a separate group in this house, of the handful of members of the C.C.F. These are some indications of the respect and admiration we have for an opposition that fulfils its proper role.
In conclusion, may I say that we on all sides of this house can face the future with the mandate of the people fresh in our minds,
The Address-Mr. Houck in the confident hope that working together and each fulfilling our respective functions we will assist in solving the problems that now face the country and look to the future which we all know to be vast and limitless.


Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honoured custom not only in this house but in all legislatures to congratulate the Speaker. I think it is a good custom. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am not boasting, that I have had a lot of experience under various speakers. I have the utmost respect for you because of your experience. I have always appreciated your friendship and your leadership, especially in the last parliament when at times difficult circumstances arose and you ruled in a very fine way. I want to say as well, Mr. Speaker, that I think you have the qualities that make for a good speaker. You certainly have the ability. You have integrity, and you have leadership ability. You have another quality that I think should be present in every speaker, and that is not only the personal appearance but the good looks that go with a good speaker.
I want to say, on behalf of the good people of Niagara Falls, and they are all good people, that we do appreciate the splendid work of our Speaker when he served as a commissioner on the Rainbow bridge at Niagara Falls. He accomplished a very fine job. I should like also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker as well as the hon. member tor Spadina (Mr. Rea) on their appointments. I had the privilege of serving with the hon. member for Spadina for many years in the provincial legislature. I knew, from the experience I gained with him then, that he had many fine qualities and would some time take a prominent part in leadership in another place. I should like as well, Mr. Speaker, because it is an honoured custom, to congratulate the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am not a lawyer, and I am thankful for that, but if I were a legal man I would say that these hon. members made an excellent job of a poor case.
I could not help but notice as I entered this house, and I presume most members who were here in the last parliament noticed the same thing, the many new faces we have with us. I must say they are exceptionally good-looking as well. However, it did make me feel a little at home to see the faces of those with whom I had been associated in the provincial legislature. First there was the genial member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Villeneuve). While he served as a member

The Address-Mr. Houck in Toronto he performed a major job and I realized then he was a valuable member. He served as chairman of some of the important committees and performed a splendid job.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of serving with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Doucett), that good-looking and most eligible bachelor in the house at the present time. I want to say to him, if it will be any incentive, that if he wants to come to Niagara Falls on his honeymoon I will see that he has the honeymoon suite at the hotel with our compliments. I served also with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Beech). I always appreciated the definite interest he took in the problems of the returned men. He did a very splendid job in that respect. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps to bring it a little closer home to my own party, I may say that I served also with our whip, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), who I think is doing a splendid job as whip of this great party.
I have listened with great interest to many hon. members tell about their own ridings. What can I say about Niagara Falls? Certainly everybody in the Dominion of Canada, yes in the whole world, knows something about Niagara Falls. I would only be wasting the time of this house if I were to try to say something about the falls itself.
As I have said previously, and I say it truly again today, we are mighty proud of Niagara Falls, but in no way are we jealous or selfish in any respect. We want to share it with the rest of the world. We are, of course, known as the honeymoon centre of the world; but at the same time we do not hold ourselves responsible for some of those people who unfortunately get fed up on life, come back to the falls and use it as a jumping off place.
I know also that many hon. members, especially the new ones, are from distant places in our dominion and, because of circumstances, are forced to spend their week ends in Ottawa. I should like to say to them this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I say it sincerely indeed, that I cordially invite them to come to Niagara Falls on any week end. It is only a matter of a 12-hour trip by train. I will see to it, through our good mayor, that they will be royally treated and that the city will be at their command. If perchance they run afoul of the law and are forced to spend a few unpleasant hours in that terrible jail we have in Niagara Falls, I will gladly send them down some of the old Hansards to read so they may feel at home.
Seriously, may I say that I think they not only would enjoy themselves but that the trip would be most profitable. Not only could they

view our wonderful scenery but they could go through the new Sir Adam Beck power plant and see the new open cut hydro canal, something which would be well worth their while. I know a great many people are talking about the beauty of Niagara Falls in blossom time, but I want to assure hon. members of this house that Niagara Falls is in full dress at any time of the year. I therefore want to say again that hon. members are invited to come down and see the greatest place in the world.
I should now like to touch briefly on two matters to which I have made reference on two previous occasions. My first point is with regard to the great obstruction to automobile traffic crossing the Welland ship canal which exists at Homer, where the raising and lowering of the bridge impedes the constant flow of traffic. The condition there is greatly aggravated during the summer months by reason of the tourist traffic from the United States proceeding across the river at Fort Erie and at Niagara Falls, and the traffic proceeding from Canada into the United States.
Many and long delays occur at this point. One would not have to be an engineer to realize that a permanent cure could be effected only by building an overhead bridge or a tunnel at this point. I believe a very practical suggestion has been made, namely to permit three lanes of traffic across the bridge at busy times. This traffic could be electrically controlled. I think that procedure would avoid a great deal of the congestion at the busier ends of the bridge and would do a great deal to alleviate the trouble that exists at the present time. I have fears-and I am not alone in this respect-that a serious accident will occur at this point and that loss of life might result. I am sure something could be worked out to solve this difficulty.
By actual count, Mr. Speaker, the bridges are up one quarter of the time or 6 hours out of every 24 hours during the shipping season. This situation affects the economy of our district. It is a nuisance to our inhabitants, and it costs them real money. The local taxpayers must maintain duplicate fire fighting services on both sides of the canal, and they must maintain sewage disposal units on each side of the canal as well. I say without fear of contradiction that the bottleneck to traffic at the Homer bridge is one of the worst in our country.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not say something pertaining to this problem which has been so well discussed on previous occasions by the hon. member for Lincoln and the hon. member for Welland. I would remind the Minister of Public Works and

the Minister of Transport that last year through the ports of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie between 3,500,000 and 4,000,000 tourist permits of all classes were issued. On the 4th of July week end at Fort Erie alone, including the four days from July 1 to July 4, over 150,000 cars crossed that one bridge alone. On the 4th of July there were issued at the Fort Erie bridge alone over 13,000 tourist permits. It might be of interest to hon. members of the house to know that last year at the port of Niagara Falls, 2,214,721 cars crossed and at the Port of Fort Erie 2,108,502 cars entered Canada. We are the greatest tourist receiving centre in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and I think we deserve some consideration in that respect.
I often step into the various tourist bureaux at Niagara Falls, which are controlled by the provincial government, and they tell me that one of the complaints they receive from returning tourists-and it is one of the most serious complaints-is the tie-up at the Homer bridge and at the Burlington cut-off. I am thankful to the Minister of Public Works and glad to know, according to the Globe and Mail of this morning, that next fall that trouble will be alleviated at Burlington.
I am not exaggerating, Mr. Speaker, when I say that especially on a holiday week end -and it will be understood that when the bridge goes up for navigation, shipping has
preference over all other types of traffic__
if more than one boat goes through, if perhaps there are two or three of them, I have seen with my own eyes motor cars two abreast extending all the way from St. Catharines right through to Niagara Falls, a distance of 10 miles, waiting for the bridge to go down Certainly with the advent of the St. Lawrence seaway this congestion is going to be worse than ever.
I would therefore suggest to the minister that perhaps the most economical and surely the quickest way to alleviate the situation would be to build a tunnel under this canal. This could be done easily in the winter months, and in a comparatively short time when the canal is dewatered. 1 hope relief will be given to us in this matter. I know that clergymen, lawyers, doctors or any others who have speaking engagements either at Niagara Falls or at St. Catharines always allow at least half an hour leeway in case they are tied up at this bridge.
May I say this seriously indeed, because I know the Conservative hon. member for Lincoln is vitally interested in this matter as well as the hon. member for Welland and myself. I know it is not only our hope but it is the sincere hope and prayer of all members of this house that the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. Houck Lincoln will soon be restored to health and have the privilege of meeting with us again.
At the same time I want to pay my respects to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) for the very fine officers they have at the ports of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie. They naturally are the first people to greet tourists; and once you leave a good taste in the tourist's mouth upon his entrance to Canada he is going to carry it with him all the way through his trip. In my long years of experience in public life, Mr. Speaker, I never once have had a complaint from a tourist about being handled in the wrong way by either a customs officer or an immigration officer. I therefore think we can well be proud of these civil servants who are working at those two border points.
I well remember, when I was on the government side of the house, how the government now in power acted when they were in opposition, especially the Minister of Finance, who I thought made good speeches pertaining to the excise tax on automobiles. They were very quick indeed to complain about this tax at a time when it was a sensible measure against inflation. Now that inflation is not a serious problem I say that the special excise tax on cars is not necessary, and that it should be completely eliminated. The present government reduced the tax-and I give them credit for that action-from 10 per cent to 7 \ per cent. Now the economic situation justifies a change, and that tax should be abolished.
This step certainly would reduce the price of cars and the full reduction should be passed on to the consumer. If this were done it would save the Canadian public about $60 million a year. In the United States alone the automobile industry is at least a $50 billion industry; and proportionately, according to our size, it is in about the same position in Canada. In the United States one out of every five industries has some connection with the automobile industry, and one out of every seven employed men has something to do with this industry. We can well see what a great lift it would be to our economy if this industry could receive some assistance. Certainly the abolition of this tax would increase sales because of lower prices, which would in turn stabilize employment in the production of Canadian cars and in the sales agencies across our great dominion. As a result the treasury would benefit by higher revenues from the tax on profits of these businesses.
I think we have a lack of economic realism not only with respect to this particular tax but with respect to many others, which has

The Address-Mr. Houck had the result of slowing down business and multiplying the cost of production operating generally to the detriment of the nation's economic welfare. The very jobs of countless workers depend on the ownership of a motor vehicle. For them an excise tax on cars is almost the equivalent of a licence to work. For most city dwellers that excise tax is the near equivalent to a licence to get into the country, while for rural dwellers this tax is a near equivalent to a licence on necessary trips to the shopping centres.
I do not believe there is any virtue in a tax merely because it produces revenue, but certainly there is a fundamental virtue in a fiscal system which broadens the tax base and at the same time produces necessary revenue at lower rates. We must consider the fact that in Canada manufacturing as a whole provides well over 2 million jobs. Of this total the automobile industry provides almost 400,000, in short about one job in every ten or eleven of all the jobs in our country. This figure does not include garages, service stations and suppliers such as the textile and steel mills, tire makers, etc. So I say that in a general sense the employees of the motor car industry are recruited in two principal ways. They are hired as either skilled or unskilled persons. The unskilled workers go through the process of training and in most cases become specialists in some type of job. The skilled man is put on the type of work he does best, and remains there.
Another aspect of the motor car industry employment field worth emphasizing is the fact that the entire automobile or truck is not manufactured at the motor car plant proper. A high percentage of the content is built by smaller industrial organizations known as suppliers in widely scattered industrial towns, and it is estimated that there are several hundred such suppliers. Therefore the opportunity to link up with some phase of the motor car business is almost unlimited. Other important branches of the automotive business are the sales and service fields. Every large industrial concern has an extensive sales organization. The man who aspires to be a car salesman in all probability will find his entry into the motor car business at some city or town far from the plant. He will be an employee of some dealer or distributing branch.
Judging from the fact that there are well over 5,000 automobile dealers, 15,000 independent garages and 17,000 service stations throughout this great dominion, it is quite obvious that the sale and service of motor vehicles offers employment in a wide field of occupations, including salesmen, accountants,


partsmen, timekeepers and service manager^.
I could go on at some length, but I am urging again that this government take some recognition of these facts and completely eliminate the excise tax.
I want to say a few words now about the recession. I think one of the most remarkable factors in this recession is that the people who are employed are as reluctant about the spending of money as are those who are unemployed. Yet the people who are unemployed cannot hope to get back to work if those who are employed do not engage in purchasing. I think the psychological moment is at hand when the federal, provincial and local groups should combine their efforts to uplift our economy. There is no doubt in my mind that the consumers who have the money but not the confidence to buy should be encouraged to make home improvements and obtain the goods and services they need. Certainly if the employed people are hesitant to indulge in purchasing, more and more people will be out of work.
There is not much point in letting our nation reach a depression because so many thousands of people are out of work. It is our duty as members of this house to try to help the economy instead of permitting it to grow worse. The big battery of anti-recession proposals produced not only by the political parties but by other organizations ought to be judged at least in part by the answer to one question: how soon can these proposals be brought into effect? Certainly this government should use every incentive to spur consumers and businessmen alike to spend. This is not a matter of theory but one of economic reality. It does not matter whether we like or dislike heavy government spending; what counts is that governments cannot move quickly in actually undertaking public works. Some projects must be subject to agreement among the various levels of government; others require the acquisition of land and rights of way, or require drafting, designing and engineering. The real job-creating effects of public works projects do not appear until many, many months after the decision to go ahead has been taken.
Consumers and businessmen, on the other hand, can start spending quickly. Few households in this country exist without unfilled wants; few businesses exist where there is not some plan for growth which could be put into effect if depreciation provisions were favourable. Certainly the fundamental fact of government spending must be that it can only do a little about a recession. The real thing that counts is what people do with their money.
It is my firm belief that great assistance could be given by this government to bring

down the price of food in Canada. With 500,000 people out of work I do not see how they can pay for the food they need at present prices. During the depression of the thirties food was cheap; a person could almost live on $5 a week at that time. The situation today is different; with thousands out of work and the cost of living sky high everyone is asking the question, "When is this government going to act?"
1 would suggest this government give consideration to a gradual five year cut in corporate and individual taxes to make more money available for investment and industrial expansion. This would create a lot more jobs, and certainly millions of our dollars could be funneled into the private economy through reductions in all brackets of individual income taxes. The prescription for ending a business slump is simply to sell more goods and get production lines humming again. I think one of the basic problems facing the economy is that of moving more goods from the factory to the home. Certainly production capacity has increased at a faster pace than has consumption.
I am glad to say that industry, if I may use the vernacular, is putting the screws on its salesmen to bring consumption up to meet production. Not only automobile dealers but other industries should start going out looking for customers rather than waiting for customers to come to them. When we consider that 42 per cent of our sheet steel production goes into the automobile industry we can well see that if that business were given a lift it would indeed mean a pick up in the basic steel industry, which in turn would mean a lift to our entire economy.
We must never forget that the customer is king. Give him what he wants and needs and he will spend the money to buy it. Certainly the time has arrived when people with money in their pockets are tired of being ignored or kicked around by salesmen, and they now want to be wooed as customers. Too many of our businessmen and salesmen have grown soft and have forgotten how to sell in the post-war period when the seller was king.
There is nothing wrong with our economy that a little old fashioned selling will not correct. It is about time the fog and smoke was cleared from our minds and we realized that unemployment has been increasing while national production was decreasing. Let me repeat that if we are going to have a tax cut I think it should be one which will stimulate business and employment. No temporary cut in federal income taxes would put more money in circulation, because most people would not spend it. One of the main causes of our recession today, in my opinion, 57071-3-17	.
The Address-Mr. Houck is a buyers' strike. A general price cut would trigger consumer purchasing, which in turn would stimulate business expansion. Certainly we cannot say we are out of the woods at the present time, but it would help a great deal if business people would stop talking about their problems and get out and do a job of selling.
A tax cut would do more to strengthen our economy at this time than a spending binge that could only lead to a hangover of debt and inflation. However, a tax cut will not do the job unless it is the right kind of tax cut. It must be designed to put money in the hands of investors and job creators as well as in the hands of consumers. It will not do the job if it is used simply to provide a popular political hand-out. It can succeed in its purpose only if it is designed to stimulate more production and more jobs for the Canadian people.
I believe we should have a change in our whole national attitude and approach to this matter. Confident action is needed at the present time, not just confident talk to meet the grave challenge to economic strength and leadership. False optimism has no place in our world today. We cannot talk ourselves into a boom any more than we can talk ourselves into a bust, but we can use our heads and decide now whether the urge to buy is sound for our economy and for individuals as well as being healthy for our country.
My own suggestions for action to counteract this recession would be to first extend and permanently raise unemployment insurance benefits to make purchasing power available, to raise income tax exemptions as far as possible, to stimulate public and private construction, to increase defence spending and to eliminate the 7 j per cent federal excise tax on automobile purchases. It is useless to try to explain to the unemployed that this is a recession and not a depression. To them it is a full-fledged depression, and the most vicious thing about an economic downturn is that it feeds on itself like a snowball rolling down a hill. It is easy to stop before it gains momentum and size, but if you let it get rolling it can flatten you.
Experimenting, debating and sitting tight are forms of wishful thinking, and as dangerous as waiting for a cobra to strike. Action must be taken to apply the quickest solution possible of achievement, and that is to put money in the hands of the people who lost their purchasing power through no fault of their own. This can be done by increasing unemployment insurance payments to an amount near the breadwinner's full earnings, not just to the welfare level. Under those

The Address-Mr. Houck circumstances the extension of payments is like giving a patient half the dosage. The patient does not die and does not get well but lingers on until complications make a cure impossible. The effect of raising jobless benefits would make adequate purchasing power available to the economy. A small cut in our present income tax system is as outdated as the nickel cigar.
It would seem to me that economic justice could be better served and the problem of the unemployed better resolved if a little more attention were paid by our top government officials to their plight and their unequal battle against the ever-diminishing dollar rather than for the officials to be continually listening to the advice of our great industrialists and the so-called politicians telling them what is good for the man on the street. One has only to spend an hour or two in a supermarket and watch a harried housewife trying to stretch her fast depleting dollar to learn something that might be useful to him and to the country at large.
I wish to refer again to the remarks made by the previous speaker in this debate, a very fine lawyer from Toronto, considered one of the best criminal lawyers in the province of Ontario. I wish to remind him of the fact that the vast majority of new Canadians and representatives of various ethnic groups to whom he referred were brought to Canada by this great Liberal party.
I certainly hope when that day of days arrives which all the people in Canada are looking forward to, namely budget day, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will announce that the excise tax on automobiles has been completely eliminated. I doubt if any session of parliament has had more responsibility placed on its shoulders than has this parliament. What we its members do not only in regard to international affairs but with regard to national affairs as well will have much effect upon the lives of our people this year, next year and for generations to come. We will have to guard our freedom with all the zeal possible, and we must at all costs protect our economic stability. Much will depend on what sort of effort we put forth toward achieving these objectives.
One thing is sure, Mr. Speaker. We will have to decide whether we are going to climb the long high road to freedom or stumble down communism's dead end street. It is my sincere hope and I think the hope of all hon. members that our accomplishments here in parliament will do much to help Canada maintain its place among the nations of the world, because under 22 years of Liberal government this great dominion of ours grew to be a nation outstanding and respected by

all other nations. If we conscientiously perform the task before us we should be able to throw back our shoulders and throw out our chests with pride in satisfaction with a job well done.	.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to extend to you my heartiest congratulations on your election to the high office of Deputy Speaker, and to join with others in expressing my respect and confidence in you to handle the duties of your office fairly and justly. I also wish to extend the same sentiments to Mr. Speaker and the Clerks of this honourable assembly.
In offering my modest contribution to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I feel obliged to extend my sincere congratulations to the mover of the address, the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It was a pleasure to listen to the speeches of these two hon. members and to note their complete mastery of the subject matter and their knowledge of our national problems. I wish to point out the distinction the hon. member for Yukon has earned for himself by having to contest three election campaigns within a period of nine months. This experience has not been duplicated by any other hon. member of this house past or present.
Further, I cannot restrain myself from describing to this house some characteristics which distinguish and set apart the constituency of Marquette which I have the honour to represent and serve. On checking back into history I find that the first election of a member to the House of Commons from Marquette was held in 1871, a year after Manitoba joined confederation. Two gentlemen, Angus McKay and James Lunch, contested the riding each receiving 282 votes. The returning officer did not then as now have a casting vote and both contenders hightailed to Ottawa. The House of Commons after some deliberation handed the matter of representation of the riding to the commission for privileges. The commission ruled that both men should be declared elected. Both were sworn in, but by the time the technicalities were overcome the federal election of 1872 occurred so that neither took his seat in the House of Commons, nor did either gentleman run in the federal election of that year.
Marquette has another distinction, that of having the great Canadian, Sir John A. Macdonald, represent it for four years from 1878 to 1882. After suffering defeat at the hands

of the electors in Kingston Sir John A. Macdonald came to Marquette, where he received an acclamation.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to keep on boasting about this wonderful constituency, which claims another honour, that of having within its boundaries a summer resort second to none in Canada. I do not know how many hon. members are aware of this, but we Manitobans certainly know about it. One hundred and twenty-five miles north of the United States boundary, in the Riding Mountain chain, on a broad plateau 2,200 feet above sea level, is Clear lake, a body of water nine miles long and about two miles wide. On the southern shore of that lake nestles the townsite of Wasagaming, being the Indian word for "clear water". This summer resort, known as Clear Lake, was established by order in council in 1929 and was officially opened to the public on July 26, 1933, 25 years ago. Thus this year it is celebrating its twenty-fifth birthday with a large and very interesting program under the auspices of the local chamber of commerce.
Just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the popularity of this summer resort, 630,189 people went through its gates in 1957. Of those, 27,535 were our friends from across the border, that is American tourists, bringing along with them American dollars. The surrounding forest reserve abounds in large game such as deer, elk-as a matter of fact one of the largest herds of elk grazes on the slopes of this forest reserve-moose and bear, and there is an enclosure for buffalo which attracts a lot of visitors. The lake itself is most picturesque, and its natural attractions are supplemented by facilities for the enjoyment of outdoor life and recreation. Its buildings are designed to harmonize with the surroundings and it has unsurpassed facilities for swimming, boating, Ashing, lawn bowling and golAng. Children's playground facilities are also abundant. I therefore wish to extend an invitation to as many hon. members as could come to spend a pleasant holiday at this summer resort of Clear Lake in my riding in Manitoba. If you come once I feel sure you will have the urge to repeat your visit.
My constituency is strictly rural and cannot boast about large cities or industries, but it can boast about being the home of the best farmers in Manitoba. Oh, yes; one can meet in Marquette Canadians of many racial origins. The Arst pioneers to this riding were of Anglo-Saxon stock, and these still form the bulk of the population. Some came from the British Isles and others from Ontario, trekking into this central Manitoba woodland. They experienced the usual pioneer
57071-3-174
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk hardships, but they gave a start to and built the foundations which resulted in the present achievements in the constituency.
Next in numbers to come to my riding were the Ukrainians from south central Europe. They came in contact with Anglo-Saxons, Mr. Speaker, a people with different language, different customs, different culture and different political background. The Ukrainians had migrated to Canada in search of land, freedom and opportunity for themselves and their children. They found more than they hoped for but the adjustment to the new ways of life was long and painful. The Anglo-Saxons gave the newcomers a helping hand. With them they shared the pioneer hardships, and in spite of early suspicion of each other they soon became good neighbours and as such they became dependent upon each other.
About the same time people from other lands came into my riding, namely Frenchmen, Poles, Scandinavians and a sprinkling of every race in Europe. Each racial group at Arst tried to establish a community life of its own, Mr. Speaker; but today I am proud to say-and I speak with authority because I have lived in the pioneer period and experienced the changes in western Canada as well as in Marquette-all these people have become integrated into one Canadian community. The differences in language, customs and habits have been overcome. Suspicion of each other has melted away, and before our very eyes one can see the birth of a young Canadian race. Each race is contributing the best of its cultural riches to the altar of new Canadianism, and one sees the Canadian of the future embodying the best characteristics of each race. I am happy to note that this is evident not only in my riding but throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker.
In the meantime each racial group, while adopting the English language as the basis of common understanding, treasures its own language and customs, realizing that if they 'ose those treasures they will have nothing to place on the altar of true Canadianism. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege and an honour to represent such people.
Marquette is an agricultural constituency dotted with villages and towns whose very existence depends on the welfare of the farmer. For more reasons than one they voted for me on March 31 last. The efforts of the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, to give the western Canadian producer a larger share.of the national income, and its performance during the last parliament proved to western Canada and to my constituents that the Progressive Conservative party keeps its election promises. During the March campaign the opposition,

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk both Liberals and Socialists, minimized the efforts of our government; but the voters on March 31 gave unqualified approval of what had been done and, by so doing, expressed confidence in our party and in our leadership. Hence a full contingent of 14 members from Manitoba are on the government side of the house.
The western farmer rejected those selfappointed champions of agriculture and industry. He rejected those who shed crocodile tears over the plight of the farmer but who strenuously opposed every measure introduced by this government for the benefit of the farmer during the short session of the twenty-third parliament. Those who fought against cash advances, those who slandered and denounced the agricultural stabilization bill, that famous Bill No. 237, received an answer to their heroic efforts at the polls on March 31. While no one interested in price supports expected that it would be a cure-all, yet most people felt that it was a step in the right direction and, under proper administration, would improve the conditions of Canadian agriculture.
Those in this house who try to perform a post mortem on why the Progressive Conservative party won such a sweeping victory at the polls on March 31 would do better to make some soul-searching reflections on why they lost the confidence of the Canadian people. Our Prime Minister, while speaking in the maritimes during the last campaign, said that in ordinary life we judge people by the way they keep their promises, and it is not any different in politics.
We listened with interest to the speech from the throne, and I feel that the proposed legislation it outlined is welcomed by the Canadian people.
We are happy to note that greater efforts are being made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to sell our agricultural and fisheries products. According to reports Canada is exporting more wheat than in the corresponding period last year while the wheat exports of our competitors have fallen off. This is an indication of good salesmanship on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It also indicates that the attendance of the Prime Minister at the London conference last June and the sending of a trade mission to Britain are paying off.
The price stabilization act passed by the last parliament and in operation since May 5 is receiving widespread approval. Setting a guaranteed price on a product enables the primary producer to plan his operations without risk of falling prices while the product is being prepared for market.
I am pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that several amendments will be introduced to

the cash advance legislation. Although it was the best piece of legislation placed on the statute books during the last session, certain weaknesses have showed up in its operation and amendments will be welcomed. This type of legislation was asked for by the grain producers for a number of years, to which pleas the former Liberal administration turned a deaf ear. It took the Progressive Conservative party to bring it into force.
I have heard nothing but praise for it from farmers, merchants and businessmen, including bank managers. Since it went into force collections have been better. Yet, like all new legislation, weaknesses have shown up in its operation.
Among others, may I be permitted to mention the inconvenience and delay in the obtaining of a cash advance by a tenant farmer whose landlord does not reside in the district. Second, there is the inability to obtain a cash advance by the farmer who has shipped a carload of malt barley, although he has sufficient grain in storage to warrant a cash advance. Another weakness is the deduction made in the case of the farmer who delivers grain for the purchase of registered seed. I hope, therefore, these weaknesses will be taken care of by proper amendments as anticipated in the speech from the throne. I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture, who has this matter under consideration, will bring in such amendments.
The anticipated amendment of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will be welcomed by the farmers of the western prairies generally, including those in my constituency. In its present form the act has proved highly unsatisfactory, and I hope the amendments will remedy the situation. I might suggest that the general feeling in the country is that this legislation should be completely rewritten or repealed in its entirety when some form of crop insurance is put in force to replace it.
Our small businessmen no doubt will welcome the idea of the establishment of a small business section within the administrative machinery of the government, as the unhealthy state of the agricultural industry has affected them no less than those upon whom they depend, the agricultural producers.
I wish to commend the government for appointing the Bracken commission to investigate the problem of box car allocation to the grain elevators of western Canada. It is hoped that the commission's findings and their implementation will remedy the grievances of the western producers.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my formal remarks I should like, as all other members have done so far, to extend my personal congratulations to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr Michener) on his unanimous election as Speaker of the House of Commons. This is an indication of our individual and personal support arising from his ability and fairness in presiding over the House of Commons.
Hon. members may recall that during the last parliament I made some reference to the office of Speaker and suggested that it should be a permanent position, as did the Prime Minister some time ago. I am still of that opinion. I believe we could quite properly adopt the proposal I made during the last parliament, that the Speaker of the House of Commons should not have to stand for election in a particular constituency but rather should be elected by the membership of the House of Commons, those members forming the constituency that he would represent. This would permit every constituency in Canada to have someone representing them sitting in the House of Commons with a voice and a vote, someone able to take part vocally in presenting their problems and ideas and to make suggestions as to solutions.
Just prior to the calling of the election in Manitoba the premier of that province made a similar proposal regarding the appointment of a permanent speaker for the legislature of that province. He also undertook to institute certain legislative changes that would be required. I hope we will undertake to do something similar so that in the years to come we may have a permanent Speaker established here as in the House of Commons in England, one who would not be connected with politics and who would be able to discharge more fairly the duties of that office.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it seems a rather hollow effort to be participating in this debate when there are so many empty seats. The cabinet is represented by one hon. member, but unfortunately I have no intention of dealing with the department that comes under his jurisdiction. I should like, however, to make a reference to the $1,185 million public works program which was announced during the election campaign-coincidentally during the election campaign, I might add. All I could find of this $1,185 million that will apply to
The Address-Mr. Howard the constituency of Skeena, which incidentally covers an area almost one-third the size of the entire province of British Columbia, is an item for $1.5 million for one project and some smaller amounts for other smaller projects.
I am going to suggest, therefore, that the Department of Public Works dust off some of the files that are hiding in the back rooms, and they will find countless suggestions and requests for much needed public works projects in that particular riding, ranging all the way from major items like federal buildings in the newly developed community of Kitimat and in Prince Rupert to such things as small wharves on the lakes in the interior part of the riding.
One thing that could be placed in the public works program of this federal government, and something which has been advocated by a number of people for many years as well as by the government of British Columbia, is the construction of a second trans-Canada highway. It has been advocated that the federal government and the provincial governments of the western provinces enter into an agreement for the building of such a route. This project was discussed at some length during the election. We know it was a major item in the election campaign of the Liberal party. We know also that same party, when they were in office, turned a deaf ear to the proposals for just such a second trans-Canada highway. The proposal would be on a 50-50 basis, somewhat similar to the financial agreement that exists now between the provinces and the federal government with respect to the present trans-Canada highway.
If this vision of opening up the north is to be brought to some realization this is one way in which it can be done; or this could be complementary to the opening up of the northern part of Canada. At the moment there are sections of highway along that route that have been built by provincial governments, but they are not connected and many of the portions through the central part of Canada could not be properly classed as highways at all. They are mere backwoods trails following some old logging roads built by the logging companies in that part of the country years ago. Until such time as the federal government is willing to participate with the provinces in building highways, especially cross-country highways, the possibility of developing the north is going to be hindered. I hope this government will undertake to review the position taken by the past Liberal administration with respect to these proposals, and will arrange to enter into an agreement with the provinces for the building of such a trans-Canada highway on a 50-50 basis at the earliest possible moment.

The Address-Mr. Howard All our problems are not domestic, Mr. Speaker. There are some rather serious ones in the international field. I should like to expand upon the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Vancouver East the other day, and in doing so to deal with the question of formal and diplomatic recognition of what we call red China, the people's republic of China or the mainland colony of China, whatever you want to call it. During the last session the Southam Press conducted a poll amongst members of the house asking their opinion as to diplomatic and formal recognition of red China. The results of that poll were published in the newspapers which the Southam Press have under their jurisdiction.
Among the representatives in the present parliament who answered that poll as to whether or not we should formally recognize red China, on the Conservative side of the house I can recall that both the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Victoria expressed their agreement with the recognition of red China. The attitude of the C.C.F. is well known and has been expressed a number of times over the years. We have been in the past, and still are, in complete agreement with the formal and diplomatic recognition of China. The Leader of the Opposition while he did not express himself quite so clearly on this subject when he was the Secretary of State for External Affairs, nevertheless did express himself clearly when he was relieved of that position. If he expresses the attitude of the Liberal party, then we can logically assume that the Liberal party is in favour of extending this diplomatic recognition.
There is one group in the house, Mr. Speaker, whose attitude is not clear. The Prime Minister has placed comments on Hansard concerning the attitude of the government, but I still submit that attitude is not clear. Probably I should refer to the comments of the Prime Minister when this question was dealt with in the house in November of last year. He was answering some questions on the orders of the day and at page 654 of Hansard for November 1, 1957, he said:
The attitude of this government is unchanged in that direction,-
He was speaking of formal recognition.
-and until such time as the people's government, the communist government of China, expiates its wrongdoing under international law there certainly will be no justification for the granting of recognition as we see it.
Then of course there was some discussion and inquiry as to what the word "expiates" meant. We were told to look in the dictionary. I am going to suggest that the attitude

expressed then by the Prime Minister was nothing but mere subterfuge to cover the real reason this government refuses to take this logical and necessary step. The answer given by the Prime Minister was not the real reason. Canada's position now, as it was under the Liberal administration, is merely one of following and aping the United States, instead of taking unilateral action as the United Kingdom did some years ago.
During the election campaign the people of this country were asked to follow John-I believe that was the slogan-not realizing at the time, at least in this and other international affairs, that the John they were asked to follow was John Foster Dulles of the United States. The previous attitude of the United States government with respect to this particular issue of recognizing China diplomatically was a flat and unalterable "No; we refuse to have anything to do with it and that is that". But in recent months we find this gentleman John Foster Dulles changing his attitude just a little bit, laying the groundwork for an about face on the question of the recognition of China. Previously the answer was a flat no to any proposal for recognition. Now the attitude as expressed by that gentleman is "We will recognize red China or communist China when it is advantageous to the United States to do so". That day will not be too far distant. When it happens, with the connected question of expanded trade, Canada once again will be caught short and will be behind the eight ball in its dealings with that country.
Another reason is the attitude of the Prime Minister in saying that China must expiate its sins; and I think we can only assume that he was making reference to its attitude toward Korea during the Korean war. If we follow logically along and that is the real reason this government will not have anything to do with diplomatic recognition, then we can obviously assume that the government's attitude is that we should cut off diplomatic relations with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics because of what that government did in Hungary not too long ago. It is precisely the same thing, where a larger nation interfered with the desires of a helpless nation and dictated to them the way they were going to operate their country. If it is for the political colour and complexion of China-with which I do not agree-then we can logically say that this government's attitude is to cut off diplomatic relations with Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia and many other countries, including Egypt or the united Arab republic, as it is called.
Another thing that does not add up, so far as the attitude of the Prime Minister and

this government is concerned on this question of the moral necessity of diplomatically recognizing these nations, is shown very clearly in the attitude he expressed a little over a year ago with respect to a well-known individual in Egypt, as it was then, and his attitude in recent months. I do not like to make too many references to former debates as reported in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, but it is necessary to do so once in a while, as in this case. At page 801 of Hansard of January 30, 1957, the present Prime Minister who was then sitting on this side of the house as leader of the opposition said it was elevating Nasser to a prominent position as the dictator of the Middle East, and as the predeterminator, according to his will and his whim, of the orders made by the United Nations. He called him a grave wrongdoer, a person who had an attitude of international brigandage, and said he should become a law-abiding member of the United Nations.
It may be perfectly all right for the Prime Minister to have had those opinions at that time, but we discovered that this government almost fell over itself in its hurry to extend diplomatic recognition to the united Arab republic after it was formed and under the control of this same individual, to whom the Prime Minister a little over a year ago referred as a dictator, a wrongdoer and a person promoting international brigandage.
Again, I only mention this matter in order to show that the real reason this government refuses to take steps to deal with the question of recognition of China is as a result of the domination or the attitude of the United States in this matter. We have a moral obligation to recognize something that exists, something that is a fact, something that is there. It is a government that is in office. I, for instance, probably do not like the fact that they have a particular government in China any more than I like the fact that we have a particular type of government here in Canada, not that I am drawing any connection between the two as far as political philosophy is concerned. However, I am obliged to accept the fact that the government is here, that the Conservatives are sitting over there on the government side, much as I may not like it. The same gentlemen will agree with that statement, yet will refuse to agree with the fact that in China they have a particular government and that we must recognize the fact that that government is there. It is a moral obligation that we have.
There is another reason. If you do not want to live up to the moral obligations that exist, it may be that the economic question will have a bearing on it, for certainly our trade
The Address-Mr. Howard with other countries is one subject that should command the interest of everybody in this house and everybody in the nation who has the welfare of the economy of the nation at heart. In fact the subamendment that we are now discussing deals with the question of trade. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition also deals with the question of trade. Throughout the last election campaign numerous references were made to trading with other countries, both by government members and by members of other parties.
There seems to be an attitude that trading with a country, selling surplus goods to another country, has no connection with whether or not you give that country formal and diplomatic recognition. In fact the Prime Minister, speaking in the house last November, made reference to this matter when it was brought to his attention that the United Kingdom had recognized China in a diplomatic manner. His answer at that time was to the effect that it had not helped the United Kingdom in expanding its trade; that is to say, because the United Kingdom had recognized China it had not helped to expand the United Kingdom's trade with that country.
That, of course, as I am sure the Prime Minister knew at the time he made that statement-and if he did not know he should have known-is utter nonsense. Some statistics received from the United Kingdom information bureau here in Ottawa about the United Kingdom's trade with China show that the Prime Minister-and I will give credit where credit is due-was partially correct because during the years of the Korean war the United Kingdom's trade with China did not increase. But following that war we find that it increased by leaps and bounds during 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 to a point where it is more than double, and that in a five-year period since the armistice ending the Korean war. Hence when the Prime Minister said it did not help Great Britain, it was not a factual statement or a true statement; and I am sure that if he had the opportunity now, even though he is not here in the house, he would probably correct that impression. Because the United Kingdom undertook to deal in a neighbourly fashion with the Chinese government, British trade with China has been expanding by leaps and bounds ever since.
Therefore if Canada, with all the surplus lumber we have, particularly in British Columbia where probably more than half the total lumber produced in Canada originates, and with the wheat surpluses in the mid-western provinces just sitting there

The Address-Mr. Keays waiting to be moved and exported, were to treat China in a neighbourly fashion and exchange diplomats just as we have with the united Arab republic-of which we were so critical not too long ago-surely we could expect to expand our trade by selling to the more than 600 million people who live in China, thus helping to bolster our lagging economy.
In many respects there has been an unfortunate attitude on the part of the western nations which has driven China precisely where we did not want it to go, that is to say into the arms of the Soviet union. Unless we take some steps to reverse that trend our relationships with the Soviet powers are going to worsen, not from a military standpoint but from an economic standpoint, which of course is our main concern. As was expressed earlier, as sure as we are sitting here at this moment the United States will in the not too distant future do what John Foster Dulles said they would do; that is, recognize China when it is advantageous to the United States to do so, and it will be advantageous to do so pretty soon. Canada once again will find itself behind the eight ball and will suffer accordingly.
Canada can do two things in this respect; and these remarks are not confined to our relationships with China but cover the relationships between the nations of the western world. The nation of Canada has a prestige in world affairs far beyond what might be expected having regard to its size. In diplomatic affairs Canada is looked upon as being a fair and decent nation with a fair and decent attitude toward other countries, and we should use the prestige we have to promote international peace, to promote trade and to promote an understanding among the people of different countries not only with respect to our understanding of other countries but with respect to the understanding and appreciation of other countries as to what Canada is and the type of people we have in our country.
We should undertake, particularly with respect to China, to send an official group- I do not care if it is a diplomatic or parliamentary group or a delegation of some other nature-but we should send to China a group of people with some official or semi-official status so we can get a first-hand picture of what the Chinese people are like and what their requirements are, so they in turn will get an understanding of us and will find that, after all, we are human beings just as they are. Through such an interchange between groups with official or semi-official sanction we may find a way to improve relations between the countries of east and west and at
the same time assist our economy to get out of the state of doldrums in which it is at the present time, laying the groundwork for expanding our trade.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that there are two reasons why we must take these steps. One is a moral obligation to recognize the fact that there is a need here; and if we do not accept the first reason, then there is the straight economic reason that we must expand our trade and keep our industries going.
(Translation):


Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, may I associate myself with all those hon. members who paid their respects to you on the occasion of your election to the high post of Deputy Speaker of this house. I am also happy to tender the same wishes to the Speaker of this assembly. His knowledge of parliamentary rules and his well-known impartiality favoured his appointment.
I also take pleasure in extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the manner in which they carried out their task.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must express my gratitude to the voters of the Magdalen islands who have chosen me for the next few years, as their representative to this country's government. I shall try to comply earnestly with their wishes, and they may be assured that I will do my best at all times to serve their interests.
Magdalen islands are located in the gulf of St. Lawrence, 150 miles southeast of Gaspe and 90 miles north of Prince Edward Island. This archipelago is connected by bridges or causeways, with the exception of Entry island which is 9 miles off.
The population, 13,000 strong, depends entirely on the fishing industry for a living, and I think that this constituency is the only one in Canada to be dependent on a single industry. The people there are hardy and patient; hardy because, being insular, they have to be able to live in conditions very different from those found in the rest of the country; patient, because they have been waiting over the years for the amenities and improvements necessary to the easier survival of their descendants.
Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that when people depend upon a single source of income, it is imperative that they be given every opportunity of easily providing for themselves. Seaports, wharves, unloading docks and warning lighthouses are necessary along the coasts of the islands.

This very morning, I was informed that, in three days, due to unfavourable winds, the people of one of the islands lost a catch of about 100,000 pounds of fish.
I therefore believe, Mr. Speaker, that in itself this argument justifies fuller consideration of the merits of the requests made by the population of Magdalen islands.
New fish processing plants would be built in the islands if the companies were certain that improved approaches would be provided.
Our riding deplores the exodus of its young men to the industrial centres, and we get numerous requests from those boys who want to come back and try to earn their living at home.
I do not think this trend should be discouraged and the means I just enumerated would take care of this problem.
Unfortunately the Gordon Commission had no opportunity to look into the problems of that riding, though they are similar to those of Gaspe and the Atlantic provinces and also deserve the government's attention.
I congratulate the Prime Minister for initiating a price support for agricultural products, and because the fishermen of the Magdalen islands, of Gaspe, eastern Quebec and the Atlantic area as a whole supply a product which is most important to our national economy, I trust that this government will soon introduce a system, whereby our fishermen will enjoy the protection of price support or stabilization.
(Text):
As aforementioned, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Magdalen Islands are isolated, and I believe it is time they were given treatment equal to that accorded other Canadians. There must be a better system of maritime and airborne transportation, and I could not let this occasion go by without saying how grateful our people are to the Minister of Transport for making funds available to improve the airfield at House Harbour.
The Magdalen Islands have given to the armed forces of Canada a large per capita contributions, and as the French and English speaking people there live in harmony and unity I do not wish any hon. member of the opposition to convey to this house the impression that the Conservative convictions of Quebec are different from those which prevail in any other part of Canada. Our convictions as well as those of all the people of Quebec are above all Canadian and the majority have endorsed, as recently proven, the policy of our great leader, the Prime Minister.
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
In Quebec we may have a different outlook on certain matters of customs, culture and education; but as an English speaking member coming from Quebec and sitting on the government side of this house I express the hope that what we now have in Quebec will be preserved in order that the people of that province may contribute further to the unity of Canada and allow our Prime Minister to lead this country to a rendezvous with peace, happiness and prosperity.
(Translation):


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I shall begin my remarks in this house by associating myself with all previous speakers in tendering you my congratulations. As I am now addressing the Deputy Speaker, I shall ask him to tell the Speaker of the house that the member for St. Jean welcomes his appointment, because we all know the integrity of his mind, his great efficiency, and the spirit of impartiality he has always shown when guiding the proceedings of this house with justice and fairness.
Mr. Speaker, this is my first interjection in this house, and I want to say that I very much appreciate the way Mr. Speaker is handling the proceedings.
(Text):
As my hon. friend well knows, I sat for four years in opposition in the Quebec legislative assembly, where the speaker is quite different from the one we find here.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, those words are unparliamentary.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how the word "different" can be unparliamentary. If my hon. friend takes exception to it, it is surely because he knows what is going on out there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as such and as chairman of the house committees. I am aware of your qualities. I know that you have always been fair and loyal, and I am anxious to pay you that tribute.
I also congratulate the vice-chairman of the committees, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) who deserves not only congratulations but much encouragement.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) say that he was very happy to note that, under the present Conservative regime, there seems to loom in our country a sort of unity which is good to see, unity between different groups,

The Address-Mr. Dupuis different creeds, in other words, a complete unity through diversity of languages and religions.
I listened with much pleasure to the very sensible speech made by the hon. member, a very well prepared and substantial speech; but my hon. friend is far from being well informed of the present political situation prevailing throughout the country.
In fact, my hon. friend from Parkdale does not know-and it is my duty to inform him- to what extent things are different in the province of Quebec.
(Text):
I have just been saying, Mr. Speaker, that in the province of Quebec things are different from everywhere else in Canada, and during the last campaign we observed a lot of differences between the Conservatives from other parts of Canada and Union Nationale Conservatives of the province of Quebec.
(Translation):
Take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, in 1957 you were the man who inherited the most arduous task in public life that year. Seeing to the organization of the Tory party in Quebec in 1957 was far from easy. You would have liked to have the ministers of the Union Nationale with you, but there were not many. You might have wished to find candidates; but they were few, because, at that time, Mr. Speaker, the people in the Union Nationale were not sure of their power, and did not want to run the risk. In 1957, there was nobody in the province of Quebec, except you and a few brave men who were defending the thorny cause of the Conservative Tory party in our country-
(Text):


Mr. Graffiey:: Order!
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends will have the opportunity to speak after me. What I have to say is nothing but the truth and you know it better than anyone else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to confine himself to the object of the debate. I must also point out to him the fact that the recent elections are over.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, other members referred to them and I do not see why I could not do likewise. Hon. members opposite have been referring to them since the beginning of the session, as did the hon. members of the Union Nationale sitting on this side of the house, and I should like to ask you respectfully what rule of the house prevents me from referring to the last elections.

This morning, the hon. member for Parkdale was speaking of this fine national unity and I must admit that this statement surprised us. Indeed, how is it possible to imagine the entente cordiale among these people who opposed the Colombo plan, the equalization system, federal help to universities, the trans-Canada highway, who always criticized the federal Conservative members for their opposition to the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican, who also criticized some extremists from certain parts of our country for objecting to the recognition of a national anthem in Canada? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, how is it possible to imagine them united with those who oppose the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag and yet favour a flag bearing the Union Jack? They differ in their way of thinking, in their traditions, in their habits and in their mentality. They also differ in their election methods.
(Text):
I would speak now to my hon. friends in the other part of the house. Maybe they did not know, but last February, at a time when the newspapers all over the country were coming out with big headlines, something happened in our province of Quebec that they did not realize because they were far from our province. In February, 1958, we in Quebec assisted in a great marriage, a great ceremony.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, this is simultaneous translation. The party of the first part, one LeNoblet-Duplessis, of Three Rivers, is joined in political matrimony to the party of the second part, one John Diefenbaker of Saskatchewan. And this wedding, Mr. Speaker, has surprised a great many people.
How can one explain why it is that this Union Nationale team of Quebec has all of a sudden become enamoured of the Conservative Tory party of Canada? True the explanation is very simple, once the facts are known. However, I believe that some people sitting in this house know very little about the story. I would like to finish at this time.
Mr. Speaker, in 1933, in Sherbrooke, a man was elected Conservative leader, Mr. Maurice Duplessis, who has never resigned that post since. He is still Conservative leader ...


An hon. Member:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must once more ask the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to deal with the subject matter of the debate.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit . . .


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully
submit that I have every right to give exact information on what has happened in the history of my province. If my hon. friends want to understand what I have to say, they cannot do so if they only have heard bits and pieces of the story, which I want to finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must ask the
hon. member to deal only with those matters that concern the federal government.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to tell me under what section of the rules you can prevent me from dealing with a matter which every other hon. member in this house has dealt with?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a general rule. During the debates of this house, it is not in order to discuss anything unrelated to questions of public interest coming under federal jurisdiction.


Yvon Dupuis: Is it not a fact that the speech from the throne mentions federal provincial relations?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes; the speech from the throne refers to provincial federal relations but I must point out to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville that it contains no reference to past elections.
I must once again urge the hon. member to confine his remarks to the debate in progress.


Yvon Dupuis: I will gladly bow to your
ruling. However, I will point out that all previous speakers referred to that subject. From now on I will refrain from further references to it and I hope that other members will do likewise.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the disappearance of several worthy men who, for many years, have played here an important part in the service of their country and their fellow-citizens. I have in mind several of those people who played a distinguished role in federal politics during the past few years: the hon. leader of the Social Credit party, the hon. leader of the C.C.F. party and several former ministers of the Liberal administration which gave our country an unprecedented prosperity. Indeed, it can be said that today the hon. members of parliament miss them badly.
57071-3-181
The Address-Mr. Dupuis
The hon. George Marler, who was a shrewd minister of transport, is for us, from the Montreal area, a loss that is keenly felt by this parliament.
Mr. Speaker, should the Liberal party, now confronted with the Conservative program, feel ashamed of facing its doctrine, of facing its principles, and of conveying to the house its deep convictions? I do not believe so. If fate made it so that our party has become a minority group in this house, it is certainly not because some reprehensible deed or objectionable laws could be credited to the late Liberal government and caused it to face popular discontent.
The hon. members of the Conservative party are prone to recall, in their speeches, that there is nothing in their history about which they should feel ashamed. And yesterday I heard hon. friends opposite say that it was quite untrue to say that when the Conservatives were in power there were years of bitterness, and that the situation was quite different when Liberals were in power, because those were good years.
Well, I would certainly not say, on my own authority, that things are going that way. But when we look at the achievements of the Liberal party in the field of health insurance, and particularly of social security we see that as a rule the Liberal party has been at the forefront of the social achievements in this country. It was the Liberal party which instituted old age pensions, unemployment insurance benefits, family allowances, pensions for the disabled, for the blind and even for the members of parliament.
I ask my hon. friends who will speak after me to mention one single piece of social security legislation which has been initiated by a Conservative administration. They too have been in power in the past. I have here the names of famous people who have been members of that great party. You shall hear those names, Mr. Speaker, and you will readily see for yourself if, to be considered as a party of national unity, in the matter of public administration, the Conservative party must not thoroughly change its policies. The Conservative leaders since 1896 have been: Tupper, Borden, Meighen, Guthrie, Bennett, Manion, Bracken, Drew and Diefenbaker. If I turn the other page of history, I see that the Liberal party, in that same span of years, has given three great leaders to the Canadian nation: Laurier, Mackenzie King and St. Laurent.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis


An hon. Member:: Are you forgetting Pearson?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to tell me which of these Conservative leaders, including the present Prime Minister, is the one who-
(Text):
Who is the Conservative leader in the past who during his administration achieved anything to help the people, who achieved anything by way of social welfare that would give something to the people? I ask my hon. friends to answer that question.
(Translation):
Has there been one item of social legislation adopted by the Conservative party? Was there any such thing under Borden? Not at all.


William Heward Grafftey: Oh yes, there was.


Yvon Dupuis: Which one? Can the hon. member tell me what it was?


William Heward Grafftey: I can answer that question easily. Every item of legislation which was introduced by the Conservative government, around 1935, was completely blocked by Mr. Mackenzie King.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I will leave aside this matter of a blockade, and I will deal with precise facts. The hon. member has not answered my question at all. I asked what Borden had done. If there was obstruction, as the hon. member has just claimed, is it not a fact that the government was in power and that it could have had legislation adopted in the social field if it had wished to? Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that, in the past, every time the Liberal party attempted to introduce social legislation such as old age pensions or family allowances, the leaders of the party to which my hon. friends belong were opposed? Is there any need for me to remind the house of what Colonel George Drew said of the family allowances, which he called "baby bonuses for the province of Quebec"? The Liberal government at the time took no account of this systematic obstruction and did implement for the benefit of this country the social security measures now enjoyed by our people.
One thing which I find astounding is to hear the Conservatives boast of giving $9 per month to our old people and attempting to find in this a claim to national fame. But how can we take them seriously? They boast of giving $9 per month in a field in Which, in the past, they were always obstructive, whereas we gave $40 per month, a fact of which we are proud and from which the old people throughout this country, at this time, derive real benefits.

Mr. Speaker, under Conservative governments in the past we had total conscription under Sir Robert Borden and, under Mr. R. B. Bennett-and our Union Nationale friends were the ones who complained most bitterly about that-five years of depression. It was always a Conservative government which was at the helm when this country was going through the darkest hours of its history.
On the other hand, our country has experienced prosperity under the regimes of Laurier, Mackenzie King and St. Laurent.
We gave up power in June, 1957, at a time when Canadian prosperity was at a record high. No sooner had the Conservatives been subsequently returned to power than we had the depression and unemployment began gradually to spread. At this very moment, unemployment has become a constant threat to Canadian labour.
Mr. Speaker, what will our friends opposite do to solve the unemployment problem?


Mr. Belzile:: Where were you in 1930?


Yvon Dupuis: And you, where were you at the time of Napoleon?
Mr. Speaker, I really think that my hon. friend opposite believes in the existence of Napoleon but he was not yet born at that time.


Alfred Belzile: You, yourself, what were you doing at that time?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I note with you that the moment we speak of unemployment, hon. members opposite begin to stir; it hurts them very much.
Well, since the hon. member asked me where I was at the time of the Bennett government, I will tell him. At that time, I was living in a populous workers' district of Montreal and I remember that my father, who has been a member of this house, was a Montreal alderman.


An hon. Member:: And he has now been ousted.


Yvon Dupuis: I also remember that every day hundreds and hundreds of unemployed lined up in front of my home begging for bread. Mr. Speaker, at the time of the Bennett regime, I was a small boy...


Alfred Belzile: Where were you on the eve of the elections in 1930?


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker...


Alfred Belzile: The Conservatives were not in power at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. members of this house to allow the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to complete his speech.


Yvon Dupuis: The Address-Mr. Creaghan on the right track, the government will always have to walk in the footsteps of the Liberals, because what these latter did was always well planned and not improvised. A full program had been devised for the welfare of all classes of society and for all sections of the country.
I would respectfully beg the present government to stop showering flowers on itself in saying that the hon. ministers are powerful and competent, and that the right hon. Prime Minister has put up a marvellous fight.
We are well aware of all that, but it is hardly by showering fulsome praise on this government that we shall solve the crucial issue of unemployment.
We are expecting some action, joint action, and the eyes of the Canadian people are now turned on the Conservative administration which took over in such strength that the opposition cannot be charged with obstructionism if promises are not immediately fulfilled. The Conservatives wanted absolute authority. What more do they want, when they have reduced the C.C.F. party to eight members and the Liberal ranks to 49 representatives?
Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody is looking to the man who was elected to guide this country's destiny. We expect immediate action, and if the government does not take any steps in that direction, at the next general election, it will suffer the most humiliating defeat an administration has ever known.
(Text):


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak in this house, and to join in the debates of the House of Commons for the first time. I express to you, Mr. Speaker, my congratulations, as others have done, on your re-election for a second term to the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons. I wish to be associated with all the other pleasant remarks addressed to your honour, and to add my congratulations to the members of this house upon having chosen from amongst us one with such ability, skill and fairness, accompanied by a dignity which today is the envy of all of us.
As you know, I am a new member of parliament with a limited experience. However, in the short time I have been here I have already formed an opinion that all hon. members will be treated fairly by you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to convey also my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, on the man chosen as your deputy, and I should like to join with other hon. members in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

It is my honour to represent the constituency of Westmorland which is located on the east coast of New Brunswick, immediately to the north of Cumberland county in the province of Nova Scotia. Westmorland is a very large riding, having both a rural and urban population of nearly 100,000 people and a most diversified economy. The citizens are mostly of British and French Acadian stock. In fact, the two groups are nearly equal in number.
The maritime provinces for a great many years have been looked upon by the rest of the people of Canada as a depressed area. The term "We never had it so good", never applied to New Brunswick or Westmorland constituency. It was only recently, in fact during the 23rd parliament of Canada, that recognition of our needs received long awaited federal approval. This was brought about by the fact that on June 10 last the electors of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick elected to this house in ever increasing numbers, supporters of the Progressive Conservative party. As a result of this large representation, and nothwithstanding the short life of the 23rd parliament, beneficial legislation was passed with a view to improving the present and future economic outlook for Atlantic Canada.
The legislation to which I refer is commonly known as the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants which will have the effect of increasing the provincial treasury of New Brunswick to the extent of $7.5 million for the next four years. The total in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned will amount to $100 million during the four-year period. This aid will definitely assist our economy and it is hoped that at the end of the four-year period it will not be necessary for maritime members to urge the government to bring in further legislation by way of aid. At that time it is hoped that the average income in the province of New Brunswick will be equal to or even greater than the national average.
Many thousands of my constituents are employed by the Canadian National Railways. The city of Moncton, commonly known as the hub of the maritimes, is a fast growing community of approximately 40,000 citizens, and in it is the head office of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways. Recent layoffs by the C.N.R. in the Atlantic region and in Westmorland county in particular have caused a great deal of hardship and worry to the men affected and in no small way will contribute adversely to the economy of eastern New Brunswick.
With our pool of labour I believe it should be possible for Canadian National Railways

to build in the city of Moncton modern offices to house the regional staff and to consider forthwith and make plans for the construction of a much needed modern station and, if possible, a C.N.R. hotel. The men employed at the Canadian National Railways shops in Moncton are well trained and competent tradesmen and it should be possible for the government to urge this crown corporation to manufacture freight cars and other equipment in these shops in order to guarantee permanent work and security for the thousands now employed by the railway in eastern New Brunswick. Wooden structures and buildings erected years ago which are an eyesore to many communities should be dismantled and be replaced by modern buildings of masonry and steel.
In addition to the large numbers of railway employees I am pleased to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that many other federal agencies are located in Westmorland constituency. The maritime penitentiary, consisting of many large buildings and an ever increasing staff, is located at Dorchester which is the shire town of the county of Westmorland. The Department of Fisheries and the Department of Agriculture, both of which are beneficial to Westmorland county, each occupy space and have large staffs in the city of Moncton. There is also in this constituency the local and maritime regional offices of the unemployment insurance commission. I am also pleased to advise the house and you, Mr. Speaker, that the civil service commission maintains in the city of Moncton a regional office which services the constituency of Westmorland together with the province of New Brunswick.
In more recent years Department of Transport employees in ever increasing numbers have been employed at Lakeburn, the site of the Moncton airport. This department has been occupying rental space in the L'Assomp-tion building, together with the staff of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. You will readily appreciate that the accumulation of civil servants has greatly aided the general economy of Westmorland county, and I am pleased to extend to the ministers an invitation to increase the staffs of their respective departments so as to relocate more and more civil servants in eastern New Brunswick.
I am sure that this brief introduction of Westmorland county will help the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to appreciate the urgent need for the construction of another large public building in which to house the present government offices and to take care of the future growth and expansion of these most important federal agencies.
The Address-Mr. Creaghan
Much has been said in previous parliaments about the proposed construction of the Chi-gnecto canal. Many maritimers are of the opinion that this canal should have been built in conjunction with the St. Lawrence seaway. A canal at Chignecto would be navigable at all times. Ships travelling the seaway to South America and the United States would shorten their route by nearly 500 miles. The canal would also be of great benefit to local shipping. Its construction would do much to cure any deficiency in the maritime economy and it is certainly justified as an extension easterly of the St. Lawrence seaway. Probably the cost of construction would be less by several million dollars than the amount that the seaway has already exceeded the original estimates. I appreciate that it will take a great deal of money and planning to build the canal. I merely wanted to mention the project today, knowing that it will be discussed by others at a later date.
During the election campaign speakers, including myself, stated that the immediate construction of the Tantramar dam would be urged on this government. Tenders were called and were opened on May 14. This construction will prevent flooding from the sea of all farm land above the dam, and will give permanent protection to several thousand acres of land. This will have the effect of encouraging farmers in their work. It will also help the general economy of my riding during the construction time. In fact, the dam is needed immediately as it will act as a causeway for a small portion of the trans-Canada highway between the town of Sack-ville in Westmorland county and the town of Amherst in Nova Scotia. The specifications for this dam call for completion during the year 1959. I have been assured that the contract will be awarded in the immediate future. It would appear as if construction of the dam will commence within one month.
Much has been said since confederation about guaranteed transportation between the province of Prince Edward Island and the mainland of New Brunswick. At the present time there is an outdated link. The ferry is modern and up to standard but cannot adequately handle the road and rail traffic between the province of Prince Edward Island and Westmorland county.
I am pleased that an extensive survey was recently authorized and I know that all members of this house would join with the four hon. members from the province of Prince Edward Island in urging this government to proceed with the New Bruns-wick-Prince Edward Island causeway immediately the Department of Public Works is in receipt of a favourable report. The Minister of Public Works and the Minister
272	MOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Creaghan of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) have already shown keen interest in this causeway and as the approach to the causeway will be from the shore of Westmorland county many of my constituents are very interested in this scheme and, like myself, are anxiously awaiting its completion.
The decentralization of the huge national defence expenditure will also greatly help the maritimes. No. 5 supply depot, Royal Canadian Air Force, is located in various localities in Westmorland. The buildings were in most cases erected during the last war and have given good service. I hope during the course of this parliament that the base will be enlarged and that permanent and modern military buildings will be erected. I also urge the government and the Department of National Defence in particular to consider an even more important role for the huge army camp at Gagetown.
It is most difficult to mention all the needs of my constituents in this my first speech. As in the areas represented by many other members we have many farmers in Westmorland county who have problems requiring immediate attention at Ottawa. Many of these farmers have negotiated mortgages through the Canadian farm loan board but unlike the western farmers many of our farmers are part-time farmers. It would be of great assistance if the legislation could be amended to permit them to become eligible applicants under the Canadian farm loan board jurisdiction. This would eventually create more full-time farmers in New Brunswick and would encourage improvements in the area.
Like the areas represented by western members, my area contains great fishing industries. Westmorland has many miles of coastline and many of my electors feel that wharf construction was badly neglected in past years. The Minister of Fisheries is well aware of the needs of the fishermen on Northumberland strait and already much has been done by him during his short term of office. Recent estimates of the Department of Public Works provide more generous assistance for the construction of wharves in New Brunswick.
I hope that hon. members will not get the impression that I have come to Ottawa with a chip on my shoulder or as a prejudiced maritimer. I represent a seat which invariably elected a supporter of the Liberal party. This pattern has been a continuous one since the election of 1935, notwithstanding the serious state of affairs I have mentioned today. I hope that at the end of this parliament and that, as a result of action the previous election trend will be reversed.


(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate you on your appointment to the speakership of the house. I have known you for a number of years and I am well acquainted with your sense of justice and your impartiality. I can say that I was deeply appreciative of your appointment.
I congratulate also the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) on his appointment to the deputy speakership. We know that he is the descendant of a noble line of ancestors who have left their mark on the house. Knowing his talents, we can be assured that his term of office will be rewarding. I want to express to him every good wish in this connection.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the magnificent way in which they have acquitted themselves of their task.
I would not like either to omit mentioning the appointment of the hon. members for Lotbiniere (Mr. O'Hurley) and for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) to their respective functions of Minister of Defence Production and of Secretary of State. All of us know the energy and the qualifications of both those gallant members who have become ministers of the Crown. We believe and hope that their energy and their talents will be used to promote the welfare of all their Canadian fellow-citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the electors of the constituency of Papineau whom I represent in this house for the third time. I thank them for this mark of esteem and appreciation which they have given me by electing me again. I can assure them that I will always serve them with loyalty and devotion and that I will protect their interests together with those of the Canadian nation.
The speech from the throne announces some steps to alleviate the present problem of unemployment. It announces a program of public works as well as amendments to the National Housing Act and to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These measures will not be sufficient to cure unemployment, as they are but a temporary remedy. However, I say this incidentally, without such measures our economy would fall into chaos, and we would be back to the years 1930-35.
The social security legislation, that is the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the

Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act, initiated by the Liberal party, support in some measure the purchasing power of the population and save our people from poverty and want. There is deep uneasiness in the country and the government does not seem to realize it. On the one hand, we have a great number of unemployed and, on the other hand, the cost of living continues to rise. What does the government propose to do to remedy that situation? We see nothing in the speech from the throne to lead us to expect a solution to this state of affairs. We believe that the government will finally have to follow the example of the United States where the economy suffers from the same evil as ours and where a senate committee recently recommended that salaries and prices be frozen at their present levels.
Amendments to the National Housing Act will not solve the unemployment problem because houses built with the money we voted are beyond the reach of three quarters of the wage earners. Moreover, in Montreal, the metropolis of our country, builders are slowing down their undertakings because they have trouble finding buyers for their houses or even tenants at the rentals they have to ask because of building costs. I also wish to mention incidentally that the price of available building lots doubled since 1953, so that housebuilding is becoming too costly and the small wage earner cannot afford to own his home.
Labour unions are claiming higher wages for men in the building trades and no one knows where those requests will end unlp^ the government sees to it and freezes salaries at present levels.
However, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a remedy for the province of Quebec which would reduce unemployment, at least temporarily, as it would put some money in the taxpayer's pockets. This remedy consists merely in taking out of the coffers of the federal government the money that is kept there at the disposal of the province of Quebec and which its dictator, Mr. Duplessis, a friend of the Conservative members from Quebec in this house, never wanted to accept under the pretense of preserving autonomy. Incidentally, may I say to my Conservative colleagues from the province of Quebec that they have shown little gratitude and loyalty toward their provincial leader. A number of those who have spoken in this house have congratulated the Prime Minister of the country, that is to say their leader here, on his brilliant victory, forgetting meanwhile to thank their Quebec chief for having taken part in the victory they gained on March 31
The Address-Mr. Meiunier last. In those elections we saw the high powered Union Nationale machine in action in our constituencies, we heard promises of bits of roads and bridges, we saw money flowing all around. We even saw employees of the provincial government do their bit by working in close co-operation with Conservative candidates. And we do know that some Conservative candidates were chosen in the office of the premier of Quebec himself.
Since my Conservative colleagues do not dare praise their provincial leader publicly, but prefer to have very close private relations with him, they could possibly convince him that he could help the people of Quebec by finding work for them.
I believe that the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) who is looking at me at this time could be a good agent to negotiate with the Premier of Quebec and to come and collect here for the benefit of that province, the money at present held for it in the federal coffers.
These gentlemen might possibly convince Mr. Duplessis to accept some 50 million dollars from Ottawa for the Trans-Canada highway. Mr. Duplessis might well put aside his false sense of autonomy and, for once in his life, call for tenders for the undertaking of this work and comply with federal standards required for the inspection of work, more particularly with reference to the thickness of asphalt surfacing. But Ottawa has always been for Mr. Duplessis the capital of a foreign country and it is only since the Conservative party has come into power that he has found out that it actually is the capital of his country.
My Conservative friends could also convince Mr. Duplessis privately that he should accept university grants so that these institutions could embark on some undertakings and achieve their objectives.
Everybody knows, and the Conservative members of the province of Quebec as well as anybody else, that the universities of Laval, McGill and Montreal have deficits, that tuition fees are high and that the university is now open only to the well-to-do.
Some will possibly say that the province of Quebec is not in a position to accept those grants to universities, because those grants represent an infringement in the field of education which is a provincial responsibility. In that case, how is it that the province of Quebec has been accepting federal money for vocational and technical training, with regard to the construction of vocational schools? And this has been going on since 1937.
With reference to these university grants, may I ask if the federal government intends

The Address-Mr. Meunier to impose curricula, or if these grants are not granted unconditionally? These grants are granted by the present government, with no strings attached, and the Conservative members for Quebec especially, should attempt to find some formula which would bring our universities out of the stagnation and uncertainty in which they are plunged at this time, since the Conservative government, of which they are a part, does not seem to have any wish to change what has already been done.
Another way in which my Conservative friends from Quebec could use their influence with the present leader of the government, as well as the good offices of Mr. Duplessis, would be to see to the implementation of what they have preached during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, and that is to reduce the aid which the government gives to underdeveloped countries under the Colombo plan. You will remember that over the last two election campaigns, you as well as other Conservative speakers have claimed that the Liberals gave money to underdeveloped countries, to foreign countries, and that Mr. Duplessis, at that time used the slogan "Duplessis gives to his province and the Liberals give to foreigners".
It is time, now that you have a majority in this house, that you put an end to this state of affairs instituted by the Liberal party, continued by the Conservative party and in which the contribution has been raised at the beginning of this year by the present government. You cannot ignore what you have preached as a means of stirring the Quebec population and I repeat that now is the time for you to do something in line with what you have said.
If contributions to the Colombo plan were too high, if you preached that we should not help underdeveloped countries, now is the time for you, the Conservative members from Quebec, to raise your voice in this house in order that your stand be known and that we should see whether you are going to support the theory you preached in the province of Quebec.
Health insurance is another field in which you could put your efforts to good effect to convince your Quebec leader. Mr. Duplessis said time and time again that he would agree to health insurance as long as the constitution was respected, and his province given its due. Your leader, Mr. Duplessis, always accused the Ottawa government under Mr. King and Mr. St. Laurent of spoliation and usurpation and it is only since June, 1957, that his voice is no longer heard on this point.

Well I think it is time that Conservative members do something to give effect to all the suggestions I made. This would give millions to the province of Quebec, millions of which the province has been deprived for several years. And, now that you are in sufficient numbers in this house, it is up to you to find a solution to the problems outlined so that Quebec may benefit from its share of the federal treasury.
I regret that there is no reference in the speech from the throne to federal-provincial financial relations because, there again, Conservative members from Quebec would have had a fine opportunity to give back to the province of Quebec what was taken from her according to Premier Duplessis. When Premier Duplessis accepted equalization payments in 1956, he stated that the province of Quebec was given only part of the money that was taken from her, but that he would be satisfied when Ottawa returns to the province of Quebec the taxation rights that were taken away from her. Premier Duplessis never understood, under a Liberal regime, that the federal government and the provinces have concurrent rights in matters of direct taxation but, now that the Conservative party is in power, he seems to have changed his understanding and his views on provincial autonomy are more restricted.
He never realized that the equalization formulas help distribute the national wealth all over the country and give a chance to the poorer provinces. He has always preferred to indulge in petty politics instead of behaving as a true Canadian concerned about the interests of our country.
I am now going to deal with another item close to the heart of Quebec Conservatives, an item for which they campaigned vehemently during the last election and of which not a word has been spoken since they are in this house. I refer to the matter of an ambassador to the Vatican. They charged the Liberals with doing nothing, and if I raise the matter, Mr. Speaker, it is because Conservative members themselves have raised it. That does not mean that I agree with them, for they have accused the Liberals of having done nothing in this respect. They did this without a full knowledge of the question and without wondering whether such an appointment would be welcomed by the religious authorities of the country or of their province. For them that matter was nothing more than an electoral platform to arouse the people, and now that they can implement what they have advocated, they consider the matter as a dead issue.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will say to my Conservative friends from Quebec that they must clearly state whether they agree with the doctrine of the Conservative party to which they belong, or whether they follow the doctrine advocated for many years by their provincial leader. To be consistent, they should dissociate themselves from their party if they object to the policies of the present government, which adheres to the main points of the Liberal administration policy and has not yet disavowed any of their laws including, as I have mentioned before, social measures like the assistance to under-developed countries, assistance to universities, federal-provincial relations and health insurance. All those acts and measures passed by the Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, have contributed to the prosperity we have known in this country until June, 1957. Those acts and measures have been enacted for the people of Canada from coast to coast and have been enforced on the same basis everywhere.
Now that I have raised those matters, which are all in direct relation with the province of Quebec, I would ask the Conservative members from Quebec, of whom we have only heard a few so far, to state what policy they intend to follow about the matters I have raised.
Mr. Speaker, I also express the wish that the present government will follow in the footsteps of the Liberal administration, so as to maintain in this country national unity of which the right hon. Louis St. Laurent has been a great champion and upholder both in word and deed. He spared no effort to prove to the Canadian nation that two great races and cultures could live together in Canada in understanding and harmony.
I hope that all the members of this house will be inspired by the ideal which has been the guiding principle of that great Canadian.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, sincere and deepest gratitude impels me to say to the electors of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere how thankful I am to them for the confidence they showed me at the election of March 31st last. They can be sure that I will devote all my energy on their behalf so that, as all the other citizens of Canada, they may enjoy the blessings of a sound Conservative administration.
Honour to whom honour is due; I interpret, here, Mr. Speaker, the feelings of my electors in congratulating you for the mark of unanimous confidence given you by this house
The Address-Mr. Paul when you were again elected as its Speaker. No doubt your experience will permit you to direct proceedings of this house even more efficiently. No doubt, in your paternal kindness, you will forgive us the few mistakes which new members like myself are bound to make.
I extend my most sincere congratulations to the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and Spadina (Mr. Rea) who have been chosen respectively Deputy Speaker and deputy chairman of committees of the whole.
The hon. members for Lotbiniere (Mr. O'Hurley) and for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) have been entrusted with portfolios and we know, there again, that their experience, their devotion to duty and their sense of responsibility will help the government in its efforts to solve the serious problems which now face all Canadian taxpayers.
When we read in the newspapers that the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne would be the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere), the electors of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere felt deeply honoured, since the hon. member is an excellent citizen of the parish of Maskinonge; and those who had placed their legitimate hopes in him were rewarded by the tact and the eloquence with which he has delivered his speech.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) also deserves congratulations for affording us the opportunity of getting to know a part of our country about which we had been unfamiliar, and he has also helped us gain a better insight into the great projects which the government is contemplating for that area of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, other hon. members have referred to a problem which I have much at heart, as a representative of an industrious working class. I should like to touch briefly upon the textile and knitting industries.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) as well as several other members referred to the textile problem. You will permit me to associate with this problem that of the knitting industry which I consider equal in importance to the cotton industry, to the wool industry and to the dressmaking industry. In the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanau-diere, there are 5,000 workers, men and women, who earn their living in those plants. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) whom we heard yesterday, blamed the Conservative party for this recession in the textile industry and knitting mills. On the contrary, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Paul Speaker, this situation has prevailed in our province and in the province of Ontario since 1953, as well as in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere, and, more particularly at Louiseville and St. Gabriel of Brandon where staff reduction was 18 per cent from 1953 to December, 1956. When quoting these figures yesterday, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska was not fair to this government, because our workers at home are confident that Conservative policy will solve the problem now obtaining in the textile industry and in the knitting mills, in order to give the men and women in those plants greater prosperity and a little more work.
I know that the problem deserves attention and I am sure that the hon. ministers of trade and commerce and of finance (Mr. Churchill and Mr. Fleming) will seek an early solution taking into account, however, the difficulties of free trade with some countries like China, Japan, the United States and India.
It is a mistake to hold the Conservative party responsible for this situation in the textile industry when it is well known that, from 1935 until last year, the Liberal party was in power and did absolutely nothing to stop that depression which could be seen coming. Furthermore, for years goods prefabricated at a lower cost than that which our manufacturers have to pay on the market to sell their products before processing were allowed to come into Canada.
I know that the right hon. Prime Minister last fall asked the tariff board to review, if possible, the matter of custom tariffs so that this essential industry, the second largest in the province of Quebec, can recover the confidence it lost as a result of the Liberal party's inertia, lack of vision and of sound management.
Another matter with which I wish to deal very briefly has to do with agriculture. I deem it a duty to thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) as well as the members of the 23rd parliament who enacted the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act. Why? Because through this legislation, the Canadian people, particularly the agricultural community, is in a position to enjoy an expansion and a prosperity such as they never knew under a Liberal administration. If farmers are now somewhat more prosperous, it is due to the sound administration of the government under the leadership of the Prime Minister seconded by the cabinet and particularly, in matters of agriculture, by the Minister of Agriculture.
A moment ago, the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) asked

whether the Conservative party had ever enacted a truly social measure to help our farmers. I don't know that any finer legislation has ever been passed to help solve the problems of agriculture, not only in western Canada, but in the whole of this country, particularly to protect the farmers of eastern Canada. Hon. members of the opposition are a bit confused. They wonder why it is that they, who held power for 22 years, should now have to go through the cold region of opposition to refresh their memory and remember that they allowed themselves to drift away from the people, that they mocked the people and refused to give the people what it had the right to expect from them. They now attempt to make provincial politics here in the House of Commons; they seek to blame the premier of the province of Quebec for the failure of the provincial Liberal party. Well, the fact of the matter is that the federal Liberal party in the province of Quebec always sought to monopolize power through sentimentality, and succeeded in doing so, especially in 1949. Last March, the people recognized that the Conservative party was blessed with an innate sense of administration. The same thing happened in June, 1957, and today it is the federal Liberal party which has to sit in opposition. We who have been elected are pleased to encourage this opposition party so that it can fulfil its role bravely for a great many years to come.
Steps have already been taken to support agricultural prices. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to carry out the necessary investigations so that certain agricultural products, which can be found in abundance in my own constituency, may be protected by a support price in order that those who carry out certain types of farming may henceforth obtain the return they deserve. I refer at this time to tobacco and potato farming.
No doubt the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) who mentioned yesterday the cancellation of subsidies for the purchase of aluminum buckets for the maple sugar industry, had forgotten that this happened in 1954 while the Liberals were in power.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) to set, if possible, a base price on maple products so that the maple industry, whose importance cannot be questioned and which enjoys a certain degree of prosperity may bring to the producers higher returns than it does now.

In addition, the Department of Agriculture might perhaps at some time consider the advisability of subsidizing the agricultural community in order to facilitate the purchase of fertilizers.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary to amend the Farm Loans Act. It has been said about this act, and rightly so, that no loans are made under it. The members of the opposition have enacted that legislation without taking into account the needs of the farmers and the economic situation of our country. Well, it is to be hoped that this government, and particularly the Minister of Agriculture, will see to it that the interest rate on loans is lowered and the terms for obtaining these loans eased as far as possible, so that the farmers may benefit from this legislation and our agricultural class throughout the country may survive.
It was stated in the speech from the throne that we shall be called upon to consider legislation to check the plague of unemployment, that unfortunate legacy left to the Conservatives by the Liberals on the morrow of their defeat of June 10. May I be allowed, in the name of the workers in my riding, to thank the government, and more particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), for having kindly considered their position when amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, and extending the additional benefit period by another six weeks. There is no doubt that this social security legislation would give our workmen not only enough money to meet the difficulties with which they have to cope, but also some hope of a better and more prosperous future.
Yesterday, I listened to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), in a splendid outbreak of oratory, request grants for his constituency. The situation which he described must have grown overnight like a toadstool since, before the present government took power, those problems did not exist, the municipalities were not in need, needed no grants, could do without federal help. That, at least, is what the hon. member for Hull would have had us understand yesterday. He asked for an interprovincial bridge for his constituency. I congratulate him on that score and I hope that the chilly atmosphere of opposition will help him understand that he, and other members of the Liberal opposition, have possibly not worked in the best interest of those they represent in the 22 years their party was in power.
The problems facing the municipalities are not new and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) will no doubt allow me to remind him of the urgent needs of my home
The Address-Mr. Paul town of Louiseville as well as those of Berthierville, of St. Gabriel de Brandon and of many other municipalities of my fine constituency, which are faced with the necessity of building sewers, waterworks and public buildings. I am convinced that the hon. Minister of Public Works will see that works of this description will be carried out not only to relieve unemployment but to help municipalities out of their present difficulties. Why? Because they have not always been treated as they should have been, especially by the Liberal party which was in power far too long.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: Watch out for autonomy. ..


Rémi Paul: Pardon?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Watch out for autonomy!


Rémi Paul: Autonomy? If you will allow me, I will deal with that in a few moments and it will then be a pleasure for me to answer my hon. friend. I hope that he might get to understand it as we do in our province.
Autonomy is a matter of the deepest interest to members of the opposition. I believe that this matter of autonomy would be a perfectly chosen ground for those who would like to encourage the poor Liberal provincial opposition, now faced with the crucial problem, that of choosing itself a leader on May 31 next.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of Public Works, I appeal for his financial support so that municipal and school authorities can obtain the money which would allow them to face and solve their problems. I would like also to suggest to the minister that it is time for the government to pay real estate tax to municipalities, just as every other taxpayer does. This contribution to the needs of school and municipal administration might make it possible for these corporations to obtain revenue and to lighten the load for their own taxpayers.
At the very beginning of the session, while I was still somewhat impressed by the grandeur of the ceremonies that were going on,
I heard the voice of experience, that of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), who said, and I quote from the English translation of his speech as recorded on page 54 of Hansard:
I have stated before and keep on stating that there are deep doctrinal differences between the Conservatives of the province of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. Indeed there are in the house at this time many Conservative members from Quebec who, up to now, have spent their political career waging war against the federal government-

The Address-Mr. Paul
And in the following paragraph, we read:
One of the most interesting aspects of the last federal elections is the fact that from now on these self-styled nationalist Conservatives from Quebec will have to share the responsibilities of power with the Conservatives of the other provinces and either accept the government's policy or break with their own party.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is one group of people truly in a position to understand the real aspirations of the people of Quebec, it is indeed ourselves, the members from that province, who were born there and who have lived there.
The hon. member for Laurier should not be surprised at the attitude the Conservatives are going to take in the present parliament. Quebec Conservatives have never been against the federal government. Quebec Conservatives have stood against the centralization efforts of the federal Liberal party, and their position has always been consistent with the aspirations and needs, as well as the mentality of our electors. The hon. member for Laurier can rest assured that the province of Quebec trusts in the future and that may be the main reason for the sweeping defeat experienced by the Liberal party in my province at the last election.
I stated from the start that while in 1957 the province of Quebec voted in accordance with a parochial mentality, this year it was part of the tide that swept across the country and gave its confidence to the government so brilliantly led by the Prime Minister. If the province of Quebec sent 50 of us to this house, it is because it felt certain that the present government was able to act in accordance with the provisions of the constitutional act of 1867 which gave the provinces the right of direct taxation, and the federal government the right of indirect taxation.
I cannot agree with my hon. friend from St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) who said that we, in the province of Quebec, have always been against the equalization system. On the contrary, we have always felt a keen desire to see the rights of all and everyone respected as we, ourselves, in the province of Quebec, take pride in respecting the rights of minorities and of everyone around us.
The Prime Minister said in this house on November 19, 1957 that the provinces would be stating their views to the central administration, and that the central government would not impose its terms to the provinces. There, Mr. Speaker, is the explanation of the vote given in my province during the last federal election.

We are not against federalism. Our attitude will always be in conformity with that of the government, because our leader, as he has already stated and shown by his actions, intends to respect the constitutional rights guaranteed to every province. That is why, at the elections of March 31 last, the Canadian people found in our government so brilliantly led by the Prime Minister a government capable of giving each and everyone its fair share.
I noticed that my hon. friends opposite were a little surprised, bewildered, disorganized and disheartened by having to sit on the opposition side; I heard them trying to explain to the house their poor showing in the province of Quebec in the last election. They would like people to believe that those who were elected on the Conservative ticket were the instruments, the favourites, the wards of the Union Nationale government. However, the Liberal party did not fare any better in the other provinces since it could not salvage a single seat in all the western provinces. Thus, this situation is not peculiar to the province of Quebec.
It is unfortunate that some members from my province do try to disparage our administration. This is not the place for provincial politics. We are in the House of Commons and our first duty is to deal with federal politics and not to try, in this house, to alleviate the setbacks suffered in the provincial field. We are, here, in the national living-room and it is imperative that we should share in fashioning the heart and soul of our nation. We must not sacrifice three centuries of our history on the altar of popular prejudices; we have no right to discredit those who bear the same names as we do, since we are not French Canadians nor English Canadians but simply Canadians. It is the solemn duty of each and everyone of us, in our respective constituencies from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to be Canadians. Why? Because it is through the understanding between two different races, between different mentalities, different origins, different aspirations, different achievements and different languages that we shall build a great country where life will be worth living. When we answer to our electors for our mandate they will say that we have efficiently contributed to national unity. We shall have the satisfaction of having contributed to the greatness of our country. And, tomorrow when we are gone, those who come after us will have the satisfaction of seeing an ever richer harvest waving over our graves. Why? Because our country will continue its forward march towards progress, prosperity and national unity. Thank you.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremonl-Sl. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate you. I am very happy over your appointment to your important position which you fill with so much distinction. I also wish to congratulate the new ministers and wish them all possible success in their new duties. I also have the pleasure to congratulate the new Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sevigny) as well as the deputy chairman of committees (Mr. Rea) and to extend my best wishes to them.
I would feel remiss in my duty if I did not also mention the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Lafreniere and Mr. Nielsen), who did so well in the task entrusted to them.
(Text):
As most of the members of the house on the other side do not understand the French language, I will proceed in the English language so that I may be understood by every member. Canada being a bilingual country, and as a blending of both languages helps to enrich our Canadian culture, I should hope that some day all members of this house will learn to speak both languages. There is a decided advantage in having a knowledge of both languages. For one thing, it broadens the mind. If some day soon we should have simultaneous translation in this house, I am sure that all my colleagues as well as myself would greatly benefit from this innovation.
At this point I should like to thank my electors of Outremont-St. Jean for the confidence they have shown me by electing me for a fourth term to this house. I can assure them that I very much appreciate what they have done and that they can count on me at all times to do whatever can be done to help my constituency and the whole of Canada.
We have heard a great deal about unemployment. We hear that there are 300,000,
400,000	or 500,000 unemployed. But on Saturday this week I looked at the Gazette, a newspaper published in Montreal, and there I counted 90 notices of bailiffs' sales. That is a true barometer of the situation that exists with regard to unemployment. You can mention figures; you can do whatever you like, but in bailiffs' sales there is a story of misery and hardship. What an ordeal it is to go through. What a bitter cup it is for a married couple who have lived together, say for 35 or 40 years, to find themselves all of
The Address-Mr. Bourque a sudden dispossessed of all the things they have worked for throughout a whole lifetime.
There is one thing that I should like to say which is extremely important at the present time. Men who are 20, 21, 22, 23 years of age or possibly men up to 40 years of age may be temporarily out of work but eventually they get back to a job. But, did you ever think of the misery of the man who has worked for 25 years or 30 years for the one firm and who has been a wonderful employee, yet they reluctantly are obliged to let him go because there is no more work for him in the plant where he is employed? Do you realize that this man will possibly never be able to get a steady job again? Do you realize that this is a man who has been a staunch citizen of Canada, one who has paid his taxes regularly? Imagine the despair and the anguish of this man because he never again will be able to take his place in society.	.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) assure us that things are getting better in Canada. I wonder what these citizens whose goods and chattels have just been sold by a bailiff think about the situation in Canada and whether they think it is getting better. It is they who are suffering, not the two ministers I have just mentioned. I hope that the government will soon take the measures necessary to alleviate the suffering that exists at the present time. To this effect may I remind the Prime Minister of one of his promises. In the Gazette of February 19, 1958 he was stated to have said as follows:
"As long as I'm Prime Minister of Canada everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer."
The Prime Minister now has a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate his sincerity and that when he uttered those words he meant what he said.
What a wonderful difference there is between sitting in the opposition and being a member of the government. As I sat on the other side of the house for many years I listened time and again to my friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) continually protesting about the delivery of the mail once a day instead of twice. According to him the Liberals were perpetrating the greatest injustice and visiting a real hardship upon the citizens of Canada by leaving the

The Address-Mr. Bourque mail delivery at one a day. Now that he is Postmaster General we hear no more from him.
He now seems to think that one delivery of mail a day is good enough for the Canadian public. He does not now consider that one delivery of mail a day is a hardship. He could very easily remedy the situation now that he has come up to the position he occupies at the present time but he does nothing about it. When he was on this side of the house he protested continually about the many thefts that were taking place in the post offices throughout the country. These thefts still go on just the same and he seems to do nothing about the matter. Possibly he tries but he cannot do anything about it. If we look at all the bank robberies that are going on throughout Canada today we realize that it has become almost an impossibility to check them.
I should now like to mention the promises of The Prime Minister during the election campaign. Every day as the campaign went on he was raising the ante. One day in the province of Quebec he would promise one thing, then he would go to New Brunswick and promise something else. Then he would travel to Toronto and promise something entirely different from what he had promised previously. It is easy to promise anything and everything but it is not always so easy to fulfil one's promises.
The government can distribute only what it receives. The taxpayers pay the shot. There is nothing free in this world; everything must be paid for. The Prime Minister might have been sincere when he made these promises but certainly he had not given the mathematical attention he should have given to the revenues of this country, and the citizens of Canada may well find that promises made in the heat of an election campaign and not based on the revenue may prove extremely costly to them if they are implemented. I do not intend to dwell any further on this subject. Suffice it to say that I do not believe it is possible to implement all the promises made. I leave to the Prime Minister the task of again facing the citizens of Canada when he is obliged to account to them for his stewardship if he has not been able to keep faith with them. That punishment will be sufficient in itself.
The government can distribute and spend only the money it receives from taxation and duties. It may for a short time spend $1.50

where it receives only $1, but there is the inevitable end when credit stops. A man may have very good credit, he may up until now have met all his obligations, but if he starts spending $1.25 when he is receiving only $1 it will not be long before he is bankrupt. The same applies to Canada or to any other country. One must stay within the limits of the revenue he receives or he will face bankruptcy at some time.
The poor citizens who took at their face value the promises made will no doubt find themselves saddled with heavier taxes. The Prime Minister would be well advised to give serious consideration to the planning of Canada's economy. I can assure him that we on this side of the house will always be ready to approve any good measures brought forward by his government; he will find us always constructive, not destructive.
I would like at this time to mention something about which I feel something should be said. I do not remember whether this matter has been mentioned before in this house. I refer to the hoodwinking of the public by the advertising of certain companies with respect to their products. To take an example, one might buy a It-foot high by about 1 foot wide package containing a certain ingredient, but when it is opened there will be found inside about one-third ingredient and the remainder stuffed with all kinds of other goods which one did not intend to buy. I think the government should put through some legislation to ensure that when going to a store to buy oatmeal one will get oatmeal. If this practice continues for many years we will have a state of inflation because people will be buying all kinds of things they neither need nor have the money to buy.
There is another aspect of this same matter which concerns the carrying in stores of certain goods packaged and priced at 90 cents less 20 cents, special offer. This cannot be a special offer because the packages are already printed and bear the label "20 cents special offer." A genuine deal is one where merchandise is worth 90 cents and the dealer decides to make a sale for 70 cents, but if the goods are marked 90 cents and advertise this special offer of 20 cents, then somebody is getting gypped because the goods are worth only 70 cents or they would sell and would continue to sell at the higher price. I think the poor working man who is already suffering sufficient hard-

ship should be protected. He is being given the illusion of getting something for nothing while he is really paying the full price for everything he gets.
I would like now to speak about an entirely different subject, namely goof balls. I notice some hon. members are laughing but they will not be laughing in a moment. This is the first step to drug addiction. I could name many young boys of 12, 14, 15 and 18 years of age who are already drug addicts, boys who were introduced to this sort of thing by purchasing a goof ball in a confectionery store, ice cream parlour or some other place. This is a menace to the youth of our country and unless something is done immediately we will And ourselves with thousands of young addicts. I am convinced that special legislation should be passed so that this abominable practice which threatens the future of our nation and the welfare of our children will cease.
Goof balls consist of barbiturates or tranquilizer pills which, when dropped in certain liquids, have a counter effect to the purpose for which they are sold. These dope pills are possibly worth 2 cents but the boys are offered these pills, dropped into liquid, at a price of 25 cents. They get used to them and within four or five weeks find they must have them. They are completely changed and boys who have been very good at school hitherto within the short space of four or five weeks become real demons.
Many people may doubt that I am telling the truth but I happen to be the mayor of a city which has been victimized by these goof balls. I have a report in my hand six pages long from the director of the police department giving me the names, addresses and parents of children involved and the places where these pills are procurable. They are, as I have said, sold in ice cream parlours, dance halls and restaurants and have even invaded our schools. Boys are given such things in the first instance and eventually learn their disastrous effects.
This is the first step toward becoming a drug addict; the next thing is marijuana and they go to stronger drugs until they eventually become incurable. These tranquillizers or barbituate pills do not come under the drug and narcotics legislation and for that reason the Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal investigation branch are powerless to deal with the problem. The matter rests with
The Address-Mr. Nugent the food and drug department of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the officials concerned can prosecute only if they can locate from whence the pills come and then only for sales without a licence.
There are boys and girls who simply started to buy 25 cents worth of these goof balls but on the Sunday following their first purchase they go to the ice cream parlour or some other place and the server, clerk or girl behind the counter says, "Well, you can have a goof ball today but we do not have a supply so it will be 60 cents". So they pay 60 cents and the next Sunday it is $1. These boys and girls have to steal in order to get these drugs eventually and I believe the government should do everything in its power to find out everything it can about this menace and to take steps immediately to arrest the development in this field before it gets to a point where it cannot be controlled. I say this particularly because it is a very very profitable business and wherever there is great profit there will always be some individual who will take advantage of the young or anyone else. I sincerely hope the government will be able to introduce measures to put a stop to this new threat to the youth of our country.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Slraihcona):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member I have hesitated to rise in this house for I have always believed that I should follow the advice of my father who advised me that I should never speak until I knew what I was talking about. It has become obvious to me during the brief time in which I have sat in this house that I have much to learn before I can be of much assistance in respect of the many and varied problems concerned in the administration of our country.
I should add with respect to the question of when to speak that I have had much advice from senior and more experienced members. I have been advised that this house has not been waiting with bated breath for me to come and solve all of Canada's problems. In fact it has been rather bluntly, I thought, pointed out that if I am of any help just now it will likely be only by giving this house some impressions of my constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona and then from the standpoint of an ordinary citizen who has not yet attained the skill of experienced parliamentarians such as I have seen and heard in this house so far. I think I would do best just to follow that advice rather than my own whim in talking as I would like.
My constituency in Alberta comprises all that part of the city of Edmonton which lies

The Address-Mr. Nugent to the south of the North Saskatchewan river as well as that part of the city which takes in a good many miles of the surrounding countryside which includes some excellent farm land. The richness of the farm land in that part of the country is almost legendary and the farmers in my constituency are so industrious that their production always adds to our surplus problem even though they diversify their production with a remarkably astute eye for the markets. The land is rich all the way down and not just on the surface.
For years we have had in that area domestic coal mines and there is still much coal underground suitable for domestic fuel purposes. I should add that having been raised in a coal-mining family and having worked underground myself in coal mines to some extent I am not at all anxious to see my people forced to earn a living in such a manner as long as there are other means by which gainful endeavour can open up to them a better way of life. It is my belief that the coal now left underground may provide a source of wealth as a mineral far more advantageous to Canada than merely as the domestic fuel it used to provide.
The demise of the domestic coal industry was brought about by the increasing availability and use of natural gas. My constituency has a very rich oil field and a heavy concentration of related oil fuel supply and service industries. We are blest therefore with a bountiful supply of cheap domestic and industrial fuel in the form of natural gas plus a large quantity of the natural resources required for the new and ever-growing petro-chemical and related industries. Not only do we have many large refineries but the people of my constituency are to a large extent employed in processing various chemical derivatives from coal tar. The processing of natural resources is carried on with other commodities as well such as in the nickel refining plant of the Sherritt Gordon Company Limited in the town of Fort Saskatchewan. All of these industries and wealth have served to emphasize and attach even more importance to the city of Edmonton as a supply and distribution centre. We are the most northern large city in Canada. Edmonton is a natural gateway and supply point to the Northwest Territories and the key communication centre for all travel to and from the Yukon territory, not only from western Canada but from the northwest part of the United States as well. There are those two major considerations that are of importance to Edmonton; one, the fact that it is located so far north that the weather is extremely important and, next, its location as the key communication centre to the northland.

The extremes of temperature are very wide and it can get cold in Edmonton in the winter, although if there is such a thing I believe I may say with pride that we have the most comfortable frigid climate in Canada. It is such a pleasant coldness I venture to say that one may freeze to death more comfortably in Edmonton than any place else. The carrying on of normal trade activities in the winter is possible but of course special techniques must be perfected and used if they are to be economically successful. The techniques often involve added cost and this is a factor which necessarily limits winter activities and contributes to our seasonal unemployment problem. I am happy to say that the businessmen of Edmonton have had many years of experience in overcoming weather difficulties as well as the transportation problems involved in supplying the north country. Edmonton has become the gateway to the north through the initiative, imagination and industry of its own businessmen who have continued to aid in the development of not only the west but the northwest. I am confident that government assistance will enable these same people to expand and develop the northland resources in the efficient and imaginative way that distinguishes private industry from cumbersome governmental undertakings.
I would be remiss if I did not bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that although Edmonton is a large commercial city, itself highly industrialized in a rich agricultural territory, and although it is the most northerly large city in Canada there are still tremendous distances to be covered to open up our northland resources. Edmonton itself is slightly south of the centre of Alberta and the northern part of that province is to a great extent wilderness relieved only by the small but very rich farm block of the Peace river country. The building of roads to develop resources would be of great benefit to all Canada. It is an undertaking so expensive that it is unfair to ask the relatively small population of Alberta to bear the cost unaided. This is one reason that dominion-provincial relations are of special interest to me and of vital importance to my constituents.
We would like to see better roads and more of them and we want the new railway to the north. We would like to have the Yellow-head route to the coast and we suggest it is only good business to select a route that is the shortest, utilizes the lowest passes, is less subject to blockage by snow and

would be a tremendous attraction to tourists. It would encourage Canadian as well as American tourists to travel to the west through Canada instead of through the United States. It would help to bring more traffic from the United States through the Canadian route instead of across the northern part of the United States and then up the west coast to the Alaska highway.
While I could talk for some time about my constituency I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I realize a member of parliament does not represent just one riding but must speak for all of Canada to the best of his ability and I would like to say just a few words on the broad aspects of the tasks before this house. I am most conscious of the fact that we who sit on the government side of the house somewhat outnumber the other parties in this house. I must say that my first impression judging from the amount of time spent on this debate and on other matters before the house by hon. members of the opposition parties is that they intend to make up by repetition what they lack in numbers. Perhaps I am being somewhat presumptuous in tendering advice to hon. members of the opposition in view of the fact that for the most part it is only seasoned veterans who have survived the activities of last year's campaigning but I am proceeding on the basis that they are not yet really seasoned veterans as members of the opposition, although I trust in the next several parliaments to come they will have the opportunity to remedy this slight defect.
We on this side of the house-and especially away out here in left field-know that we have a duty to give the government constructive criticism whenever we can. I should add that I know the wording of our criticism may not give hon. members of the opposition as much pleasure as the ringing denunciations they would likely use to phrase the same comments, but I believe a gentle reminder can be as fully effective in achieving remedies if any are necessary. I would perhaps not be going too far if I were to suggest that judging from some of the criticism heard in this house a gentle reminder might be much more effective simply because it would be such a great change.
I feel, sir, that hon. members have been most patient in listening to me, and I resume my seat only because of the honest fear that I might see this house reduced to a bare quorum if I continue. I hope that the goodwill earned in being brief is a good investment.


Mr. J. E. Knowles (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your election to your high office and to couple with
The Address-Mr. Knowles it congratulations to the Deputy Speaker. In so doing I do not wish to belabour the point, but simply and sincerely to echo the sentiments so ably expressed by previous speakers. Likewise, I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on a job well done.
I know that it must be gratifying to all hon. members to note that in the speech from the throne this government will take definite steps toward a northern development program so that our natural resources in this vast region may become available for the benefit of all Canadians. I hope that in the development of this new area we in this level of government as well as people in all levels of government will not lose sight of the need of a nationally planned use of our renewable resources, especially our top six inches of soil. In times of surplus and overproduction the importance of this great natural resource is often pushed into the background. However, we in Canada must constantly remind ourselves that this important national resource represents only about 11 per cent of our total area. It stretches in a perilously thin line across our country.
In my opinion the conservation of this vital natural resource is of paramount importance to all Canadians now living as well as to the countless millions yet unborn. Great empires of the past have risen and flourished only to fall with the loss of their top soil. Ancient cities of wealth and culture lie buried beneath drifting sands. Countless wars and famines bear witness to the potent role of soil in history. In fact, soil and soil erosion are part and parcel of the story of mankind.
While our federal government does not have jurisdiction over provinces and municipalities in respect of land use, yet it can help to promote conditions which are conducive to proper land use. It is important at this time in our development that we pause and give consideration to the mistakes of past civilizations as well as heed the frugal and careful practices of some of the older European civilizations which have survived through the centuries because they have learned to conserve those resources.
From these considerations we in Canada should develop a co-ordinated planned conservation program. The county of Norfolk which I represent, located on the north shore of lake Erie in southern Ontario, has over the past 30 years provided a good example of proper land use. While we do have modest factories and one of the largest fresh-water fishing fleets in Canada, yet agriculture is the basic source of our wealth.
Norfolk has long been famous for its fruits, particularly apples, peaches and berries. The

The Address-Mr. Knowles
eastern part of the county contains some of the finest dairy herds to be found anywhere. The western portion contains a light, sandy soil, easily given to wind erosion. In fact, as late as 40 years ago, this whole area through an improper type of farming presented a picture of deserted farms and drifting sand. Attempts were made in some instances to reforest certain areas in order to control the wind erosion. Today this whole trend is reversed, and the western sandy portion of the county now contributes its share of wealth to the county. The key to this remarkable economic recovery lies in the proper land use and good soil conservation practices related to the introduction and the growing of tobacco as a major farm crop. Never before was the marriage of soil and seed so profitable as that of the tobacco seed to the sandy soils of Norfolk county and surrounding areas.
I now propose to deal in some detail with the problems and economics relating to the production of tobacco. In as much as I am a tobacco grower myself, it is from firsthand knowledge that I discuss these matters. I think it would be of interest to hon. members to know that 99 per cent of the tobacco used in Canada is grown in this country. Since 1920, we have gone from a position where only 30 per cent of leaf tobacco was Canadian-grown, to the position where today 99 per cent of the tobacco smoked in Canada is grown in Canada. Of this total, approximately 50 per cent is grown in the county of Norfolk.
The production of flue-cured tobacco is a highly specialized one. Tobacco is generally the only crop grown on a farm and it requires a great deal of skill and knowledge of production practices on the part of the grower to ensure the quality of leaf desirable for manufacturing purposes. A large capital investment is required for the land, buildings and equipment and very large expenditures are required for labour, fertilizer and other ordinary operating expenses.
There is a high degree of risk in the production of tobacco since it is a crop which is very sensitive to changes in weather and is easily damaged by frost, wind and hail. The following is a list of losses over the past three years: in 1954, over 8 million pounds of tobacco were destroyed, which resulted in a loss of over $3,440,000; in 1955, one of the highest losses was sustained, amounting to 25 million pounds, to the value of $11 million; in 1956, 2 million pounds were destroyed, resulting in a loss of $920,000. I would just like to say that these losses are not losses that are spread over the total area. Generally, they strike in well-defined areas, causing losses to a few of the growers.
fMr. Knowles.]
Crop rotation, on a two-year basis, is practised, the alternative crop being rye, which is disked under and allowed to sprout the second year and is then plowed under. During the growing season much time and labour is spent on planting, spraying, hoeing and suckering. Harvesting generally commences in the early part of August and requires a great deal of labour. In fact, it is estimated that it requires an additional
40,000	labourers in the harvest season.
Once the leaf is harvested it is taken to a curing kiln where it is strung on to laths and then hung in the kilns where the curing operations take from four days to a week, depending on the kind of tobacco and the outside weather conditions. Curing again is a highly specialized job and can make or break a crop. The leaf is then removed to a pack barn where it remains until it is prepared for sale. After being purchased by the companies the tobacco is processed to bring it to a condition where it is packed in hogsheads and then allowed to age from 18 months to two years.
In the years that the tobacco growers have been organized, production has been controlled by the granting to each farm by the marketing board of a certain number of acres which could be planted to tobacco. These are known as marketing board rights and these rights could be sold or, at least, are sold, with the farm and the greater the growing rights the greater the value of the farm.
The cost per acre of growing tobacco is extremely high. The average farm contains about 100 acres of which approximately 80 acres are available for tobacco production. Based on a two-year rotation 40 acres are in crop each year. The average farm of 100 acres together with its buildings is valued at between $70,000 and $100,000. Taking 1,360 pounds per acre as the average yield and a price of 49 cents a pound, which was the average for 1957, each acre can produce something over $600. However, any bank manager in the tobacco belt will have figures to show that the cost of producing an acre of tobacco is anywhere from $500 to $600 leaving less than $100 per acre to cover depreciation, return on investment, management and risk. Thus it is apparent that while considerable capital is required the net profit is not so high in proportion as many are led to believe.
A few moments ago I referred to the fact that Canada produces 99 per cent of her tobacco leaf requirements, but in addition the tobacco growers have always produced over and above the needs of the home market. This additional production has found its way into the export trade, thereby making Canada

a tobacco exporting country. The United Kingdom has been our chief customer for this commodity. However, in this market as in other overseas markets our chief competitor has been the United States of America and we have also had competition from Rhodesia, both of which produce tobacco similar to our own leaf but in many cases of inferior quality grade for grade.
In the competition for overseas markets it has been argued that growers by their continuing struggle for a fair return on their investment were in danger of pricing themselves out of these markets. In this respect it should be pointed out that in the United States, a major exporting country, the price received for tobacco by growers was five cents above that received by Canadian producers averaged over the past seven years.
Again, in the matter of export it is interesting to note a quality comparison between Canadian and Rhodesian tobacco. Of the entire 1957 crop the two top grades represented	81	per	cent of	our Canadianproduction but represented only 60 per cent of the tobacco grown in Rhodesia, while the two lower grades were only 18 per cent of the Canadian production but were 39 per cent of the Rhodesian. These figures demonstrate that the quality of our product is superior	to	that	of	our	commonwealth
competitor.
Tobacco growers have always agreed with the proposition that Canada should produce sufficient	tobacco	for	export and havedemonstrated	this,	as	just	illustrated, by
keeping price demands within reason and quality above par. The quantity of tobacco produced has been regulated by acreage control, already mentioned, and growers have kept a careful watch on tobacco stocks lest by overproduction they might break down the price structure. They are always ready to produce all the tobacco needed to keep stocks on hand at a reasonable level and sufficient to supply the export requirements. However, no farmer growing a crop costing over $550 per acre to produce can afford to take the risk of having unsold tobacco left on his hands or the results of having to sell tobacco below the cost of production. Until he has a definite assurance that every pound he can produce can be sold at a reasonable price he will be definitely unwilling to produce to full capacity.
Perhaps the chief reason for this wariness in the matter of full production lies in the experiences of the past. In 1954, for example, farmers were urged by those who should know to grow full acreage resulting in a total production of 167,988,000 pounds which sold for 43.2 cents a pound and that year Canada exported only 30,087,370 pounds.
The Address-Mr. Knowles The following year, with large stocks on hand amounting to over 126 million pounds, the negotiated price was 45.4 cents for a crop totalling 112,202,000 pounds. That year we had an acreage cut of over 30 per cent while exports from the previous year's bumper crop rose to 45 million pounds. That has been the pattern generally. After a bumper crop exports have been considerably larger in the following year.
The number of pounds of tobacco which Canada may export in any given year is determined by two factors. The first is the amount the importer is willing and able to buy and the second is the amount our Canadian exporting companies are willing to release for export. Inasmuch as the grower has no direct control over these vital factors he is not ready to go into all-out production lest this exportable tobacco be called a surplus and used against him in negotiating a price in a given year.
In the April 18, 1958 issue of the United States magazine, Tobacco there appears the announcement that the United States government has increased its support price by 3.4 cents to 54.2 cents per pound for the 1958 crop which indicates a trend to increased prices for farm commodities to relieve the United States farmer from the cost-price squeeze. In Canada the tobacco grower to date has never asked the government to introduce a floor price whereby it might become necesary for the government to buy, process ^nd store tobacco. Through his own organization he has endeavoured to regulate his production, often under pressures, and so prevent the accumulation of depressing surpluses.
Last year the Ontario flue cured tobacco growers marketing board instituted a system of selling tobacco by the bale auction system using the Dutch clock and a negotiated minimum average price. On the whole the growers were well satisfied but in some instances the competitive bidding let the grade prices fall below the minimum average with the result that some individuals took unjustifiable losses.
After this situation developed a tobacco growers co-operative was formed and a small tobacco processing plant was purchased. A buyer for the co-operative then began bidding on the auction floor in an effort to bolster prices when need arose. However, due to lack of capital the co-operative's efforts were too small to produce the desired effect.
It is hoped by many tobacco growers in all parts of Ontario that the federal government legislation can be amended so that loans can be made available to the co-operative and to any other similar commodity co-operative endeavouring to maintain its price structure by its own efforts. It should be pointed out that tobacco processed and stored is one crop that

The Address-Mr. Knowles improves with age in proper storage so that the risk of loss in financing such a venture is practically nil. It is felt that a co-operative such as proposed will act as a cushion for both growers and buying companies to take up and hold any unforeseen surplus which may develop through ideal growing conditions. Such a surplus can easily be assimilated the following year through acreage reduction sufficient to meet the emergency.
It is deemed fair and just to seek federal assistance as outlined in view of the enormous revenue pouring into the federal treasury from the taxes levied against the tobacco industry as a whole. In the year 1956 a total of $285 million in excise taxes was collected by the tobacco industry for the federal treasury, which is actually four times the actual value of the tobacco crop itself.
-This reference to the revenue derived from tobacco brings me to the whole question of taxes levied on this highly specialized industry. On several occasions the tobacco marketing association of Ontario has waited upon former ministers of finance with carefully prepared briefs outlining its views on the taxes levied on the industry, which views were supported by accurate statistics, and requesting a reduction of taxation on tobacco products. It is hoped that our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will review this problem which is so vital to the producer of tobacco and accede to the request for relief in this connection. Past briefs have shown conclusively that a moderate tax reduction would increase the sales of cigarettes, thereby creating a greater demand for tobacco and the opportunity to expand our growing operations. A decrease in tobacco tax has also been proven to be advantageous to the government, because a reduced tax levy with resulting higher sales volume would yield more revenue than the present high rate of taxation with the existing sales volume. It should be noted that the accuracy of this prediction was proven when a small cut in tobacco taxation was granted back in 1952-53, resulting in higher sales and, within one year later, an increased revenue to the government of $7,800,000.
I have described in some detail this relatively new industry which is centred in the riding of Norfolk, because of its importance to Canada as a whole, as well as because of the fact the complexity of the growth and sale of this product are not widely known. I trust I have communicated to the house something of our accomplishments in the past and our hopes for the future in so far as the growing and marketing of tobacco is concerned.
Another problem which affects my riding of Norfolk is the plight of several of our

textile factories. This difficulty, however, is common to every textile producing centre across Canada. It is a situation about which many hon. members in this house are well informed. We now await the report of the tariff board. In conclusion, I should like to say that I hope proper action will soon be taken to remedy this serious problem.
Mr, Egan Chambers (St, Lawrence-St.
George): Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to those of others on your election to your very important office in this house. During the last parliament your reputation for fairness and urbanity spread well beyond the house itself. I am sure that people all over the country will join those who have spoken here in a feeling of satisfaction that you have again been chosen Speaker of this house.
(Translation):
At the same time, I wish to congratulate the chairman of the committee of the whole (Mr. Sevigny). In view of his reputation, we can be sure that he will discharge his duties with distinction.
(Text):
I believe it is customary to take advantage of this debate, particularly during a maiden speech, to say something about the constituency which has honoured you by choosing you as its member of parliament. I should like to do that. Before I do so, perhaps it would be in order to tell the house some of the biases that will form the background for what I will say from time to time here. Perhaps I should say, putting it another way, something about my political beliefs. In the first place, I consider myself a liberal, in the sense that term was understood in the last century and is understood in most countries of the world today. Perhaps I could illustrate what I mean by quoting from an article by Mr. Marcus Long in the April issue of the Canadian Commentator.
I quote:
The philosophy of liberalism is the best philosophy for Canada. The Conservative party, through Mr. Diefenbaker, has embraced it. The C.C.F. party in its Winnipeg manifesto embraced it. If we can only persuade the Liberal party to embrace it, the future is full of promise.
I might say that what I have heard from the C.C.F. so far in this parliament seems closer to Regina than to Winnipeg. What I understand by this philosophy is that it concerns itself with the individual before the group or the class, not that the group and class do not need to be considered. But when we ignore the individual citizen or place his interests below what we conceive to be the interests of some group, as the socialists do, we start to recede from the level of democracy and civilization that we have reached

and move back towards feudalism. The so-called classless society is in fact the epitome of the classified society.
A government of Canada which concerns itself with the rights of individuals is not only an admirable but a necessary thing. This is a country of great opportunity. We have, as has so often been said, tremendous natural resources to be developed. We have a great task before us in expanding our processing industries, thus providing more employment for our people. This kind of development has always been best accomplished in a climate of opportunity. The role of government in such a society is one of encouragement, and regulation to prevent exploitation. The government is also the medium through which we undertake those major projects that are the concern of the whole country and that are beyond the capacity of the individual. It is through the government also that we discharge those responsibilities that we all have, to ensure that no citizen shall suffer through circumstances that are not of his own making. The line between what is the government's responsibility and what should be left to the individual citizen is sometimes hard to define. Perhaps it will be easier if we always start from the position that every Canadian is free to do whatever he wishes, except certain things that are withheld for the good of the community as a whole, rather than starting, as the socialists do, by saying that no one is allowed to do anything except what the government permits him to do.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is absolutely wrong. (Translation):


Mr. Chambers:: The constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George is at the very heart of the city of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada. Its people include the various racial groups making up the Canadian nation: 35 per cent of it is French-speaking and there are people of Ukrainian, Polish, Russian, Greek, German, Italian, Scottish, Irish, English origins and several others. All events throughout Canada affect this constituency. If agriculture in western Canada is affected, our workers in the transportation business and our grain brokers are affected. If the government builds a highway in northern Canada, it will find part of the required machinery and equipment in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George. It can be said with the former secretary of war in the United States... "What is good for Canada is good for St. Lawrence-St. George, and what is good for St. Lawrence-St. George is good for Canada."
That is why it is a great pleasure for me to support the proposals made in the speech
The Address-Mr. Chambers from the throne we heard last week. This speech suggests a legislative program dealing with all problems besetting Canada at the present time and I hope our friends of other parties will not prevent the carrying out of this program.
I am not one of those who say that the St. Lawrence seaway will be a source of new income for the city of Montreal. It will serve the welfare of the whole of Canada and we of Montreal will have to sacrifice something for our country, but the seaway will reduce business in our area. For instance, grain which is usually delivered in Montreal by trains and ship, to be trans-shipped overseas will in the future be carried in seagoing ships that will be loaded in the very ports of lake Superior. In the future, freight trains arriving in Montreal with their load destined to Ontario and western Canada will by-pass Montreal. In my opinion there is only one solution to this problem. It will be to maintain navigation throughout the winter on the St. Lawrence river.
I therefore hope the government will take this suggestion under serious consideration. (Text):
I realize that the opening of the St. Lawrence river during the winter is a project of large proportions. But so is the St. Lawrence seaway. I realize that the cost of such a project might be considerable. But the cost of the seaway is considerable. I believe that the advantages to be gained for the country in general and the district of Montreal in particular will amply justify the expense involved. Some hon. members might say that this project is beyond our capabilities. But in an age where we are able to put satellites into orbit around the earth and where science has developed engines of destruction that stagger the imagination we need not feel that the controlling of our environment for the benefit of our people to the extent of melting some ice is beyond our abilities. I therefore hope that the government will undertake a thorough and serious investigation of this project.
I was glad to note that the speech from the throne included an undertaking for the vigorous promotion of international trade. The steps that were taken by the government during the last parliament were, in my view, admirable and have already given signs of bearing excellent fruit. However, there are other areas wherein our trade can be improved and one that has been mentioned is the United States. The speeches which have been made by some of the ministers in the United States and in Canada and which have received prominent mention in the United States press have been, in my view, along the right lines.

The Address-Mr. Chambers In some cases they were criticized. But what the Americans understand best of all is publicity. We shall get nowhere in improving our trade position in the United States by hiding our light under a bushel. I therefore hope that that type of activity, particularly in approaches informal if necessary, to congress and to congressmen on behalf of an expansion of Canadian trade and more favourable import duties under the United States laws will be continued during the life of this parliament.
There has been some talk this afternoon about the political position in the province of Quebec. It seems that very few people can think of the province of Quebec without thinking of politics. However, I think that one of the most encouraging results that emerged from the last election for the future of this country was the result obtained by the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. I would say this, though perhaps some hon. members who just applauded will not agree with me: I hope the day never comes when the Conservative party holds in the province of Quebec the type of majority that the Liberal party has held in the past. I hope that in that province we shall continue having a vote based on the national issues, having our citizens vote for the same reason that citizens vote in every other part of the country. I hope that the members of this house from the province of Quebec will in the future be able to represent-as I think they do in this house-all the political points of view that exist in that province.
I should like at this time, to express my thanks to the electors of St. Lawrence-St. George who on March 31 did me the great honour of choosing me as their member in this house. I do not know whether I would be out of order at this time in also thanking that somewhat smaller group of electors in St. Lawrence-St. George who tried to do the same thing last June, or the even smaller group who tried to send me here from St. Antoine-Westmount in 1954, or the quite small group that tried to send me here from St. Antoine-Westmount in 1953. But I should like to say that I am equally as grateful to those who tried as I am to those who so recently were successful. I will try in this house to justify the confidence that was placed in me by those voters on those four different occasions.
There is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to comment on with regard to what I have read in Hansard in the past and what I have heard since I have been here. I have noticed that hon. members will sometimes resurrect an old copy of Hansard and will say to the previous speaker that in 1941 he said so and so and that he has just risen
[Mr. Chambers.!
and said the opposite. May I say that times change and circumstances alter. But aside from that, as I sit here and listen to other hon. members addressing this house, I hope that I shall grow in wisdom so that in future years I may not feel the same way on some policies as I do today. I give warning that if in the future I am quoted against myself I will not be afraid to say simply that I have changed my mind.
I do not wish to resume my seat on this occasion without saying something about my feelings for the House of Commons. I have been among the strangers in this place on many occasions. I sat here on two memorable Fridays during the pipe line debate and watched and listened while a little group of members fought one of the most memorable fights in the history of any parliament to preserve for the people of this country the right to be heard in a free parliament through their elected representatives. I have read the history of parliaments and the other fights that have been waged to keep tyranny at bay. I hope, sir, and I pray that when I leave this place for whatever reason, it may never be said of me that I did anything to lessen the dignity or the prestige of the House of Commons, which is the keeper of all our ancient rights and privileges.


Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members elected on March 31 and rising for the first time to take part in the debates of this house, I am naturally nervous. However, I have been told that the veteran members of this house who remain so calm and collected when they rise to speak were once in the same position and indeed just as nervous.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Lafreniere for an

address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Eric Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Lafre-niere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They both acquitted themselves with distinction and their respective constituents can be assured that they will be well represented in this parliament.
I would like to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment, and from my brief stay in the house and seeing you perform your duties, it is easy to understand the great confidence which the members on both sides of the house have in you.
I must say that 1 am very happy to be here as a supporter of the Conservative government, and I have great faith in our Prime Minister and the hon. members of his cabinet. I am sure that this government will give the people of this great nation the best legislation possible.
The constituency of Selkirk, which I have the privilege of representing, is the most historic constituency in the province of Manitoba. I believe it was the first constituency in the province of Manitoba and the first man to be elected to represent it was Donald A. Smith, who later became Lord Strathcona. He was a member of Sir John A. Macdonald's government. The last time this constituency was represented by a Conservative was from 1930 to 1935, when Mr. James H. Stitt was the member. He is now a resident of Ottawa.
In area the constituency is very large. Within its boundaries we have two great lakes, lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba. All the land between these lakes, starting with the town of Selkirk and the town of Stonewall to the south, reaches to Norway House to the north. This area is commonly known as the interlake area.
In the Selkirk constituency we have some of the best soil in Canada. The area around Stonewall is one of the highest producing pieces of land in the country. We also have marginal lands and some poor land; also large areas of pasture land, hay land and large herds of cattle. This constituency is different from any other in Canada because of the great variation in the soil and the two 57071-3-19
The Address-Mr. Stefanson great lakes within its boundaries. This constituency will have problems peculiar to it alone which will have to be dealt with on their individual merits.
The people of the Selkirk constituency come from many racial origins. I believe there are something like 24 racial origins represented and each one of these groups has contributed to the culture of this country and today, as never before, we are all truly Canadians and citizens of this country on an equal basis. I could go on at length outlining the contribution of the various groups, but I am sure it has often been expounded in the house before. These people work in industry, in offices and in business. Others are professional people. Some have businesses of their own. By far the largest group are our primary producers who consist of farmers, fishermen, trappers, mink ranchers, loggers, and so on. The farmers are by far the largest group and they produce wheat, barley, oats, flax, rye and various types of grass seeds, cattle, hogs, lambs, poultry, butter, milk, cream, eggs and vegetables. With all this production in agriculture we are fortunate to have a good Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) to find markets for all of these commodities.
The agricultural stabilization bill was welcomed generally by farmers. The vote on March 31 in western Canada indicated that. However, farmers are badly in need of farm credits and I am glad to see this item in the throne speech; likewise, crop insurance and soil conservation.
Several hon. members have mentioned fishing on the east and west coasts. I would like to say here that the fresh-water fishing in Manitoba is a major industry and produces some of the best fish in Canada. Like agriculture, this industry needs to be stabilized. Greater help could be rendered through research, conservation and sales promotion. Lake Manitoba has just a winter fishing season, while lake Winnipeg has three fishing seasons, namely winter fishing and two seasons on open water in the fall and summer. March 31 last was the first time for many years that those fishermen were not disfranchised. They are generally away north on the lake when elections are held and are unable to vote. There should be some means of setting up advance polls for fishermen. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean), being a maritimer, is well acquainted with coastal fishing and no doubt coastal fishing is a large industry. I would like to extend an invitation to the minister to visit the fishing grounds on lake Winnipeg at his convenience.

The Address-Mr. Stefanson I wish to congratulate this government on the legislation which they introduced in the twenty-third parliament. I will not go into detail on this legislation as the vote on March 31 clearly indicated how the people received it.
The proposed legislation in the speech from the throne indicates that the government will continue to bring in legislation for the benefit of all the people of Canada. The bill on unemployment insurance and the bill on national housing are clear indications of this. The bill on national housing can be of help to those building houses in small towns such as are found in my constituency. A vigorous program of public works will be appreciated by all. This also can be of benefit to my constituency. The proposed legislation having to do with small businesses will be appreciated also by many of my constituents.
This government has indicated its willingness to meet municipal officials to discuss their problems. This is most welcome, as I think all municipalities today are experiencing difficulty meeting demands made on them because of their limited income from real estate taxes. Originally the real estate tax was never intended to assist in the financing of education and health and welfare. Somewhere along the line this obligation was handed to municipal officials who did not object at the time, but who are now trying to hand it back to the provincial governments, without success. Any town experiencing difficulty in making improvements in water and sewer installations and which has the initiative to do these things should be able to get help from a higher form of government.
One of the complaints which I have received on numerous occasions in my constituency has been with regard to the unsatisfactory television reception, especially since the change of the Winnipeg station from channel four to channel three. A large area of my constituency also is not serviced with television. Anything which the government can do to correct or assist in these matters will be appreciated. I have several other problems which will be referred to the ministers concerned.
At this time I should like to say that ^ I represent the most versatile constituency in Canada. The visitor will appreciate the many small towns spread throughout the countryside and in his travels he will admire the grain fields, the dairy herds, the hay meadows, the pasture land and the large herds grazing on those meadows. He also will find some of the most beautiful beaches in Canada on the west shore of lake Winnipeg and on the east shore of lake Manitoba.


Many hon. members have visited different parts of my constituency and I am sure they will always be made welcome no matter where or what part they visit. On the first Monday of August of each year we hold the annual Icelandic celebration in the beautiful park at Gimli. As president of the committee I extend an invitation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to hon. members of the house to be with us on that occasion to enjoy a day of relaxation among the evergreens on the shore of lake Winnipeg, where the Icelanders first landed and settled in 1875.
In concluding, sir, I would like to say that anybody sitting as a member of parliament should not be petty or small but should be here to work for the best interests of Canada as a whole. However, as the elected member for Selkirk, I will endeavour to represent all the people of the constituency fairly and with the best of my ability.
Financial demands on all levels of government, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal, are always getting greater and greater. As members of this house it is our duty to see that only just demands are answered. As individuals we should recognize and cherish the rights and privileges we now enjoy and if each and every one of us believes in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and if we can convince enough people to do likewise the economy of this country will always be sound.
I would also like to suggest that this government is not only strong numerically, it also has great ability.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, this being my maiden speech I must congratulate you on your election to the honoured position of Speaker of the house. Having read Hansard for the last session when the minor parties were jockeying for first place in the election of March 31 I am sure that you have the patience of Job and that view is borne out by what I have seen this session. May I add my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) I wish to extend my congratulations on his victory of March 31.
We have a country of many different races and religions. The present government is the first national government in thirty years to represent all the people of Canada, the first government in thirty years that has representation from every province in the dominion, and I am proud to be a member of the party forming that government. To the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and his party I extend my condolences. I notice from their

actions and listening to them that they are as lost in their present seats as we new members are. This was particularly drawn to my attention on the afternoon of May 14 when one of the leading members of that party stepped across the floor to a vacant seat on the government side and I could not help but notice the contented and peaceful look on his face.
I hope that the little group to your left, Mr. Speaker, will soon find their seats more comfortable. I think that the people of Canada showed the C.C.F. party that they were not interested in them by reducing their membership in the house from 28 to 8.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But not reducing the vote.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Even so, the few who are left seem to feel that they have a right to as much time as the two major parties. These few members present themselves as friends of the people.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why did these men hold up the extension of the unemployment insurance legislation last week and the increase in the amount of money for the building of small homes while they campaigned through Hansard for the election of four or five years hence? On the subject of unemployment I should like to direct my remarks to the official opposition who were responsible for bringing into the country in 1956, 250,000 immigrants and guaranteeing them work while our youth walked the streets. I might relate one of many incidents that occurred in the city of Edmonton in 1956. A group of unemployed war veterans saw these immigrants being met at the airport by government officials, then taken away and fed and escorted to the unemployment insurance office and given jobs.
Another incident occurred in my constituency. Shortly after I was elected we had a very tragic train wreck. Over 200 men were brought in to clear up the wreck and not one of them could speak the English language. At the same time our own youth were walking the streets. I ask you again, Mr. Speaker, who brought this group of workers into our country? I wish the official opposition would consider these facts when they are speaking about the unemployment situation today.
As one of the team of 17 members who helped to replace the Social Credit party in Alberta and as a farmer and the first Conservative representative the constituency of Battle River-Camrose has sent to the House of Commons in thirty years I wish to say a few words regarding my constituency. Battle River-Camrose covers an area of some 150 miles square. We have large oil refineries in
57071-3-19J
The Address-Mr. Smallwood the city of Lloydminster and the town of Wainwright. We have one of the largest army camps in Canada at the town of Wainwright. This army camp has trained two of the most active regiments together with the training of all the militia in the western army command. The town of Wainwright is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary during the week of June 16 and I might mention that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has kindly consented to come to Wainwright to open the stampede officially on June 21. Therefore if hon. members see the minister wearing a cowboy hat the following week they will know the reason why.
My home town of Irma is a smaller village west of Wainwright and is in a mixed farming community. The wild ducks pass through there on their migration south in the fall and to all my friends in the east I extend a cordial invitation to come there this fall and we will do some duck hunting. We have power development plants at Vermilion and Forestburg but our main industry is agriculture, consisting of grain ranching and mixed farming.
I feel that of all the facts that led to my election the most salient one was the passing of the farm stabilization act by the former Conservative government. During the election campaign the Social Credit and C.C.F. candidates tried with all their force and power to misrepresent this legislation to the voters of Canada. That their efforts failed is evidenced by the fact that, while in June, 1957 I was defeated by 6,000 votes, in the election of March 31 of this year I defeated the same Social Crediter by 7,000 votes.
In Alberta we defeated 14 Social Credit members and elected 17 Conservatives. In British Columbia the Conservatives defeated 6 Social Credit and 3 C.C.F. candidates and elected 18 Conservative members. In Saskatchewan the Conservatives defeated 9 C.C.F. members and elected 16 Conservatives. In Manitoba the Conservatives defeated 5 C.C.F. members and 14 Conservative members were elected. These figures, Mr. Speaker, are evidence of the confidence that the people of western Canada have shown in the present government. They have erased the Social Credit party from parliament hill and the C.C.F. party has been reduced to a mere shadow.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Lots of substance here.


Mr. Nesbili:: Those two behind you, anyway.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I heard the hon. member make a remark the other day about the group of eight. I think the group of eight is behind the eight ball.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention and the attention of this

The Address-Mr. Smallwood house the importance of agriculture to the Canadian economy. I shall read from the speech from the throne:
Unremitting efforts are being made to sell Canadian agricultural and fisheries products in the markets of the world and considerably larger exports of wheat and cattle have been made. Support prices have now been established for a considerable number of products under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to carry into effect, for the current year, the desire of parliament that agriculture should be thus assisted to realize fair returns for its labour and investment.
I am interested in the last part which reads:
-the desire of parliament that agriculture should be thus assisted to realize fair returns for its labour and investment.
This situation in which western farmers find themselves goes back to 1953 when the price of wheat dropped and the price of machinery and other commodities increased. In 1946 I bought a power binder for $460; ten years later that same binder cost $1,060. In 1953 a combine cost $5,600, and three years later the same piece of machinery sold for $6,400. This is just one example of the cost-price squeeze in which the farmers of Canada are caught. I am very happy to note that this government is trying to introduce legislation to ensure that the farmers of Canada receive their fair share of the national income. We cannot continue to operate with wheat at the price it is today, compared to the price we must pay for machinery.
What is the result of this situation? The farmers stop buying and there is unemployment in the factories, a general slowdown right across the country. In my locality this spring the reverse of this situation was quite noticeable. The price of cattle increased to the extent that it put money in the hands of farmers. The local machine agents sold more machinery this spring than they had for some years past. This had an effect on the prosperity of our community and on the unemployment situation right across Canada. I feel that western Canada is the greatest market for eastern factory products, so long as we are receiving sufficient money for our products. Agriculture is the backbone of our great country.
We have been subsidizing industry for the last few years. During the war we sold wheat to Great Britain at a price which was far below the world level. I am very proud that we contributed to the war effort to that extent, but I do not see why the farmers of western Canada had to carry the cost of that subsidy when it should have been carried by the national treasury. I suggest to our government that we work out a two-price 

system for wheat in order that we may receive our fair share of the national income.
May I again quote from the speech from the throne?
The act to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain has proven to be of advantage to a large number of farmers and to the economy as a whole. Certain amendments will be proposed to that act in the light of experience in its application.
This act, which provides cash advances on farm-stored grain, was a great boon to the economy of Canada last fall. It put money into the hands of the farmers when they needed it. I recall the former minister of agriculture getting up in the House of Commons and telling the members that this act was useless; that it could not possibly work; that the farmers did not want it and that the Liberals had a better system of bank loans. I ask you, what happened? In the first three months the farmers drew over twice as much money from this scheme as they borrowed from the banks under the Liberal program in three years. One can see, therefore, that the farmers like this act, and I do not notice that little fellow from Saskatchewan sitting in the opposition today.
Again I read from the speech from the throne:
Amendments will also be proposed to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was introduced under a Liberal government and was always unjust to the farmers and this year was no exception. Under this act now, many farmers who deserve payment are left out completely. I was very pleased to read in the throne speech that this act would be amended. I might say that I have a few amendments to it to present to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness).
There is a situation existing right across Canada under which it is nearly impossible for a young man to buy a farm. The result is that these young, prospective farmers are going to the cities to look for work, thus aggravating the unemployment situation. I propose to our government, as a remedy, that we immediately introduce a measure under which these young farmers may obtain a long-term loan at a reasonable rate of interest for the purchase of farms.
I hope the government will give serious consideration to the commencement of a second trans-Canada highway via the Yellow-head route through northern Alberta. This highway is long overdue and would be one more works program to relieve unemployment.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I have come to the House of Commons to give the people of Battle River-Camrose good representation and I shall do

my best to carry out that undertaking. Canada has a great future, and as a member of this government I shall work with my colleagues to unite this country from coast to coast so that our people may live in security.
(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy at the outset to congratulate you on your renewed appointment to the important post of Speaker of this house. During the 23rd parliament, when you were entrusted with the same duties, we who sat here at the time were able to appreciate your competence exercised with a remarkable sense of impartiality, your gentlemanliness, your sense of humour, your fine understanding. I am happy that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) supported by my leader, has once more nominated you to that post. I offer you my most sincere good wishes in this heavy task and in the discharge of the great responsibilities which are yours.
While this is no reflection on yourself personally, I would nevertheless like to remind the house that I hope that the tradition which consists of alternating French-speaking and English-speaking speakers will not be done away with. Of course I understand that since the 23rd parliament lasted only a few months, it was normal, under circumstances such as those, that you be reappointed to the post whose responsibilities you had discharged with such alertness, but I insist once more on the fact that this tradition of which I have just spoken should be re-established in the next parliament. We are reassured on that score by the appointment of a Frenchspeaking Canadian as deputy speaker, in the person of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) to whom I offer also my most sincere congratulations.
During the last campaign I was privileged to be present at a political forum organized by the chamber of commerce of Montreal, at which the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) faced the hon. member for Longueuil. The hon. member for Laurier had stated at the time that the member for Longueuil was a man to be feared, as much because of his height as because of his knowledge. Before the last elections in 1957, there had been talk of nominating the now member for Longueuil as Conservative candidate in the constituency of Dollard. I must admit that I prefer to see the hon. member sitting for Longueuil rather than for Dollard and I was quite happy when he decided to run
The Address-Mr. Rouleau in Longueuil instead. I wish him every success as Deputy Speaker as well as a happy political career.
I would also like to offer my most heartfelt congratulations to the two new Quebec ministers: the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) and the new Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche). I was well acquainted with the new Secretary of State when we were both law students at the University of Montreal, some years ago. At that time, even if we were good friends, we did not see eye to eye on political problems, my good friend being a deep dyed nationalist, whereas I was a Canadian pure and simple. He has become a convert to Toryism whereas I remained convinced that Liberalism is still the political philosophy best suited to ensure the greatness of our country and the well being of our people. I am convinced that, even though we do not sit on the same side of the house, we shall remain excellent friends; I have no doubt that the new minister will devote all his talents to the service of his country.
Finally, I wish to congratulate the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Lafreniere and Mr. Nielsen). I am glad that the Prime Minister has seen fit to invite two young Canadians to play this traditional role in our parliamentary institutions.
It is gratifying to see such a great number of young Canadians in this house. It is a sign of the vitality of our parliamentary institutions and a guarantee for the future of our young and prosperous country.
Allow me also, Mr. Speaker, to express my heartfelt congratulations to the Prime Minister for his brilliant victory on March 31st last. It was not only a victory for the Conservative party but also a personal victory for the Prime Minister. He is an indefatigable worker, a convincing speaker, a man whose strong personality has impressed the whole country. His victory has been brilliant, even crushing.
The present Prime Minister, when he sat on the opposition side, always took pride in upholding the rights of parliament, of parliamentary institutions, of democracy and of the minorities. With the overwhelming majority he now has, there is perhaps a danger that he may forget the stand he took while sitting in the opposition, but I trust that he will remember the words that his revered mother said to him on the night of his victory. In fact, it is with emotion that we read in the newspapers the day after the election the

The Address-Mr. Rouleau words reported by the Prime Minister as coming from his mother who urged him to accept his victory with humility and to govern with discretion. Knowing the Prime Minister,
I am aware of the respect he must have for his mother and for her advice. I have no doubt that he will make it a point to follow such sound advice. As I live myself with my mother, whom I revere, I know to what extent a mother's advice can be precious to a man, especially to a politician. Once again, I am quite sure that when the Prime Minister will be inclined to forget himself, he will remember his mother's words and not encroach upon the rights and prerogatives to which minorities and more especially the opposition are entitled. The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) my chief, has clearly established in the course of this debate the position which the Liberal party intends to take during this parliament. He was clear in his statement and he also reminded the Prime Minister of certain words he had said while he was in the opposition.
I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his splendid statement and I also congratulate him for the vigorous electoral campaign he has carried across the country. He proposed to the people an election platform capable of checking the unemployment crisis under which we are unfortunately labouring at the present time. I do not think the people have rejected the leader of the Liberal party nor the program he was advocating.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I wonder whether hon. members who are conversing privately would moderate their tone a little bit. There seems to be more than the usual buzz in the chamber tonight.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: I think that the Canadian people on June 10 last, had intended to give a strong opposition to the Liberal government, and that, on March 31, following what had happened on June 10, they decided to give the Prime Minister and his government a chance to show what they could do. Under the circumstances, I believe it is our duty as members of the opposition to keep watch over the administration of the affairs of our country and urge the government to adopt some measures advocated by the Liberal party during the last election campaign and approved by 2j million voters. We must also,

as the majority of the people willed it, give the Conservative party a chance to put in our statute book the promises made during the election campaign just ended a few weeks ago. Personally I do not think there is anything new in the program advocated by the Conservative party and I do not think this program is likely to do away with unemployment in Canada. During this parliament, we of the official opposition will do our duty and prove ourselves worthy of the confidence placed in us by the people.
I hope the Prime Minister will act, with regard to us, according to the statement he made in this house on November 17, 1953. Here is what he had to say and I quote from page 99, volume I, of Hansard of the session of 1953-54:
We are in the opposition; we have our responsibility to discharge to maintain our constitutional system. There can be no freedom without an opposition, strong and fearless to criticize, and above all to provide suggestions and ideas as an alternative to those advanced by the government.
In the same speech, the present Prime Minister went further and today I am using his own words to ask him to treat the present opposition in the way he wanted the government to treat the opposition at the time. I quote then from the same volume of Hansard, page 99:
I am one of those who believe that one of the major needs in our House of Commons is that provision be made at the expense of the state to place members of the opposition, who cannot have available to them the research facilities that are in such abundant measure accessible to the members of the government at all times, five or six trained experts in research technology, trade, agriculture and the like. Such facilities should be made available to Her Majesty's loyal opposition so that thereby members of the opposition may be placed in the position of being able to discharge properly, effectively and efficiently the functions and responsibilities resting on them.
If the present Prime Minister was sincere when he said those words, I have no doubt that, now that he is in a position to do it, he will give the present opposition the treatment he sought for himself and members of his party at the time. This will allow us to discharge our responsibilities more effectively and I sincerely believe that, according to the Prime Minister's statement, it is his wish. As I said a few moments ago, I believe that we should give the government every latitude to enact legislation implementing its electoral promises. The government, through the authorized representative of Her Majesty the Queen, the Governor General, outlined on May the 12th last the legislative program

of the present session. I entertain serious doubts about the efficiency of this program to stop unemployment and end the recession which we are now experiencing all over the country. I wonder what effects that legislative program is going to have on the country, and especially on the future of Canada. I am certainly not opposed to large scale public works all over the country, but I feel that the program advocated by my leader and by the Liberal party during the last electoral campaign was much more rational and would have restored the economy of our country on sound foundations. In order to intensify production and increase purchasing power, the government should have reduced taxes without any delay whatsoever.
However, there is no reference to this matter in the speech from the throne. I contend that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) should take note of the Liberal program in this respect since it has the support of the highest financial authorities in Canada as well as in the United States. The Minister of Finance, in preparing his next budget-


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to ask the hon. member a question? Would you mind reading your speech more slowly, please?


Guy Rouleau: I will be glad to, for your edification.


David James Walker: Very kind of you.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is it possible?


Guy Rouleau: I can read it over, if you wish. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance,-excuse me, I am going to speak slowly because this may be of some use to you. The Minister of Finance, in preparing his present budget should seriously consider the briefs submitted to the Prime Minister by the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal requesting an amendment to the federal income tax act. The Minister of Finance should take into careful consideration the two important findings of the brief I just mentioned, that is (1) income tax should not ordinarily be levied against the income necessary to the subsistence of the taxpayer and his family; (2) above that necessary minimum, income tax should equalize the sacrifice between taxpayers.
With our present high cost of living, I believe that the basic tax exemption should be $3,000 for married people, with an additional exemption of $600 per child, and $1,500 for
The Address-Mr. Rouleau single persons. With less than this minimum amount, it is entirely impossible for a family and for any individual to live decently and acquire the bare necessities of life.
I also want to suggest another amendment to the federal income tax act. Since the war, there have been certain changes in the Canadian way of life, particularly in the large centres, while city dwellers are progressively leaving the downtown areas for the suburbs. As a direct consequence of this condition, industrial and other workers, as well as members of the professions in a general way, have to travel great distances to work. Though quite a few use the public transportation system, a greater number still are forced to travel by car from their home to their place of occupation.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the expenses incurred, both with regard to public transportation as well as automobile travel, could be deducted from the income tax. It seems to me that this would be a fair and just measure for workers as well as for business men, industrialists and professional men.
I have another suggestion to offer to the Minister of Finance. For some years now there has been talk of the growing needs of education. In this house I have more than once requested that we should provide assistance for our students within constitutional limits in the federal area. I return to this matter today and I would ask the Minister of Finance to do something for education without infringing on provincial autonomy. To help parents and students, we should find a way to grant more university scholarships, and also to allow those parents who have children in college or university, as well as those students who have to work to pay for their studies, to deduct the tuition fees from their income tax, whether it be for tuition fees themselves, or for books and instruments required for the various courses, as well as living expenses incurred by students who have to live in another city. In other words, all expenses incurred by the student.
By increasing the purchasing power of families as well as of individual citizens, these various income tax deductions which I have just listed would be of immediate help to Canadian families and would I am sure considerably reduce present unemployment.
A few moments ago I said that I was not opposed to the large public works which the

The Address-Mr. Rouleau present government has in mind. However,
I wish to state once more that I do not believe that this type of undertaking will materially reduce unemployment. In order to reduce unemployment, especially in large centres, it would be easy for the government to carry out certain projects in the larger cities of this country. The federal government might, within the limits of its jurisdiction, contribute to the general programs of the larger cities and undertake some major projects. In a large city like Montreal, for instance, where the government could build a throughway in the harbour area along the St. Lawrence which is under the National Harbours Board, the heavy traffic of the Canadian metropolis might thus be diverted and jobs created for hundreds and hundreds of unemployed in Montreal.
This is only one instance of what the government could do to remedy the unemployment crisis we are experiencing to-day.
The government might, moreover, immediately proceed with a complete clearance of slums in large Canadian centres. At the instigation of the Liberal government, the city of Montreal has already undertaken the clearance of a slum area in the metropolis. In fact, a slum district of Montreal was cleared in which it is proposed to carry out what is commonly called the Dozois plan. This plan was much discussed in Montreal and I do not want to express an opinion even on the nature of the plan. One thing is certain however: thanks to the co-operation of various agencies, thanks specially to the generous support of the federal government, we are witnessing the clearance of hundreds of slums in Montreal which will be replaced by sanitary housing. This plan, which will cost 13 million dollars, half of it to be paid by the federal government, will provide approximately 3,000 jobs for a period of three years.
According to experts of the city of Montreal, there are at the present time 52 areas which can be improved, 12 of which are favourable to the carrying out of a plan such as the one I just mentioned. In order to do something useful while at the same time providing jobs for the unemployed, it is urgent that the government proceed without delay with the clearance of the slums of those 12 areas which include 10,000 substandard houses. Those slums could be replaced by houses which could be made available to wage-earners at prices within their reach and by

houses which could be rented jointly by the city of Montreal and the federal government at family rents, that is to say, rents which, instead of being set arbitrarily, could be set at a rate equivalent to a week's salary of the tenant, with an adequate reduction for each dependent child.
I firmly believe that in heeding those suggestions, the government would do service to the low wage-earner and at the same time would relieve unemployment. I believe that this would also be an indirect way of helping municipalities without having to wait for the federal-provincial-municipal conference which the Prime Minister promised before June 10.
It is the present Solicitor General, my excellent friend the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), who pointed out to the house in the session of November 1953, and I quote from the official record of the debates of the session of 1953-54, Vol. 1, page 67:
The lamentable financial state of the municipalities is therefore evidence that a new conference is essential so that our federal financial system may be reviewed, and with an open mind, in order that each administrative body, either federal, provincial or municipal should be in a position to be master of its own destinies and in order that everyone be treated with justice and equity.
Since those words were spoken, I believe that nothing has been done to alleviate the burden of municipalities and that, as far as federal-provincial relations are concerned, no new or concrete proposals came out of the federal-provincial conference. Now I wish to quote again the Solicitor General of Canada, because I feel that what he was saying at the time is right to the point when we read the speech from the throne of this year:
. . . Unfortunately, the speech from the throne says nothing about a federal-provincial conference, and we all know that the people of Quebec would like such a conference to be called, in order to allow the governments concerned to reach some kind of agreement. Each particular government must be able to collect the moneys which it needs for the conduct of its affairs, and I deem it to be antidemocratic when in a federal state one of the component parts is forced to come and beg regularly from the other part the necessary funds.
I think that the federal government departs from the principles of the constitution when it lays its hands on all sources of taxation, exhausts them and then meddles in fields of activity that are not its concern, even if it offers sums of money. There is a way to settle the matter once and for all. The provinces should have the authority to levy themselves the money they need: they would, in turn, give the municipalities their autonomy and, in this way, a certain balance would be possible. I am sure it would benefit our Canadian democracy.
Those words of the Solicitor General adequately sum up the policy supposedly

advocated by the premier of the province of Quebec. Now that the Conservative party, and especially the large number of supporters of the Union Nationale elected in the present Conservative government are here in this house, we may wonder whether they are going to be consistent and ask the Prime Minister and the government to return to the provincial government the taxation fields they have been claiming for a number of years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Guy Rouleau: I understand that they might
be embarrassed-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Rouleau: -since the stand of Mr. Duplessis and the stand of the present government cannot be reconciled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Rouleau: They must express here their opinion on that very important matter. At the last federal-provincial conference, as well as during last session, the Prime Minister and his government have changed nothing to the methods of tax distribution initiated by the preceding Liberal government. They were satisfied with raising the payments made to some provinces but the principle of distribution is the same.
It seems strange that the premier of the province who was criticizing continuously when the Liberals were in power keeps an alarming silence, as do the members of the provincial legislature and the members sitting today in this house. Does that mean that, for the premier of Quebec as well as for the members of his party sitting in this house, autonomy has a different meaning depending on whether the Liberals or the Conservatives are in power in Ottawa? I am inclined to believe that autonomy such as advocated by the premier of Quebec has been but a political football, and I am anxious to see what will be the stand of the representatives of the hon. premier who have been elected to the national parliament. If the Union Nationale premier as well as some members of his party saw fit to take part in the federal election-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Guy Rouleau: -we are now entitled to
ask them some definite questions and to expect some definite answers.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Guy Rouleau: Allow me Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat, to thank very sincerely the population of the constituencv of Dollard 57071-3-20
The Address-Mr. Van Horne which, this year again, placed its confidence in me by electing me again as its representative in the House of Commons, in spite of strong opposition from the most formidable opponent the Conservative party could find in the riding of Dollard. As I have said in the past, I wish to be worthy of that confidence by continuing to work for my country and for the welfare of my fellow-citizens, more particularly my fellow-citizens of the constituency of Dollard.
(Text):


Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne I offer my most sincere congratulations and to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your deputy I also extend good wishes. To the people of my riding I extend sincere thanks for their support. Although there were approximately 1,200 Liberal supporters in my riding on election day there are very few since then. Despite the fact that there may be those in my riding who are against us they know that we shall never be against them.
The appeal that we made in the last election was to invite all men of good will regardless of past political affiliation to join us, not only to support us on election day but to give us a hand in the days that lie ahead to procure for this country the best government Canada ever had and also the best government this world has ever known. That is our aim and avowed purpose. I take pleasure in extending the invitation to all hon. members opposite to do the same.
Of course, as the dust settles over the ruin and destruction, and in one instance the complete disappearance, of the opposing political parties it may be well for us to pause to note that our victory was achieved in no small way by the default of the other parties and especially the Liberal party whose lack of a program was summed up in one irrelevant and desperate promise to cut the taxes of Canada's 600,000 unemployed, whose spotty and scanty unemployment insurance benefits hardly put them in a bracket to pay income tax. In patting ourselves on the back let us not do so too enthusiastically and let us not forget that if many people voted for us they had little else to vote for as an alternative. Possibly we did not offer all the measures that are needed but certainly we offered more.

The Address-Mr. Van Horne
I hasten to speak, not without sorrow, of a most urgent problem affecting most severely over 8,000 men in my riding and more than
600,000	people in Canada. There is more unemployment and more suffering due to unemployment in my riding today than at any time since the darkest days of the depression.
I regard it as my duty to tell this house that if it were not for unemployment insurance, family allowances and pensions many people in my constituency-


An hon. Member:: Liberal measures.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -would be close to insurrection. It is all very well for us to put the blame for this recession-and in my riding no other word describes it-where it so rightly belongs, on the former dead, lacklustre, unapproachable Liberal regime but it is a sacred duty of this government to take the immediate, fully effective, result-producing and even drastic measures now needed to put our people to work. In this respect we must recognize that this government has succeeded in doing more than any other government in the history of Canada.
However, I have in my riding actual privation and poverty due to unemployment. In many homes the cupboards are bare and children are hungry, cold and sick. This condition is not entirely new. This situation existed to almost the same extent under every government but I for one warned and warned again and again the former Liberal administration that their cruel, senseless and unnecessary policies in regard to tight money and foreign trade and their indifference to maritime rights and needs would bring about and were creating the very pitiful and unfortunate circumstances from which suffer well over 10,000 families in my riding.
But they would not listen and they stayed aloft on the high pedestal on which they had perched themselves, too self-important to listen, too self-hallowed to act, too lazy to wake up until the morning of June 11, 1957, when their sense of smugness in their own infallibility was cut from under them. It was then too late; it was all over for them. They were out as I told them they would be if they did not smarten up. Then they floundered about unable to be a worthwhile opposition or an effective one because almost every time they tried to criticize and oppose they found themselves automatically pointing at their own sins and deficiencies while in office and which we unfortunately are too slow in correcting, changing or altering.
We were great in the opposition at recognizing the faults of the old Liberal regime but we were and we are a bit too slow in correcting them now that we are in office.

After June 10 I told this government in letter after letter directed to the heads of it and in warning after warning that we would have more unemployment in my riding and in Canada during the winter of 1957 and 1958 than at any time since the depths of the depression unless immediate and even drastic measures were taken. I spelled out the measures I felt were vitally needed not only to provide work but to fulfil long-felt needs the unfulfilment of which had held back for so long the economic development of my riding and my region.
In this country we see a mysterious, a unique phenomenon; in this cherished land which we call Canada, where every man, every citizen, is potentially the richest man on earth, thousands of innocent children suffer from hunger, cold and want. For what partially effective measures this government has taken I am most grateful. This government has undertaken to do more for my riding in seven months than all other governments put together have done since confederation, and this applies generally to the entire Atlantic provinces.
But these projects-and I speak only of my riding now-are scarcely started although they were approved many months ago. Unfortunately, far too many members of the top echelon of the civil service did not catch the urgency to cut red tape and to move quickly. There was this Liberal "can't-be-done" defeatist attitude, which was one of the main causes why so many people are getting the impression that the well conceived and salutary program of public works has for several reasons bogged down. In times such as these, with so many men in need of work, urgency and red tape cutting are requisites. We simply cannot operate at the snail's pace for which the old regime was noted and for which it was kicked out of office. But this unfortunate condition does not detract from the hitherto unknown spirit of co-operation and dedication to duty which characterize every member of this government.
No man in the history of Canada has done more to point the way to a better Canada and to the fulfilment of the needs of all our people than the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). It is unfortunate that the more immediate means necessary to implement our program are not being taken now. Certainly, it is axiomatic to note how long we had to wait and how far west we had to go to get a Minister of Public Works who would launch, in co-operation with the supporters of the government, a whole new deal for the maritime provinces and for all of Canada.
But, I ask that the decks be cleared for action. I ask that we move more quickly and

more swiftly. If we need another 100 engineers to get these projects moving now, for goodness sake, let us get another 100 engineers. All honest means at our command must be taken now to put our people to work. The senior civil servants, or many of the civil service-and I detract nothing from their skill and their dedication and loyalty to Canada-must be made to get in step with the government's plan and policy. They must be made to keep in step. We must have action now when it is needed.
This, sir, leads me to the problem of unemployment insurance and labour policies generally. I am grateful to see that the period in which seasonal benefits may be drawn has been extended for those who have sufficient stamps. How many times must I tell you that this is not enough? What is urgently needed, is a complete overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act so that its provisions will correspond to the policies of our party, which will ensure justice and due consideration and the rights of unemployment insurance benefits to all those who need unemployment insurance benefits.
Let me tell you how the majority of the workers in my riding are affected and penalized by the present unemployment insurance regulations. Our people live on small holdings, small farms, and they follow the seasons. They work in the woods. A man will work for possibly six weeks in the spring on the drive. During that time he will get unemployment insurance stamps; he may get six stamps. He comes back home and he sows his crop; during that time he gets no stamps. Later on in the summer he may get a few weeks' casual work on the roads on construction, and so on. He may get stamps for that. He may work four weeks and he will have a total of 10 stamps. Then he has to go back and take in his crop and he gets no stamps. He may work for a while on the farm and for this he gets no stamps at all. He may go into the woods, follow the operation, for which he may get four, five or six stamps, so he ends up with perhaps 15 stamps; but many of our people have only 14 and they cannot qualify for unemployment insurance and they cannot get their benefits.
I repeat now, the urgent recommendations I made to this government on January 21 last, namely the complete abolition of all waiting periods. There is nothing more unjust than those waiting periods for unemployment insurance. A person should receive benefits for each stamp for as long as he is out of work, based on a scale which would guarantee at least $2 per week per stamp, up to the present minimum values, and then all 57071-3-201
The Address-Mr. Van Horne benefits should be increased to at least one-half of the worker's salary and for as long as a person is out of work because work is unavailable for him. There should be an abolition of all delays. There should be benefits in case of sickness where such sickness necessitates lay-offs. There should be unemployment benefits for those who, like farmhands, woodworkers and those doing certain kinds of farm work, who even though they are not on the payroll, are to all intents and purposes workmen in every sense of the word. They should be included in unemployment insurance benefits.
I note that an agreement has not yet been made whereby 6,000 men who work in the state of Maine could have their stamps recognized in Canada. I understand two letters were written. I demand more effective action and as long as these improvements are left undone our workers will continue to suffer merely for want of proper consideration and action. I ask this government to complete the necessary agreement with the state of Maine so that our 6,000 Canadians who work in Maine will be able to get unempolyment insurance when they return to their homes because they contributed in the state of Maine when they were there. This is a problem that I took up with the old government. I take it up again with this one. I tell you now, as I have said before, many families in my riding suffer at this very moment severe and crippling hardships because the things I have just mentioned have not been done.
Let me pass quickly to the Canadian National Railways. When our hard-pressed potato farmers found prices running last spring at $4 a barrel they asked for reefer cars in St. Leonard, 25 miles from Edmund-ston, so they could ship their potatoes and get the higher price for their potatoes. They were told there were no reefer cars available but on the very day they were told this some 70 reefer cars were lying idle in the C.N.R. yards in Edmundston. Those reefer cars were made available to us two weeks later when the price of potatoes had fallen to $2 a barrel because of the United States dumping of potatoes on the Canadian market.
Lay-offs in my riding seem calculated to create the greatest hardship for men whose long years of service and the faithful performance of their duties certainly entitled them to better and more just consideration. Some men were laid off for good who had only two or three months more to go before getting their pensions. Some were laid off and were told they would be taken back. Now they are being told they will not be taken on. The equipment on the C.N.R., at
HOUSE OF *
The Address-Mr. Van Horne least in the maritime provinces, is dilapidated and obsolete. Many of the buildings are falling apart. The C.N.R. has a tremendous opportunity right now to put thousands of men to work to get this equipment in better shape. I do not accuse Mr. Gordon and the Liberal-appointed Liberal directors of the C.N.R., some of whom were re-appointed by this government, includng one who was a former Liberal cabinet minister, of acting in such a way as to cause the greatest hardship for the employees of the C.N.R. and the greatest harm to this government, but I do say that they are giving that impression.
With regard to pensions for retired workers of the now government-owned railways, let us not forget that we spent 22 years in opposition berating the former government because they would not provide adequate pensions for many former C.N.R. workers. Some of those pensions are less than $30 a month. Well, here we are in office, and these men cannot wait another 22 years for this government to provide those increases while they are still living.
Old age pensions are still inadequate. When,
I ask, is this government going to take effective means to correct the injustices inflicted on so many of our older people because of the means test? You have to be poor or arrange to become poor between 65 and 70 to get the pension and you must be very careful to remain poor to keep it. Yet this government knows that it is impossible to get along on $55 a month. Why oblige and encourage, because of present legislation, our people to so arrange their afEairs that they have to have next to nothing at age 65 in order to qualify for the pension?
When are we going to get around to putting justice into invalids' pensions? Of course I realize that some provinces are more stringent than others in determining who is enough of an invalid to qualify although the regulations are uniform throughout Canada, but we still have thousands of people who cannot earn a living in their normal occupations because of invalidity and who, because of unnecessary Liberal hold-over regulations, cannot get the invalids' pension, however meagre and inadequate it is in amount.
What is needed here is a new meeting with the provinces and the definition of "invalid" broadened so that the pension will be paid to all those who, because of illness or infirmity, are unable to earn a living in their normal or usual occupation. 1 respectfully request that this be done now.
This condition of too stringent and unfair regulations, inadequate amounts and the means test applies equally to blind pensions,

widows* allowances, veterans allowances and many other groups of our unfortunate people who need help. In the case of blind persons, and I have a few so afflicted people in my riding, they probably can make $15 or $20 a week working in some pulp mill canteen but if they do so the pension is not paid to them and they do not earn enough to make a living.
I come now to family allowances. It has always been and still is my belief that family allowances represent one of the best and most equitable means of effecting a more just distribution of the wealth of the country to those who need it most and who have the greatest claim to it, our children. In determining the amount set in 1945 a yardstick had to be used. There must have been a yardstick and it had to be the value of a dollar in 1945 in relation to the cost of living in 1945. But the cost of living has in many respects doubled since then and if we were right in 1945 in setting the amount in relation to the purchasing power of a dollar then we must now. restore that purchasing power to our children and that would mean doubling family allowances. In other words, the same purchasing power must be placed in the hands of the mothers of our Canadian families. To do this means doubling the amounts and raising them to at least $12 per child. These payments should also be paid right through until the child reaches 18 years of age and then continue until that person completes his or her education.
I feel that too many members simply do not realize the hardships our children have to endure in privation and want in so many sections of the country and particularly in my own riding. It is my opinion, and it is shared by many, that as long as any government fails to restore and maintain the purchasing power of family allowances we are falling short of doing our duty towards the children of this country. I submit that this long overdue action should be taken now.
I wish to reaffirm and stress the formal demands of the government of my province made at the last sitting of the New Brunswick legislature for a royal commission to study, investigate and determine how best the Bank of Canada can serve Canada. We know it is not now fulfilling the purposes for which it was created. We know that ever since it was created high finance has been the invisible but nevertheless effective boss of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada should be under parliament and through it under the will of all the Canadian people.
The lofty ideals which animated the leaders of government at the time the Bank of Canada was founded have, by and large, gone by the board. A return to those ideals is of

primary concern to all Canadians. The management, the regulatory powers, the workings, the actions, the results of their regulations must come under review and it is with great satisfaction that I second the request of my province for a royal commission to investigate the Bank of Canada and monetary policies generally and also request that the evidently needed changes be carried out at the earliest possible moment.
May I speak now of farming and congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for the price support program he introduced. It must be noted, however, that the minimum prices, set at 80 per cent of the average price of any one farm product over the past 10 years, produce very low prices for many farm commodities, especially potatoes, pulpwood, pork and so on. In my opinion this average is too low. It must be increased and increased now.
Last year the minister indicated, and I congratulate him for it, sweeping changes in the farm loan board and I am pleased that legislation will be introduced at this session to bring about these badly needed changes. We need many things so far as the farm loan board is concerned but we need most a farm loan board that will be a farm loan board. We need sweeping changes in the procedure and regulations so that our farmers may obtain loans for all reasonable purposes without delay and without being bogged down in red tape as they are now. It takes six months to get a loan at the present time. There is one office of the farm loan board for the whole province of New Brunswick and that office is located in Saint John. Many of my people in the county of Madawaska do not speak English and they cannot get their loans processed by people who speak their maternal tongue simply because the employees in Saint John do not speak French.
I feel that the farm loan board should be made available to all farmers for whatever reasonable purpose they need money such as the purchase of trucks and equipment, the fixing up of their farms, the buying of seed, even the buying of cars, whatever they need! Farming today is nothing more or less than a small business and the farmer is a producer just as much as the person who makes or manufactures anything is a producer. To produce, money is needed. Our farmers need money and when they need it they must have it. It is no good to them six months later because then the crisis has passed.
Our potato farmers must be placed in a position which will permit them to compete with United States dumped potatoes. A new look is needed. While a diversion price program is needed at this time, these on again,
The Address-Mr. Van Horne off again price diversion programs do not provide the security our potato farmers require and deserve.
I should like to say a word about housing. I am grateful for what the government has done to fight the recession and to help build more houses by making hundreds of millions of dollars available for housing and by reducing the down payments. But I respectfully submit that these measures, however helpful they may be in some areas, are not sufficient and do not, in my riding and in many others, solve the housing problem. Millions of our people could not afford to pay the unreasonably high down payments demanded by the former government and for the most part they cannot afford to disburse the very high down payments now demanded under present legislation. This unnecessary requirement, coupled with all the other expenses for equipment and furniture so necessary on moving into a new house, is placing housing under the National Housing Act beyond the reach of millions of Canadian families who need adequate housing in the worse way.
For three years I have been a member of the house and for three years I have pleaded again and again for the complete adoption, lock, stock and barrel, of the same type of housing legislation as exists in the United States. I ask very humbly that the Canadian government have as much confidence in the Canadian people in regard to housing as the United States government has in over 160 million Americans.
Recent amendments to the United States housing act give further aid to young families. If you talk to any real estate developer, he will tell you that by the time a young family manages to gather up the downpayment for a Canadian N.H.A. house, purchase the kitchen equipment and furniture needed, that family is usually head over heels in debt. They have so many monthly payments to make and have to pinch pennies to such an extent that their lives are made miserable for many years afterwards.
While resting up after the last election at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, I visited several United States housing projects. I brought with me some folders to give hon. members an idea of the type of houses in these projects. Here is one type of house shown near the bottom of this page. This has three very fine bedrooms, two bathrooms ahd when you walk into the kitchen you find a kitchen that is completely equipped with electric stove, refrigerator, automatic washer and dryer. This equipment is included in the total cost of the house, and the house sells for $13,100. If one is a veteran there is no

The Address-Mr. Van Horne down payment, and for the ordinary citizen the down payment is $400 and that includes the legal fees.
Do you know that in the province of Quebec, and I know whereof I speak, the down payment on a house costing $11,000 would be about $1,200 and the cost of closing, that is arranging the legal papers, is never less than $220, that is about 25 per cent of the down payment. In Canada these homes would sell for much more than $13,000. The determining factor, however, is the fact that in the United States the veteran pays nothing down and the non-veteran pays $400. The interest rate is five per cent. As I said before, this amount of $400 includes the closing fees.
The reason there is such an accelerated house-building program in the United States is that for many years a United States citizen could purchase his home with this low down payment, and he has done so. In addition, in the United States housing act loans are available in many instances for houses already built. In Canada, we have nothing like this. In many cases home owners lose their equity in their homes because, when they go to sell these homes the trust companies and insurance companies will only grant a loan up to about 50 per cent of the value. This places the purchaser in a position where he cannot find the down payment, and it is only after the owner accepts a second mortgage or some other arrangement that the owner can sell his home. My request is simple and direct.
I ask this government to place as much confidence in 18 million Canadians as the United States government places in 160 million Americans. I ask that the interest rate be reduced.
I should like to say a word now about the C.B.C. If this government ever inherited a mess, it was when we took over the C.B.C. The whole top echelon of the C.B.C. seems to be blinded by the wrong kind of liberalism. The C.B.C. is a source of more complaints than any other branch of this government. I suggest that the government sell the C.B.C. and make it completely independent of the government. It is a well established and well known fact that if one medium of information is subject to government control, however slight or indirect, all mediums like the press are automatically placed in a position where they are not entirely free from government control. So far as the men at the C.B.C. are concerned, they seem to want to go out of their way to make the C.B.C. unpopular and a source of irritation for many Canadians.
IMr. Van Home.]
I should like now to say a word about the Norman case. I very much regret that these incidents have developed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if the hon. member will find anything in the resolution, the amendment or the subamendment which would entitle him to discuss that matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then I should like to say a word about oil. In the Atlantic provinces, at least, there is a well directed and well organized arrangement between the major oil companies to try to squeeze out the smaller oil companies. Here is how it works. They charge regular prices to the small gasoline and fuel oil consumer and secretly cut prices to the big oil and gasoline users. This is in restraint of trade. In the United States, all oil companies must publish their prices to both the big consumer and the small consumer. The results of these secret dealings in prices are prejudicial to the smaller companies and the smaller consumers. What Canada needs is legislation similar to that which exists in the United States whereby the oil and gasoline companies must publish their prices to the big consumers as well as to the small consumers.
This matter is of more importance than we may think because the small home owner is being forced to subsidize the piratical raids of the major oil companies who sell to the major oil and gas users at secret discounts in order to put the independent oil and gas distributing companies out of business, thereby eliminating competition. These big oil and gas companies have one price to the ordinary citizen and a secret, low price to the big user. The poor are paying through the nose so that the bigger, richer user may be subsidized and the big oil companies may squeeze out the smaller ones.
Once every ten years, sir, Canada has an opportunity to put her right foot forward and show the world what she does, how her people live, and what she has to sell, by her exhibits at these world fairs. I happened to have occasion to visit the Canadian exhibit at Brussels the other day. Signs pointing the way to the Canadian restaurant are to be seen all around the building. When you get to the Canadian restaurant, which boasts of fine Canadian foods, you cannot even get a plate of pea soup. The fellow who runs it is not a Canadian; the chef is not a Canadian; and there is not a Canadian waiter in the place. There is not a Canadian dish on the menu, and that is the Canadian restaurant.
I went down to the exhibits, and at a time when 8,000 people in my riding are out of work because we cannot sell our paper and

lumber-and this is not the fault of the government-there was not a model sawmill on exhibit. I asked one of the managers why they did not have a model sawmill on exhibition so the people would see how we make lumber.
Even a little exhibition like the one in Tatamagouche last year which I attended had a model sawmill. At Brussels fishing is represented by a few rubber and wooden fish in a great big tank. The maple syrup industry is not represented at all. There is quite a bit of mention of Eskimos. The mounted police have no horses and that fact disappoints visitors. The Indians of course are not represented at all. The pulp and paper industry is represented by three or four sheets of paper on the wall, if anybody wants to read them; but very few do so. I think that here we have an opportunity. I do not mind telling you, sir, that, comparing our exhibit with the other exhibits at that fair, you would almost think that Canada is in dire need of a Colombo plan.
But it is not too late to correct that situation. There are still five months to go. The French exhibit opened only on the Saturday that I was there which was the Saturday before last. We could correct our pavilion. We could do a great deal to tell the story of Canada to the world. Sixty million people will visit the fair. If we keep on in the way we are going there will be queues and lineups at the French pavilion, the Russian pavilion and the British pavilion but there will be no line-ups at the Canadian pavilion. We have here an opportunity to show the world what we think, what our culture is, how we live and what we must do to survive and prosper. Let us take advantage of this opportunity by making this exhibit at least a storytelling one, one that will tell the people of the world just how we live and just how we make a living.


An hon. Member:: You could exhibit a few Tories.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They are too busy correcting the mistakes the Liberals made in preparing the fair.


An hon. Member:: Don't spoil a good speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to close on a very important note. Last fall when we were over at the NATO conference in Paris we had the opportunity to witness what went on there and to learn of the advances made in many countries other than our own in the realm of education, in technilogical advances, in military science and calling for higher skills and higher training. I said there that as long as money prevented people from developing their talents and acquiring an education governments were remiss in their
The Address-Mr. Gout duties, and I believe that. Certainly it is nonsense that in this day and age, in a country so rich as Canada, hundreds of thousands of Canadian people are unable to develop the talents that God gave them, are unable to get an education, merely because they do not have the money. I think it is high time that governments in Canada get together-I refer to provincial governments and the federal government-and worked out a plan whereby any young man or woman who has the ability to learn and the desire to do so should not be denied an education because of lack of funds. (Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the previous speakers in tendering to you my warmest congratulations on your appointment as Speaker of the Commons for a second term.
Those among us who were here during the last parliament had the advantage to note your fairness and sound judgment, and I would like to assure you, right at the start of this session, that you will continue to receive from the members of the official opposition, every possible co-operation and respect when you endeavour to protect the rights and privileges of every hon. member, without regard to political affiliation.
I also congratulate the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, the $350 million the Liberal government had left in the treasury for the year 1956-1957, in addition to 250 million from the unemployment insurance fund, which have been spent since June 10, 1957, make up a total of 600 million we had accumulated during 22 years of Liberal administration. Business was prospering in this country and everybody agreed that it did, even the Conservatives, as my Conservative rival said during the last election in a speech he made at Navan on February 26 last, in the presence of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who had accompanied him that night, according to the following item published by the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal:
(Text):
Mr. Nixon and Agriculture Minister Douglas Harkness addressed some 100 supporters at Navan's arena and fought a two-hour battle to make themselves heard over the din of a hockey game in the adjoining rink.
Members of the audience at the rear of the hall actually a section of the arena, had difficulty hearing over the noise of cheering spectators, sticks banging on boards, the referee's whistle and the piercing siren to end periods.
Mr. Nixon raised his voice to declare- "We have just gone through the best 10 years Canada has ever seen".

The Address-Mr. Gour (Translation):
After only eleven months of a Conservative government there is unemployment as we have never seen before in Canada, except under a Conservative government from 1930 to 1935. The tokens of those times have been included in unemployment insurance for the past month.
Our foreign trade is in a slump and our external relations with our best customer are in a bad way.
What happened to the surplus promised by the Conservative party during the election of 1957-58? From the scant information we were able to obtain from the government about our financial situation, it seems that the promised surplus, which has been one of the reasons for the success of the Conservative party in the last election campaign, will give way to a deficit. I would not be surprised if the deficit were over $500 million for the fiscal year 1958-59. It is not so bad for a Conservative administration which was lucky enough to take office at a time when the country was prosperous and had a surplus of $350 million, as I said a moment ago, and with an unemployment insurance fund of close to $900 million, to have spent over $250 million up to now, which brings the total to $600 million. That same Conservative administration intends to submit a budget with a deficit of over $500 million. All that in the span of a year and a half.
The way things are going, if the country has the misfortune of being led by the Conservative party for four years, the deficit will then be from 4 to 5 billion.
And history is repeating itself, for every time a Conservative administration is in power, we experience a deficit and a loss of markets, and as soon as the Liberals take over, they have to pay off those debts and bring the country back to prosperity.
I have the honour of representing the fine constituency of Russell since 1945 and I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to thank all who gave me their support and who voted for me in great numbers. Since the country is in such a bad situation, I would suggest, in order to remedy unemployment in the fine constituency of Russell, two projects which were to be undertaken in 1957 had the Liberal party been returned to power. I refer to a post office in Eastview, a prosperous little town whose intelligent, hard-working and clever population numbers more than 22,000, having increased by 14,000 in the last ten years. This town is surrounded by the city of Ottawa, which means that a post office
IMr. Gour.]
would serve the Rockcliffe airport, Rideau ward-one of the finest districts of Ottawa- which includes Manor Park, Cardinal Heights, Rothwell Heights, St. Laurent Boulevard and Overbrook, comprising a population of about 40,000 people.
The second project I would suggest would be the construction of a "Pentagon" on grounds belonging to the government, part of which is in the town of Eastview, part in the city of Ottawa. This project was to be undertaken in 1957-58 by the Liberal government. This would give work to thousands of jobless in the constituency of Russell and in the constituencies of Carleton, Ottawa East, Ottawa West and Hull. It would require materials manufactured in other parts of the country.
I believe that, if the basic income tax exemption was raised from $1,000 to $1,500 for single taxpayers and from $2,000 to $3,000 for married people, low income people would then have some money left.
This would allow people to buy what they need and would incite industry to produce more and to employ more people. I believe that the government should rather encourage industrialists of any country-if they are of the Commonwealth, so much the better-to come to Canada so as to produce here most of those industrial goods which we buy abroad at this time. In this way we would give work to our people. That is what the Liberal government did and that is what brought about the prosperity which we enjoyed under a Liberal administration.
I do not think there is anything practical in the idea of diverting our purchases from one country to the other. We should rather seek to extend trade with anybody who wants to trade with us since, after all, it is the individual who buys what he likes. This is no communist country. It is not up to us to dictate to every individual the type of handkerchief, shoes, dresses, suit, home appliance, furniture, agricultural machinery or car which he or she wishes to buy. It is up to those who want to trade with us to send their representatives to inquire into our needs and then to produce those goods and arrange the prices with due regard to the conditions of our markets. We have to do the same when we trade with other countries. The following elements are generally present in any sales operations; price, quality, servicing and publicity.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who has increased the support price on

various agricultural products. However, this is of no particular advantage to the farmer since these products usually sold at a higher price than the guaranteed price.
The support price for butter, eggs, pork and cheese should have been set at 10 per cent above what it is. Unfortunately he reduced the price of powdered milk by 2 cents a pound whereas that was the only product sold under guaranteed price by the Liberal government. This will certainly bring about loss of revenue to the farmer.
So as to allow our producers doing mixed farming to meet competition in spite of the high prices they have to pay for the products they buy, the subsidy for the transport of western grain should be raised by at least $3 a ton. Such a step would stimulate the purchase of wheat, oats, barley, rye and grain from the western provinces.
Since there is a good market for our livestock in the United States, our Eastern farmers would be encouraged to fatten their cattle rather than sell them young when they are not really ready for the market for only about half the price that the fattened livestock would bring. This would also encourage them to raise more cattle and would require more fenced-in pasture land, thus restricting the seeded acreage. Thus they would have to buy more western grain.
They should also benefit from more generous agricultural loans. At this time, it is very difficult for a farmer to establish his son on a farm. He cannot borrow the money required to buy a farm. The maximum loan on a good hundred acre farm is from 4 to 6 thousand dollars. Farmers who, for one reason or another, sell their land are looking for cash in order to buy a house in a village or a town.
I think that the percentage of the farm loan should be raised to 85 per cent of the value assessed by the commission's inspectors. Thus the number of farmers or sons of farmers who leave the farm to displace our city workers would be greatly reduced.
In concluding, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming-) to grant, this year, at least, about thirty thousand scholarships as I find that unfortunately the great majority of our high school and university students cannot find any work this year during the summer holidays. This situation will certainly affect a great number of them who, for lack of money, will not be able to carry on their studies.
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
In the light of the new developments happening in the world, we realize, more than ever, the necessity of providing more for our young boys and girls, in order that they may have the benefit of further studies in our universities for the benefit of the future generation.
One of the best investments that the government could make would be to make available a few thousand dollars to our young students who have the talent and the will to pursue their studies but whose parents lack the necessary financial means.
I would ask the ministers concerned to kindly ponder seriously these remarks, which are made in good faith and are, to my mind, very practical in order to alleviate the present situation. This would be to the advantage not only of all Canadians, but of the present government as well.
(Text):


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I join with others in congratulating you on your election to the high office you hold and I would appreciate if you would extend my congratulations to your deputy. I would also like to join with others in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I would like to incorporate and endorse all the fine remarks which have been passed in reference to you and your high office and that of your deputy, as well as those in reference to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
When I was elected as a member of parliament on March 31 last I accepted this high honour with a deep sense of humility. I accept the privilege of speaking in this debate with an even greater sense of humility being mindful of the hon. members on both sides of this house who have had much experience in parliamentary debate and also being mindful of those who have sat in this house in the past but who are not with us today.
The constituency of Bow River at one time was a part of Calgary South and I would like to call to memory, particularly for those senior members of parliament who are with us today, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett who at one time represented that part of Bow River before it got gerrymandered. I refer, of course, to Banff, Lake Louise and that territory west of Calgary. I would also like

The Address-Mr. Woolliams to bring to the attention of the senior members the late Arthur L. Smith of Calgary South who I believe by his wit and wisdom was successful on one occasion in receiving a ruling from the Speaker under which the house adjourned to permit hon. members to attend a famous football game in Toronto some years ago. I am happy to see that his son, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) is now carrying on the fine tradition of his father.
I think I would be most remiss in my duty as the member for Bow River constituency if I did not mention Mr. Charlie Johnston who represented this constituency for 23 years. For 23 years he served the constituency in the capacity of a public servant. I pay tribute to him in this house and call him to mind particularly to the minds of the senior members of this house. In passing, however, I might mention that although he represented the constituency for a long period of time, March 31 last marked the end of the Social Credit party as a force in this federal parliament. Like other small groups the members of that party never shared in national aims and objectives because they were particularly local in their viewpoint in every respect. As a coal miner from the city of Drumheller expressed it, "Alberta, as far as its rural constituencies are concerned, had built a wall around itself with respect to influence in federal affairs because it was represented by a local party from the province of Alberta.''
In listening to Social Credit speakers in the past I always found it interesting to note one of the famous questions they asked,

namely "What have the old line parties done for Canada?" I have heard the same question asked by members of the other small group, the C.C.F., when I was living in the province of Saskatchewan. My answer to that question is very simple. If one looks through the pages of Canadian history since confederation one finds that the Conservatives and Liberals have governed this country for almost equal periods of time. When the Conservatives were in power the Liberals were the official opposition and vice versa. All the development of this country, industrial, economic, political and social, has taken place either under a Conservative government when the Liberals were in opposition or under a Liberal government when the Conservatives were in opposition. I am also aware that the destruction of the Social Credit party as a force in the federal parliament will result in a saving of time in the deliberations of this house.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with another subject but I see that time is running out. May I call it ten o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Woolliams the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business of the house is for tomorrow?


Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 21, 1958