1958-05-13

MAIN ESTIMATES, 1958-59

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1959, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I make a statement to the house concerning some of the financial matters with which the government has had to deal since February 1, and indicate to the house how it is proposed that those matters be treated in the house from this time forward.
Since dissolution on February 1, three special warrants pursuant to section 28 of the Financial Administration Act have been issued. One of these was for the balance of the fiscal year 1957-58. It is No. 1958/222, dated February 7, 1958, and was for the sum of $544,290,332.32. It was published in the Canada Gazette, part I, page 558 of February 15, 1958. The second and third warrants were in respect of the fiscal year 1958-59. The first of these warrants is P.C. 1958/492, dated April 9, 1958, for the sum of $203,368,605. It was published in the Canada Gazette, part I, of April 19, at page 1416. The third warrant is No. 1958/641 and is dated May 1. It is in the sum of $107,191,590. It was published in the Canada Gazette, part I, May 10, at page 1705. The schedules to the warrants as published in the Canada Gazette show the amounts involved by items in the relevant estimates.
The statement required by section 28 of the Financial Administration Act I have today deposited with the Clerk of the house in accordance with order No. 40 of the standing orders of the house.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: My hon. friend mentioned the date of May 1; the third category was May 1. Is it May 1 to the present time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will touch on that point a little later in my remarks. I am drawing attention, Mr. Speaker, as deliberately as possible to the terms of these warrants and the provisions made by them.
I should like now to point out the way in which the government has studiously avoided going one iota beyond what was immediately required to meet the necessary expenses of government, with the result that the supply appropriated by these warrants is intended to provide sufficient to meet the urgent expenses of government only until the 16th day of May, which is this Friday. Such supply will be exhausted by that date. It is proposed to ask the house tomorrow to grant interim supply for the needs of government until the 31st day of May. That means that early in June a further request will be made of the house by the government for a vote of interim supply. We have in this way sought, to the limit that the circumstances existing would permit, to assure to the house the fullest control over the expenditure involved.
In order that the house may have full information when considering the estimates and the matters to which I have referred I should like briefly first to describe the use made of the warrants during the period in question; second to indicate the manner in which it is proposed that parliament shall have opportunity to discuss fully the use of the warrants in respect of the fiscal year 1957-58 and the fiscal year 1958-59; and third, to relate the warrants of 1958-59 to the forthcoming interim supply bill.
As to the first point concerning the warrant of February 7, 1958, may I say this. At dissolution parliamentary sanction had been obtained to the extent of five-sixths or, to relate it in terms of months, ten-twelfths of all the estimates with the exception of the final supplementary estimates, and in some cases sums in excess of ten-twelfths. There had been passed a series of interim supply bills which appropriated sums required to meet all expenses of government to January 31, and the warrant which was issued on February 7 included the cash needs, and the cash needs only, to complete the programs of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1958, including the elements provided in the final supplementary estimates which had been tabled iff January.

Finance-Special Warrants
In determining the immediate cash needs in accordance with the provisions of section 28 of the Financial Administration Act the government had to consider the maintenance of employment and the necessity of meeting promptly, as they fell due, the bills incurred by the government. We succeeded in reducing the amounts of the estimates which had been drawn up and tabled by the previous government, by efforts in the various departments of government, by the sum of $73.6 million. Under the Financial Administration Act provision is made for the appropriation of money to meet the cash needs of government but no provision is made there for dealing with those items in the estimates which we commonly call the legislative items, the so-called one dollar items, nor with those items which have as their purpose the authorization of the crediting of accounts in the consolidated revenue fund. It will be the intention of the government at a suitable time in the session to present to the house a measure in respect of the accounts for the year 1957-58 to deal specifically with these items, and on that occasion there will be afforded to the house, it is proposed, the fullest opportunity in committee of supply to discuss, to obtain information and to pass any judgments that may be required on the sums appropriated and expenditures made under the provisions of the governor general's warrants.
With reference to the fiscal year which commenced on April 1 and in respect of which provision has been made by the second and third warrants, I should again like to stress that in the warrants we have appropriated only those sums directly and urgently required to meet the expenses of government. There has, of course, been no attempt made to deal with the items that are legislative in their character or which involve transfer items.
Had the house been meeting, let us say, on April 1 the government would have asked the house under the circumstances to vote two months' interim supply based upon the estimates. I wish to point out that the amounts which have been appropriated pursuant to the two warrants I have mentioned are not as large with respect to these items, subject to one or two exceptions which I will mention, as would have been involved had we been asking at the beginning of this fiscal year for a vote of two months' interim supply. The exceptions are those cases in which construction was involved. Because the season has been favourable to progress in the construction programs of the government, it has been necessary to proceed somewhat in advance of the pro rata basis measured in terms of months. That is not


unusual; that has been the practice followed in past years, and in the bill which will be presented to the house tomorrow those items will be singled out and any explanations required will be fully given in regard to them.
I therefore stress to the house that the steps which the house will be asked to take tomorrow will include the sums appropriated for this period from April 1 to the middle of this month and the provision will contemplate the vote of two months' interim supply in the ordinary way, less the sums already appropriated and expended in pursuance of these two warrants.
I can assure the house that every effort has been made to limit just as far as possible within the usual proportions the sums thus appropriated by the warrants. Where these have been exceeded in the exceptional cases to which I have referred, the items are in one or other of four categories. The first is the works program which I have mentioned and related urgent problems-for example, the gift of wheat to India which is all to be taken up in the present crop year; the second is the work attributable to the fact that we have had the advantage of an open winter; the third is the action we have taken to pay the accounts promptly. We have made no attempt to delay payment of accounts so as to carry them over into the later period; we thought it proper that these accounts be paid as they fell due. The fourth factor is the lower turnover and better recruiting up to personnel establishment of the various departments of government.
I stress that all the items in these warrants have been provided in the main estimates which I have today tabled, with one exception. That exception concerns the interim financing of Trans-Canada Air Lines. This interim financing has become necessary by reason of faster deliveries of aircraft purchased and these were altogether desirable.
The funds that are provided by the warrant for loan are intended to meet the needs of Trans-Canada Air Lines up to June 30 next. The usual Canadian National Railways financing and guarantee bill to be introduced this session will cover the loan provided by warrant for Trans-Canada Air Lines. This is not an item which appears in the book of estimates.
I stress again that the items do not include any grants except those that could be considered obligations, and do not include any legislative or accounting items.
As hon. members will recall from the terms of the speech from the throne read yesterday by His Excellency, it is the intention

of the government to introduce during the course of this session a bill to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Therefore I think the house will realize that we have done as much as was possible in the circumstances to avoid spending one cent more than was strictly and absolutely necessary to meet the urgent expenses of government. In the procedures that have been proposed the fullest opportunity will be afforded to all hon. members to obtain all information required and which they may desire in reference to any of the items involved in these appropriations by governor general's warrants, and to pass on the actions of the government such judgment as may commend itself to them.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a more appropriate opportunity to discuss this matter tomorrow when the interim supply bill is brought down, and in the light of that we will be able to make up our minds on this side whether the commitments to which the hon. gentleman has referred have in fact been carried out. For that purpose the information he has given us will be helpful.
I take it from what he has said that expenditures of between $850 million and $900 million have been made under governor general's warrants and that he is giving the house an assurance-an assurance which we were not able to secure in the last days of the previous parliament when this matter was under discussion-that there will be full opportunity to consider all these expenditures, whether they have been made under governor general's warrants covering the estimates for the current financial year or for the previous year.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the statement of the Minister of Finance. We understand him to have assured the house that the government will make it possible for members of parliament to pass on the action of the government in procuring very large sums of money by means of governor general's warrants.
I think hon. members realize that the provision of supply to Her Majesty and control over the supply of funds is one of the main prerogatives of the House of Commons, one of the prerogatives which must be protected at all costs. I think the apparent change in attitude of the government as compared with the last day of the previous parliament is a change which commends itself to the house, but we will have further remarks to make when the appropriations and the bills are presented.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I think the custom has been for one spokesman for each group to comment on a ministerial statement, and if my hon. friend would keep his question until the question period we will preserve the practice.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the railway strike.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further to report other than what has already appeared in the press, which included a statement by the Minister of Labour to the effect that the negotiations are still continuing between the two parties. I think the field of dispute has been very materially reduced. I felt that was the situation late Saturday night and Sunday morning, and I feel that since then there has been further advance made. As soon as there is anything to report the house will immediately be made aware of it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to transport a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that when replying to the vehement protests made by representatives of many organizations in Kootenay West against a reduction of passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway the minister's main political trump was to say he would consult with Messrs Crump and Rump, would the minister inform the house if as a result of his consultations with these gentlemen the present inadequate Budd car service on the Kettle Valley railway will soon blossom forth into an adequate passenger train service?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister oi Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his customary courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. The board of transport commissioners advise me that the introduction of Budd car service between Lethbridge and Vancouver resulted in the speeding up of the running time and made connections with the Canadian Pacific Railway trains Nos. 1 and 2, The Canadian, at Medicine Hat westward and
20	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry eastward. In making this important connection the company no doubt improved the service to its patrons in the Nelson and Trail areas from which point the greater portion of the traffic of this train originates.
Some complaints did reach the board in respect of the handling of express shipments on the Budd service, but these complaints have been satisfactorily taken care of. The Doukhobor situation between Nelson and Penticton broke the through connection, and as long as that situation exists the board feels that no improvement in the service can be anticipated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us first of all whether or not the arrangement entered into by Canada with the United States under NORAD has in fact now resulted in a written document and, if so, when may this intergovernmental agreement between the United States and Canada be tabled in the house?


Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to inform the hon. member that all the negotiations with respect to the exchange of notes have been completed. I propose to make a statement in the house on Friday afternoon in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The note will be tabled at that time.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the house whether the Canadian ambassador to the United States has in recent weeks made either a public statement or any official representation to the state department on his government's position in the Premium Iron Ores tax case?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice. I have no recollection that this has been done in recent weeks, but I will accept the question as notice.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I regret that due to the hustle and bustle of the formalities connected with the opening of parliament I was unable to give him adequate notice of my intention to ask this question, and he may prefer to accept this as notice.
In view of the widespread confusion and misunderstanding with regard to the interpretation of the act would the minister inform the house just what percentage of the unemployed are currently drawing seasonal benefits, and whether this ratio can be expected to continue or improve in the future?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, because the question seeks the percentage of those drawing seasonal benefits, I will take it as notice and supply the answer to the hon. member tomorrow.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as ministerial spokesman for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I wonder whether the minister has noted and considered action on the point that the area known as northern and northwestern Ontario, which has very limited television coverage, failed to catch another kind of vision on March 31.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. gentleman is paying tribute to the educational work carried on by the C.B.C. in the greater areas of Canada, and I presume he will support me in my efforts to see that this educational work is continued in the future so that the vacuum to which he has referred will be obliterated in the next election.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Is the minister aware of the intention of the C.N.R. to move the

diesel railway repair shops from Cochrane immediately? This move will leave the town of Cochrane, which is mainly dependent on the railway workers, in desperate straits.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the situation, but I will draw the hon. member's remarks to the attention of the management of Canadian National Railways and as soon as I receive a reply from them I will communicate it to the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In the last parliament he referred to proposed legislation concerning the humane slaughter of animals and obscene literature. Does he intend to introduce bills covering these matters at this session?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minisler of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, during the last parliament we gave a pretty firm commitment to reintroduce legislation dealing with the humane slaughter of animals at this session, and subject to the exigencies of the session that is still our intention.
With regard to the question of obscene literature, no commitment was given beyond saying that the matter was being studied. It is being studied and progress is being made, but I am not yet able to make a firm commitment with regard to legislation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I do not imagine that he needs notice. Is the minister able to inform the house whether the supply of money granted to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by the last parliament has been exhausted? If it has been exhausted, what is being done in the interim until further money is voted in order to ensure the continuation of the home-building program?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the fund has not quite been exhausted; there still remains a small amount. If the hon. member will refer to Votes and Proceedings for today he will
The Address-Mr. Pearson find there a resolution which will be on the order paper tomorrow providing for a further $350 million. We hope to be able to get that through the house this week.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 12, 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.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I should like, and in no mere formal way, to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Under circumstances which are at best always a test of one's nerves, they acquitted themselves in a way which I am sure will commend itself to their constituents and which, I am also sure, has impressed the house with the desire to hear them again. The fact that they come from constituencies so far apart and so very different in character, experience and history underlines not only the vastness of our country but its variety of culture and development.
Quebec-Montmorency is in the very heartland of Canada, the centre of so much of our history and our traditions. While inhabited, of course, by people who are vigorous and forward looking in their activities, it also mirrors our past. It emphasizes the continuity of our growth and reflects the forces that have given that growth stability. The Yukon is astride what is, I suppose, our last physical frontier. There, new challenges are being met and new opportunities of progress are being exploited. "Go north" is now the call to adventure and achievement, as the hon. member who seconded the address so well illustrates by his own experience.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, offer my congratulations to you. I am not going to embarrass you by repeating the things I tried to say about you yesterday before you were chosen Speaker but I have not changed my mind overnight. I should also like to offer my congratulations and good wishes to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to his supporters in the house and to his party on their decisive, if from our point of view somewhat regrettable, victory on March 31. I am afraid that for us at that time it was not a question of the ides of March but the tides of March that swept over us.
I know that the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet face many and

The Address-Mr. Pearson heavy responsibilities. We on this side, and when I say "this side" I am speaking not in a geographical but in a political sense-I do not want to embarrass my friends who, not through our choice, have joined us over here -wish them health, strength and success in all those endeavours which will advance the national interest and promote the national good. A few of us over here have learned from experience how many, how burdensome and how pressing are the problems that confront ministers every hour of every day of every week in the year, and of the sacrifices of leisure and private life they have to make in dealing with these problems. We know also, Mr. Speaker, that these problems could not be dealt with successfully by any government, however strong it might be, if it were not for a civil service second to none in the world for devotion and efficiency.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, offer congratulations to the new members who make up in unprecedented numbers the class of '58 for their success in matriculating into the faculty of practical political science. Many of them, I hope, will graduate in 1962 or 1963 and I am sure they will do so cum laude. They are entering the commons at a time when parliamentary government, based on decisions made after full, untrammelled discussion by the representatives of the people chosen in a free election, is under increasing criticism and attack in so many parts of the world.
We are prone to assume that this democratic and parliamentary system of ours is not only accepted as the best for man's progress and welfare, but is so firmly and deeply rooted in history and experience as to be unshakeable. The first assumption has been rejected by those who control the destinies of more than half the people of the world, and the latter is not historically accurate. Indeed, our form of parliamentary and democratic government is a comparatively modern growth and is far from being secure, even in those countries where it now exists.
Parliamentary institutions today are under attack from four sources. They are under attack from those who do not believe in freedom and advocate totalitarianism or autocracy of one kind or another; from those who have concluded that our parliamentary institutions are unable efficiently to meet and adapt themselves to the new problems that face us in 1958; from the indifference of the electorate to parliament and to politics, especially between elections; and finally from the occasional indifference of a few parliamentarians themselves to the best traditions and highest purpose of these institutions.
In that respect therefore, Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this house has a special responsibility and special obligations as well as special


privileges. The way we discharge them here will affect not only the administration of the government but the strength of our parliamentary and democratic institutions. Speaking for the opposition, we will try to act in a way which will show our understanding and acceptance of these responsibilities. We shall try to be guided by something more than mere partisan considerations as we approach our work. While vigorous and alert in carrying out our responsibilities to oppose, we will try to do this in a constructive way and co-operate with the government in all those endeavours which in our view further the national interest.
Like members opposite, of course, we on this side are influenced and perhaps at times oppressed by human prejudices and other emotions. We shall endeavour to prevent opposition degenerating into mere negation or criticism into mere obstruction. A well known parliamentarian in Great Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century, Mr. Tierney, claimed, and his observations have been repeated by more than one member in this house including the Prime Minister, that the duty of the opposition was to propose nothing, to oppose everything and to turn the government out.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not agree with
every section of that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree with the Prime
Minister that Mr. Tierney was only one-third right, according to the more enlightened parliamentary standards of Canada today. Perhaps the Prime Minister will permit me to quote a more weighty and experienced authority on the functions of the opposition, namely himself. He used words in Toronto on October 27, 1949, which should be a guide and inspiration to us on this side. They are all the more impressive as they come from one to whom we do not normally look for political inspiration or guidance. I quote from what he said in Toronto:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and preventing overexpenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.

The absence of a strong opposition means a one party state. A one party state means an allpowerful cabinet.
Those were very wise words uttered by the Prime Minister some years ago when he was in opposition. Well then, Mr. Speaker, it is our duty in parliament to oppose, and that will mean causing divisions of this house on occasions. We do not forget that we are united in a sincere desire to serve our country and that the influences that draw us together in that ideal of national service are much stronger than the influences that separate us into political parties. So far as the quantitative as contrasted with the constitutional position of the opposition is concerned, perhaps I might describe it in the words of Shakespeare which are so well known and which he put into the mouth of Henry V on the eve of Agincourt:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
I admit at once, Mr. Speaker, that the analogy in regard to the circumstances in which the words were uttered is not quite perfect. Henry spoke of his gallant band before a surprisingly decisive victory, while I speak of ours after a defeat of a surprisingly decisive character. This defeat, I might add, had some of the force of a nuclear explosion, the fall-out from which is not yet entirely dissipated, but nevertheless left the Liberal party with approximately 2.5 million supporters in this country.
It will be our purpose, therefore, to act here so as to add to that number whenever the opportunity presents itself. At the moment, however, I admit that we are outnumbered. Indeed, we are almost surrounded. The Conservative party, Mr. Speaker, has been long in achieving this position of unprecedented numbers which it now holds in the house. Yet I must confess that during the long, lean years they never lost their courage, their heart or their energy. Apart from the Prime Minister himself, to whose electoral activity and achievements I pay a sincere if somewhat rueful tribute, there is no one, I think, who would get and be entitled to more satisfaction out of the present situation of his party than the man who led that party with such patriotic zeal, determination, and sincere conviction during many years of opposition. I refer, of course, to the present Canadian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, my good friend Mr. George Drew.
Many of my own party colleagues, Mr. Speaker, of previous parliaments have not returned. They have fallen by the electoral wayside. We on this side shall certainly miss them. They gave good and devoted service to Canada over many years, as indeed did the members of other opposition groups who are not with us today.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
Perhaps I might make special mention of the one whose place in this house, as leader of the Liberal party, I have the honour and responsibility to try to fill, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent. We admire and respect him, and always will, as one of our great citizens; one whose contribution to the welfare of his country, made with modesty, sincerity and selflessness, has been truly magnificent. I think of the sacrifice he made in entering public life in the first place as a wartime duty, and of what he did to assist and unify the war effort in those days. I think of his. leadership in facing and helping to solve so many post-war problems and in helping to guide Canada into and through the greatest period of national development in her history. I think of the wise direction he gave to Canada's participation in international affairs. In that participation he was always, and with quiet determination, guided only by Canadian considerations. But he never forgot that the greatest Canadian consideration is peace and good relations between people, so he never allowed the proud and strong Canadianism to become a strident little Cana-dianism. His place in our affection is as secure as it will be in Canada's history.
After these preliminary observations which perhaps have been too long, Mr. Speaker, I come to the speech from the throne itself, which was to me most inadequate perhaps for its omissions and the vagueness of so much of its language. Its inadequacies of commission and its sins of omission will be dealt with in detail by my colleagues in the opposition during this debate. My own remarks concerning it will be of a more general character. To read the speech, Mr. Speaker, you would never get the impression that this country is in any economic difficulty at all, with more than, half a million men out of work. The word "recession" is not mentioned. It is a bad word, apparently, which must not be used. The causes, the nature and the extent of the unemployment problem are not referred to. Indeed in the address there is very little indication of the present position of our external trade. There is no mention even of that policy of diverting trade from the United States to the United Kingdom, an omission which I hope to repair in this speech of mine. Surely the trade mission of which we have heard so very much outside this house was worth at least a word. Was not the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) given an opportunity to make a contribution to the first draft of the speech from the throne?
Then there is the dominion-provincial conference which was to be reconvened, as we heard last November, I think it was, as soon as possible. I believe the impression was given

The Address-Mr. Pearson that it would be reconvened in January. Has it disappeared? The problems they did not deal with last November have not dis-aippeared, nor have the promises made by the Prime Minister and the government concerning them.
Then there are the very few lines covering those matters that come under the jurisdiction of my friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith). There are at the beginning of the speech the customary references to foreign relations, but they could hardly be less adequate or less informative. Four lines of a very general character indeed are devoted to our foreign relations, to the search for peace; that is less space than is given to the establishment of a harbour commission at the head of the lakes important, of course, as that matter is.
There is in the speech no reference whatever to the United Nations, to NATO which has just finished an important council meeting in Copenhagen, to the government's attitude toward the abolition of nuclear tests, or to the summit conference. There is no indication of whether, in the government's view, the dangers to peace are decreasing or increasing. Of course I do not expect the speech from the throne to go into these matters in any detail, but surely we had the right to expect some indication of awareness of the importance of these matters, some views concerning them, in a speech of such a lengthy character as the one before us.
Similarly on another matter of the most immediate and greatest importance, namely that of national defence. There we have three lines to the effect that we should maintain, in co-operation with our allies, armed forces adequate to deter any potential aggression. That is all we find. There is no indication of the necessity which has become so apparent lately of a complete re-examination of national defence policy in the light of recent developments, centred around the conquest of outer space, missile development, and particularly the possession by a potential enemy of an intercontinental ballistic missile which will soon-if it has not already done so- make our existing defence arrangements on this continent as inadequate as the Maginot line even though they may have been, when planned and first put into motion, adequate for the conditions of that time. Nor is there in this speech any suggestion that in the light of these developments which have already affected the deployment and the character of the forces of other NATO countries, there is any need for a reassessment of the nature and scope of our contribution to NATO.
It is to be hoped, Mr. Speaker,-and I feel confident that this hope will be realized-
[Mr. Pearson.)
that an opportunity will be provided in this house very shortly for discussions on external affairs and on national defence, at which time these matters can be gone into in that kind of detail which will reflect their vital importance, an importance which is not even suggested in the speech from the throne.
The international situation, however-and surely it is not possible to deny this-remains tense and dangerous. Perhaps it is no worse than it was when the House of Commons met last October, but certainly there has been no improvement significant enough to give us any cause for comfort. On the other hand, the consequences of failure to keep the peace are now even greater than they were six months ago. It is true that the western coalition has developed a powerful deterrent against aggression. It is true that that remains essential. But that simply means that peace, even of the kind which we now have, rests on power so terrible that neither side dares to use it. If we do not soon find a better basis for peace than that we cannot expect indefinitely to escape destruction.
Meanwhile the diplomatic manoeuvring goes on, the slow and devious progress to a conference at the summit. If that conference meets and tries to deal with concrete complicated problems in the atmosphere which now exists between the two sides to the cold war and without satisfactory preliminary political and diplomatic discussions, a conference of that kind is almost certain to do more harm than good.
It is fairly clear, however, that public opinion now demands some kind of summit meeting. The western powers and this government, in view of that fact, I think are well advised to press ahead with preparations. My own view, for what it may be worth, is that the best kind of meeting at this time would be a short and informal one between the heads of the two most powerful nations, namely the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., where views can be exchanged without benefit, or perhaps I should say without handicap, of an agenda and where the effort at least can be made to clear away some misunderstandings and to ease fears through a personal contact. At this moment I merely repeat what I said a moment ago, that I hope there will soon be a chance to discuss these matters in this house-these matters which are of such fundamental importance-in greater detail.
May I now say a few words on one or two aspects of our domestic problems. Two of them I think are perhaps uppermost in our minds, and those two problems are more closely connected in Canada than in perhaps

any other country in the world. I am referring to trade and unemployment. I have neither the desire nor the intention to exaggerate the seriousness of the economic recession; the facts are present for all to see, and each of us can draw his own conclusions from those facts. I well know, as I believe most members of the government know, that confidence is a vital element in the successful functioning of our complex economic system, and that such confidence can be destroyed or certainly easily weakened by irresponsible words, and even more seriously weakened by an irresponsible attitude.
In my opinion even more harmful would be a head in the sand attitude, a refusal to recognize the facts in the hope that they will go away. A realistic attitude and a realistic acceptance of the situation based on the facts as they are, not as we would like them to be, are essential as a starting point to any improvement. There is therefore no justification whatsoever in any charge or reproach of doom and gloom-mongering being thrown at those who talk about the facts. Such discussion is an essential prelude to doing something about the harsh realities of the present which, if they are not corrected, will dim the vision of the nation's future which we all share.
One thing is clear, that notwithstanding some of the optimistic adjectives used in the election campaign the recession is still with us. The economists and the politicians may debate whether and how much it is easing and how soon it will disappear; we are told that the recession has "levelled off" or, if I may use a new and somewhat discouraging expression, that it has "bottomed off". Well, even if this qualified optimism were justified, what are the steps being taken not to keep on the level but to improve the situation so that we can go up? We cannot get very much comfort in merely bumping along the bottom, even if we are not going down any further.
It seems clear to me furthermore that our difficulties have international as well as national implications, and we will certainly not surmount those difficulties without a flourishing and healthy external trade. It is therefore perhaps well to remind ourselves that trade across the border is especially important in this regard, and these are the facts which must be faced in order that our present recovery can be ensured. As a factor in recovery from the present recession, trade with the United States is exceeded in importance only by, as it is largely influenced by, the domestic economic situation inside that country. When we talk about salvation from the economic dominance of any other
The Address-Mr. Pearson country, of national control and independence -about which there is no division of opinion in this house or, I think, in this country-it is still chastening to realize that even if our policies here should be wise, vigorous and far-sighted, we cannot isolate ourselves from our neighbour's economic decisions or economic fortunes. We can and we should of course cushion ourselves in every way possible against shocks from the south, but there is no way in which we can escape the fact of these shocks and we do not need any special detecting apparatus to discover them.
We must naturally protect our interests when they are prejudiced by United States policy. We must, for instance,make it quite clear that the United States cannot expect full and complete co-operation in continental defence, which is desirable, if she treats us unfairly in her tariff and trade policies. But at the same time we must do everything we possibly and honourably can, to avoid economic conflict with the United States, which conflict would be bad for both countries and certainly disastrous for us.
I read an editorial in a local paper a few days ago which carried this headline: "Canada Must Determine her Own Economic Future". A headline of that kind merely ignores the hard fact that no country in the world today, let alone Canada, can alone determine its economic future; and the sober realization of that fact is essential to the formulation of a wise Canadian international economic policy. Somehow we must reconcile its necessity with that vigorous, vibrant and proud nationalism which I believe will remain the mainspring of our country's growth.
Having regard, therefore, to the importance of these external trade factors, let us look at the trade and employment picture. The Prime Minister more than once during the election campaign referred to external trade. He is reported, for instance, as having said in Cornwall on February 24 and again in London on March 7, and I quote from the press report:
Our exports-
He was talking about our exports to the United States.
went down and our imports increased when the Liberals were in.
Let us look at the facts. In 1936, which was the first full year of Liberal administration, our exports to the United States were $333.9 million; in 1950 they had risen to $2,050 million and in 1956, the last full year in which the Liberal administration was in office, they had increased to $2,879 million.

The Address-Mr. Pearson


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman mind quoting the text there, because that is obviously extracted from a general statement? Possibly that would clarify the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the newspaper reports.


John George Diefenbaker: Would you just read on, then?


Lester Bowles Pearson: These reports quote the Prime Minister or refer to the Prime Minister in quotations. To be entirely fair I realize that the figure for 1936 could not have been in his mind, but I think the figure for 1950 or the post-war figure might have been in his mind when he said that. I also realize that the increase in imports from the United States was even greater than our increase in exports to the United States, but the Prime Minister also said, according to the press- and that is the only source of information I have for so many of his election speeches, and it is perhaps the only source of information he has for some of mine-


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister said in Fredericton on March 24 and he said this in other places as well, so I think he will recall the statement:
In 1957, our export trade was greater than in the history of our country-
That is true.
-and that is continuing in 1958.
The facts are, and they can be ascertained from official sources, that our exports in the first quarter of 1958 as compared with the first quarter of 1957 dropped from $1,118 million to $1,092 million, a drop of $26 million; our imports dropped from $1,359 million to $1,193 million, or a drop of $166 million in the first quarter of this year. With the United States alone our exports dropped $5 million and our imports $165 million. With the United Kingdom our exports dropped by $3,500,000 and our imports increased by $2,500,000 in the first quarter of 1958.
Now it is quite true-the Prime Minister got a good deal of satisfaction out of this in some of his statements, and I do not complain about it-that our adverse balance of trade with the United States in this first quarter has been reduced by more than $150 million. Any satisfaction which can be obtained from this fact must surely be largely offset by the fact that it was not achieved by increasing or even by diverting exports, because exports to the United States have declined. It was achieved by a far greater decline in imports; and any decline in imports from the United States, any rectification of the adverse balance achieved in that way by the fact that

our decline in imports is much greater than even our decline in exports, can surely give very little satisfaction, especially if that decline in imports from the United States is not by any means paralleled by an increase from the commonwealth or from any other source. That decline in United States imports, instead of being encouraging, is a depressing feature of the trade picture because it clearly indicates that our development has been slowed down, that we no longer require as many of those capital goods as we needed in previous years in order to continue the expansion and growth which characterized this country during the years between 1945 and 1957.
A decline of this kind in United States imports and investments may give comfort to those who are so worried about United States penetration of our economy; but until that decline is offset by goods and capital from other sources, and that is not going to be easy, it will give little comfort to those who wish to keep our economy active and expanding. We should all like to exercise the greatest possible measure of control over our own national development but we do not wish, on this side of the house at least, to do so at the price of slowing it up. Therefore the keynote of our trade and development policy on this side has been-and surely this must be a wise policy for any Canadian government-expansion on the basis of the freest possible trade rather than restriction or diversion.
I should now like to say something about restriction and diversion. It seems to me that diversion of trade is neither a wise nor a beneficial principle to introduce into our foreign economic policy, though diversification in harmony with expansionist practices and principles is. To tell our best customer, for example, that we are going to do what we can to take more than $620 million dollars worth of business from her, thereby giving ammunition to those across the line who would place further obstacles in the way of imports from us, does not make sense, to us over here at least. To tell Britain that we wish to help her-and we have helped Britain since world war II-to increase her trade with Canada does make sense and is something we can all support. Our record in regard to that kind of help from 1945 to 1957 is one in which our party can take pride.
Perhaps it is just as well to recall, in view of some of the things which have been said, that after the second world war, when Liberal governments were in office, we made available to the United Kingdom by loan, credit or gift, more than two billion Canadian

dollars. In order to promote trade between our two countries we set up a continuing committee on trade and economic affairs whose work was assisted by the dollar-sterling trade council set up for that purpose; and if anyone thinks the forthcoming commonwealth economic conference in Montreal is a unique venture in commonwealth economic diplomacy I should like to point out that there were more commonwealth meetings on the prime ministerial and ministerial level in the post-war years, when we were in power, than in any previous period in the history of the commonwealth.
These included the economic conference of 1952 and seven meetings of commonwealth finance ministers. The figures indicate that in spite of difficulties-and there were great difficulties in those years-results were achieved which went far to build up and restore trade between the United Kingdom and Canada after the dislocation and destruction caused by the second world war, during those years when Britain had a hard time getting dollars, when it was comparatively easy for her to sell goods in the sterling area countries especially since they had such enormous sterling balances.
In spite of those difficulties imports from the United Kingdom rose from $189 million in 1947 to $486 million in 1956 and our exports to the United Kingdom, in spite of the difficulties I have mentioned, including the low prices obtained by agricultural producers in the United Kingdom market, rose during that period. And this was the market we were supposed to have lost completely.
Nevertheless, in spite of our success in this direction we feel our policy should be not to concentrate on expansion in any one market but in all markets, and it will not help this policy if we merely try to divert trade from one market to another. That is why we on this side of the house last autumn criticized very strongly the proposal to divert 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. We opposed that particularly when the response of the Canadian government to the United Kingdom free trade offer-the only way in which this diversion could take place in any reasonable space of time-was entirely negative.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? Is the Liberal party in favour of free trade between the United Kingdom and Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will come to that in a minute or two. I have already stated our position on that question, and I will be glad to do so again. However, not only was the attitude of the present government with regard to that offer entirely negative but it
The Address-Mr. Pearson resulted in what the London Economist called the other day the "free trade fiasco".
The Prime Minister, nine months after his first announcement on this matter, in an interview with a United States magazine, the U.S. News and World Report which I happen to read every week, says there is no such diversion policy, and that no such proposal for diversion was ever made.


John George Diefenbaker: Read the question and the answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question put to the Prime Minister which appears in this news magazine was:
Do you think Canada actually will divert 15 per cent ol its trade from the United States to Britain?
And the answer was:
At n0 time did we say that we were going to divert 15 per cent. I said, as an example, that, if 15 per cent were diverted, the result would be to bring about a reasonable deficit in our trade with the United States and, at the same time, assure us markets that are virtually non-existent today.
Well, that question and answer raised two or three questions in my mind, and I am sure the same questions were raised in a lot of other minds.
^ The first question raised in my mind was, "What did the Prime Minister say at that time?" The second question was, "What impression was created by his statement in Canada, in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America." And the third question was, "What steps, if any, were taken during the last nine months to correct this impression, if it was a wrong one, of Canadian policy?"
Let us examine the first question. According to the Canadian Press the Prime Minister stated on his return from the United Kingdom on July 7, and I quote from the Canadian Press story:
He-
The Prime Minister-
-would like to see about 15 per cent of Canadian imports from the United States diverted to Britain.
On July 23 the Ottawa Journal, an unimpeachable source, quoted the Prime Minister as saying in an interview:
I regard that objective-
Fifteen per cent diversion, of course-
-as reasonable, equitable and obtainable.
On November 22 the Prime Minister is reported by the Canadian Press as saying:
.... he-
The Prime Minister-
-has every confidence that the Canadian trade mission will achieve its objective of diverting 15 per cent of Canadian imports from the United States to Britain.

The Address-Mr. Pearson The Prime Minister on this occasion said he was sure that 15 per cent of Canadian imports could be shifted from the United States to the United Kingdom.
In answer to a reporter's question he is reported to have replied, and I quote:
I would never have enunciated such a principle last July, if I had not thought it possible.
Furthermore on Friday, October 25 last in this house, as reported at page 399 of Hansard of that date, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked the Prime Minister whether he was going to discuss with the United Kingdom Prime Minister his proposal -the word used was "proposal"-to divert Canadian purchases from one friendly country to another. Did the Prime Minister on that occasion object to the word "proposal"? Not at all. He merely replied that he would discuss all matters of mutual interest with Mr. Macmillan.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister more than once referred, and with some satisfaction I think, to his plan to divert 15 per cent of our imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. It seems to me it is perfectly clear, therefore, from the Prime Minister's own statement that the objective was not merely to increase United Kingdom exports to Canada but to divert Canadian imports from the United States to the United Kingdom. It was diversion; there is no doubt about that. Nor was there any doubt left in people's minds that this was a policy of this government, an objective to be achieved, a governmental purpose to be realized.
It was only nine months later, after the election, the Prime Minister apparently decided that his statement really had nothing to do with policy or purpose; the 15 per cent diversion was merely something that might conceivably happen in some way outside government policy and if it did that would be just fine. But that was not the impression created in the country, and I have here a good many newspaper quotations which make it quite clear beyond any doubt that the impression created in the newspapers of this country was that there was a government policy, a government proposal, a government objective to divert $620 million worth of business from the United States to the United Kingdom. Even Mr. James Duncan, who has been pretty close to the government and who I am sure has been a great help to it in these trade missions, is reported in the Globe and Mail of January 22 as having talked of the Prime Minister's 15 per cent diversion proposal.
What did my hon. friend's own colleagues in the government say about it? Well, the 
Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in this house last October 23, as reported at page 308 of Hansard, said that the policy of the government was "to seek a diversion of trade". Later on during the election campaign, on March 19 in Vancouver, as quoted in the Vancouver Sun of that date the hon. gentleman went a little further and referred to the government's "decision". That is the word he is quoted as using. He referred to the government's decision to shift 15 per cent of Canadian trade to the United Kingdom from the United States and he even added, and these were really quite astonishing words, that the Americans welcomed this loss of $620 million worth of business; they would realize it was for everybody's good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not air
accurate report of anything I said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will send the newspaper
story to my hon. friend. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) on his arrival in London with the Canadian trade mission is quoted as stating its purpose to be a diversion of $620 million worth of purchases from the United States to the United Kingdom. He called this the Prime Minister's goal and described it as a "thoroughly practical" one.


Mr. Churchill:: What are you quoting from?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am quoting from newspapers and I would be very glad to send these clippings to my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend doubts the accuracy of these reports he should have denied them when they appeared.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I never even heard about them until now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When we were debating this matter in the House of Commons last autumn my hon. friend was in his place and he intervened in the debate. Why did he not at that time characterize our description of this policy as inaccurate and unfair?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have all the way through. I have been doing that for months, and you know what the results have been.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; at that time there was not a word from any hon. member opposite as to the inaccuracy of our description of this 15 per cent diversion as a governmental policy, a governmental proposal and a governmental objective. Indeed, members of the government accepted that statement and took all the credit they could out of it during the election campaign.
What was the impression left in the United Kingdom? I will just quote from the London

Times, which on July 8 referred to the Prime Minister as saying that 15 per cent diversion was a "planned objective" and again, on November 22, as a "project" of the Prime Minister; and later, on April 21, 1958, it complained that the Prime Minister's statement to the U.S. News and World Report had caused "some perplexity here." As late as April 28 of this year Sir David Eccles called the diversion idea a "proposal", which it now seems to be in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite.
There was also no doubt in the United States as to the meaning of what had been said. It was interpreted by our neighbours across the border as a government proposal, as government policy and as a government objective to do what it could to switch 15 per cent of our imports from our neighbour to the south to our mother country, and that a Canadian mission was sent to the United Kingdom at government expense for that purpose. Indeed, what other interpretation was possible in the light of all that evidence? But one is prompted to ask, why this retreat from that interpretation now? Why this attempt to slip out of this policy by diversion?


Mr. Garland:: The election is over.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, the election is over and perhaps that may have something to do with it. But perhaps also the government has learned something about the facts and requirements of international economic policy.
There is another aspect of United Kingdom-Canadian trade policy that I would like to mention again, namely the offer of a free trade agreement made to the government by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last summer and on which our policy has already been stated more than once before the election, during the election and after the election. The Liberal party has taken a stand with regard to this question.


Howard Charles Green: And no one has been able to determine what your stand is. What is your stand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our stand is that this proposal should have been given at once full and sympathetic consideration by the government on the highest political level. It certainly should have been given that consideration by a government which had just expressed its intention to switch $620 million worth of business from the United States to the United Kingdom.


Howard Charles Green: Are you for it or against it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Watch the hon. gentleman divert to another subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed to talk about this. We have already stated that immediately upon receipt of this
The Address-Mr. Pearson offer we would have responded at once to the request of the United Kingdom to set up a political meeting at the highest level so that immediate, careful and sympathetic consideration could have been given to this policy. Well, what did my hon. friends opposite do?


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about your
attitude?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They did not even talk about it. There was an embarrassed silence on the part of a government which has not been silent in many other respects, especially recently. There has not been one word from any representative of the government that I have been able to detect in regard to this particular offer, and perhaps we should remember that the president of the board of trade has within the last few weeks said in Montreal, on his way to Venezuela, I think, that this offer will be renewed at the forthcoming commonwealth conference.
I ask the Prime Minister again, what will be the attitude of the government to that offer which has been renewed within the last few weeks? While this party, as I have already said, has over many years been concerned with developing trade with Britain, we have also been even more concerned with developing-


Howard Charles Green: Trade with the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -international trade generally on the widest possible multilateral basis, with the freest possible exchange of goods and services, with the removal of quotas and controls and restrictions, with the return to convertibility between the dollar and pound. It must give any Canadian some cause for anxiety at this time to realize that restrictionist tendencies have begun to appear again on the international trading scene. That is true not only in the United States but also in Europe in spite of the movement there toward a common market and a free trade area. Surely there is real cause for anxiety on the part of any Canadian in that development.
There can be no more important policy for Canada, no more important step to the realization of our great destiny, than to defeat these restrictionist tendencies at home and abroad, to work for the greatest and freest possible system of trade and payments, not merely on a bilateral but on a wider and, indeed, particularly on an Atlantic basis. That may seem to be a farfetched, unrealizable vision, one impossible to achieve, but I suggest that its achievement is becoming more and more essential both for political and economic reasons. Either the Atlantic community, the Atlantic association goes

The Address-Mr. Pearson forward to closer economic and political unity or it will lapse back into separate and competing national units or perhaps into two groups to the harm and disadvantage of the whole free world.
Indeed, the world is too small and too precarious a place for that kind of backsliding, especially in the face of a mounting soviet offensive which is as economic as it is political if, in fact, you can distinguish the two things. In that offensive soviet Russia has the advantage of central direction and control of a cohesive, aggressive, unified foreign economic policy, concerned less with financial than political considerations, and against that the Atlantic powers are groping without much success for a unity which is still largely military in character and is practically nonexistent economically.
I know, as my hon. friends opposite know, that there are moves in the other direction, important and encouraging moves in Europe. But will their end result merely be the replacement of competing national units by two competing groups, one on each side of the Atlantic? Is it to be western Europe versus the United States of America in the field of trade and economics?
The British know the significance of these European developments. They know that they cannot stand aloof from them and they are working out their own association with the European free trade market. But if the United Kingdom moves across the channel how will that affect Canada and the rest of the commonwealth? Can we too make satisfactory arrangements with a European free trade area and help to bring about freer trade in the whole Atlantic area, including the United States of America? If not, what is the alternative for us? Isolation, which would be impossible, or North American continen-talism, which would be bad.
Surely this is a vital problem for Canada and one which demands public leadership and action by us in the search for a solution. Lack of Canadian vision here, lack of energy and drive in working for the wider Atlantic economic area may indeed throw us into that complete economic dependence on the United States which frightens, and rightly, hon. members opposite and hon. members over here. An expansionist trade policy, with arrangements made between the commonwealth, the United States of America and Europe for closer integration in a larger Atlantic system surely is the essential objective to be sought by this country in its international economic policy. Surely that is the result which we must do our best to achieve or we will never be able to realize the vision nearer home of Canada's greatness.

I have no illusions about the difficulties and the obstacles in the way, especially across the border in the United States of America and especially in a time of economic recession when restrictionist interests and impulses are given new opportunities, but I do suggest that if we do not make progress in spite of these difficulties in this field of Atlantic cooperation we will have cause to regret the day and the whole Atlantic system may weaken and fall apart. I repeat that this is going to be more difficult now in a period of economic recession and one convincing proof that we are still in that recession is unemployment, the last matter with which I am going to deal.
I am only going to touch on unemployment. We were told categorically and emphatically in February and March of this year during the election campaign that unemployment had passed the peak. That was wrong. We were also told that it had not been in any event as severe in its impact, having regard to the total labour force, as it was in 1955. That was not correct.
As recently as April 21 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said that "unemployment is declining at a gratifying and accelerating pace." His timing for that statement was singularly unfortunate because the official figures, those lower bureau of statistics figures which my hon. friends opposite would never accept when they were in opposition, came out just after my hon. friend spoke and they showed that as of March 22 ten per cent of the working force of this country, or 590,000 persons, were jobless, an increase of 35,000 over February.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Get your dates straight. I was speaking of the situation at the date I spoke in April. My friend is talking about a different period away back before April.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend had some information when he spoke which was not available to the rest of us perhaps he should not have used it in a public speech of that kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The information which I used was available to anybody, the figures on unemployment registrations, which are what I was speaking about, as the hon. member can see if he will read the speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend says that he was talking about registrations at the unemployment insurance offices. I am talking about the bureau of statistics figures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why don't you read the speech?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend used those figures he has had quite a conversion because when he was in opposition and talked about unemployment he would have nothing to do with those figures as being a grossly exaggerated statement of the unemployment problem.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read the speech and get it straight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whatever figures my hon. friend took, he said that unemployment was decreasing at a satisfactory and accelerating pace at that time in April and he took great satisfaction from it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is true.


Mr.. Pearson:: It will be very surprising and, indeed, it will be very disappointing if there has not been a substantial decline in unemployment since those figures were issued, but compared with the figures of last year at this time surely my hon. friend is not going to suggest that the unemployment situation in this country is not serious, which I suspect, when there are over half a million unemployed on the basis of the last calculations, the dominion bureau of statistics figures. If that does not constitute serious unemployment in this country, what does?
In this connection, we were told during the election campaign that $1,185 million would be spent on public works in this calendar year to give emergency employment. We were told also that $280 million of this money would be spent during the first quarter of this year. The people were certainly led to believe that this would be emergency action, and in addition to the normal public works expenditures.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, they were given that idea. Possibly if my hon. friend were to read the statements made during the election, now that the heat of battle has cooled, he would get the impression that the people of the country got, that this was an emergency unemployment program and that $280 million would be spent for emergency employment in the first quarter. This quarter is complete and therefore we shall expect to learn very soon about the details of that special expenditure and what it did to prevent unemployment from increasing even more than it has increased.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You had better get your facts straight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is very difficult indeed to get one's facts straight when one has to base them on statements made in the press by my hon. friend opposite.
The Address-Mr. Pearson
According to the classical theory of economics, a recession with mounting unemployment should mean lower costs and prices. Indeed it has been argued by persons who are far from being classical economists that at the first sign of a recession monetary action through the easing of credit should be taken to halt the decline on the assumption that inflationary pressures are over or at least less dangerous. Well, things are not working out that way in Canada, as I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Finance knows. In spite of falling employment and a slackening of economic development the cost of living in this country, as determined by the consumer price index, has risen from 120.9 in April, 1957 to 125.9, a new high, in April of 1958. Inflation, therefore, remains a menace in the midst of recession; that is the dilemma which faces the government today. It must deal simultaneously with inflation and recession. We shall no doubt hear soon from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Finance as to how they propose to resolve this dilemma.
The problem is all the more complicated because of growing rigidity in our economic structure preventing market forces from operating, even in a period of recession, in a way that should reduce cost and prices. The fact is that great and organized groups of many kinds and characters inside our society have acquired enough collective power to insulate themselves, if only partially, from the effect of certain economic forces which are harmful to them. At least, they have enough power to make the attempt. When that power is used responsibly, as it has been and can be used, it can remove injustices and unfairness. If it is used irresponsibly or with regard only to special interests, we get into difficulty nationally. Troubles that may have arisen from other causes, such as the decline of external trade, become even ifiore serious.
The situation today then imposes on every one of us in this house and every one of us in this country the duty and necessity of acting with responsibility, with restraint and always with primary consideration for the public interest. If we do not in the discharge of our affairs show these qualities and follow these principles we will not overcome the problems that face us. The present situation also imposes on the government the necessity for specially determined and effective efforts to increase and maintain employment at home, not only by sound fiscal and economic policies but also by the promotion of expansionist not diver-sionist policies of external trade. It is true that where there is no vision the people
32	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker perish. But for Canada, where there is diminishing trade, the vision also dims. The policy of this government, enunciated in the speech from the throne, does scant justice to the importance of this particular consideration.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier):
That the following words be added to the address:
"We respectfully represent to Your Excellency that a high level of employment and prosperity in Canada requires a high and expanding level of international trade; and that this will be promoted more effectively by vigorous measures for the expansion of trade with all countries than by efforts to divert from one country to another."


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to relive the election campaign in any way, but for a moment sir, you will allow me to say that when I heard applause coming from the other side of the house I forgot that there had been recent events. I must say I congratulate my friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), upon the manner of his presentation. I shall deal with those matters that were not dealt with recently because, after all, I cannot be more in agreement with my hon. friend than when he said that when there is no vision the people perish. Mr. Speaker, that has equal application to all of us, to political parties as well as to nations.
One of the great and abiding characteristics of our system of government is that spirit which was exhibited here this afternoon by my hon. friend. I say this in all sincerity. It is what distinguishes us from those who do not understand our parliamentary system of government. It was fine and generous, and if I may say so, revealed a delightful touch of that attitude of sportsmanship which is characteristic of our system and .not foreign to him.
I am not going to become involved in acrimonious discussion today. I am going to refer to what we have undertaken to do. My hon. friend I am sure will allow me to say this. I agree that the speech from the throne that was read yesterday by Her Majesty's representative was different from those we used to hear read in the past. In this speech we did not have His Excellency deal with generalities. We had His Excellency ask parliament to direct its attention to those things which we believe are necessary and of immediate importance for the benefit of the people of Canada.
I join with my hon. friend in the words of congratulations he uttered to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) who are both young men. Both revealed unusual ability and capacity. Both, as he said,


have youth and though separated by many thousands of miles, have that common Cana-dianism that brings us together. I say that the strength of parliament depends on a continuing infusion of new and able men and women representative of the basic races and the many other racial origins of this country.
I want also to say a word of congratulation to you, Mr. Speaker, and more so to parliament in having you to preside over parliament during the next several years. I wish also to say a word regarding the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) whose father was a distinguished member of this house many years ago. His father today is one of the chief justices in the province of Quebec but in 1914 became Deputy Speaker of this house occupying the same position that his son will occupy in this parliament. That is one of the matters to which my hon. friend referred, that continuity, that attitude of Canadians. Regardless of the part of Canada from which they come-whether from Yukon or from the province of Quebec as do the mover and the seconder or from other parts of Canada- there is that spirit of unity and common dedication and, I might also say, vision of the kind of Canada that we hope to achieve in this chamber by our activities and our actions in the days ahead.
I do not intend to speak at great length. I am going to refer to some of the statements made by my hon. friend. Every opportunity will be given to the ministers of the particular departments to which reference has been made to deal with the problems peculiar to their respective departments. In view of the circumstances that have already been outlined here this afternoon, however, our job is to get down to work immediately. I do not intend to traverse the fields of matters peculiarly the responsibility of individual ministers. They will be placed before this house during the days ahead. However, I must say that when my hon. friend referred to some of the suggestions for the betterment of parliament I recalled the speech in question. I must say that was one of the finer parts of his speech as he quoted the expression of my views at that time. With the warmest of good feeling I suggest that had those who at one time sat over here read that speech in 1949 and followed it some of the changes that have to be made now in order to make parliament effective would not have been necessary. After all, the supremacy of the parliamentary system over all others demands as its cornerstone intelligent discussion and criticism. I say to my hon. friend that I liked his attitude this afternoon in moving immediately an amendment of nonconfidence. That action indeed was in keeping

with the responsibility of an opposition and is of primary importance to the maintenance of our parliamentary system. While he spoke I sent out for this speech and I am going to refer to one or two matters in it. I said this, and this is the particular quotation that he used:
If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions ... It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse ... it asks questions and elicits information ... It must scrutinize every action by the government . , .
Parliament is a place where in full discussion freedom is preserved, where one side advances arguments and the other examines them and where decisions are arrived at after passing through the crucible of public discussion.
Then he quoted also what the absence of a strong opposition results in and then I added these words which he did not quote:
An opposition does not properly perform its functions unless it examines all expenditures made with a searching eye and with fearless criticism, yet members of the House of Commons have no proper facilities to enable the full examination of the public accounts and estimates. Debates on estimates are futile. An expenditure of millions of dollars that are totally unjustified could conceivably be passed without much danger of detection . . I believe that the public accounts committee should be modelled after the British committee.
Then I go on to explain as follows:
Under our practice and it has been continued for several decades, the public accounts committee is under the chairmanship of a supporter of the government as are the majority of the committee and, in consequence, a critical examination of wasteful expenditure is not encouraged.
If parliament is to be made as effective an instrument in the modern world as it should be the procedure of parliament should be modernized and brought up to date.
Then finally at the end I used these words:
Parliament must continue to be the custodian of freedom. To that end it must constantly change its procedure to meet the changing needs of a modern world but must be changeless in its concept and tradition. Parliament will only remain the guardian of freedom and our free institution so long as His Majesty's loyal opposition is fully responsible and effective in the discharge of its functions.
Mr. Speaker, that was in 1949 when we were in opposition. Now in 1958, having the first opportunity to carry out the criticism of an earlier day, in the first speech from the throne we make provision to assure that there shall be that full examination without which parliament cannot discharge its responsibilities.
I am not today going to be drawn into any political arguments of a partisan nature, but may I say that my own experience through
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker the years has been that there were changes which should be made. We advocated those changes over and over again, when those who now sit opposite were sitting on this side of the house; we advocated them throughout the sessions, the latest example being in 1957 when we were still in opposition in this chamber. We brought this question before the house in order to make the committees of parliament effective institutions and to enable private members to take advantage of opportunities to discharge their service which otherwise might be denied them.
1 will not go back further than 1956. On February 23 of that year my hon. friend who is now the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) moved an amendment to the amendment moved by the then prime minister which was to the effect that a select committee be designated to consider such of the estimates as may be referred to it and to report its findings and recommendations to the house from time to time. The attitude we took at that time was that this was insufficient and an amendment was accordingly made by the present Minister of Justice adding these words:
-and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
Where were those who today read the speech I made in 1949? There was no consideration at all given to this matter and a committee was set up without power to call persons and papers, an emasculated committee and one that could not discharge the duties which ordinarily would be its responsibility. On February 26, 1957, which was the last occasion to which I will refer, the then prime minister, the Right Hon.' Mr. St. Laurent, moved that a committee consider the estimates and so on, and again the same stand was taken on the part of the members of this party, the result once more being the result of other days.
One of the major problems of government in the British traditions, as I have found them, is how opportunities should be provided for private members to make their contributions in the house. I care not what parliament there may be, members coming to the house for the first time with new ideas will find, unless work is made available to them, that they are confronted with a sense of frustration which is one of the most detrimental and enervating outcomes of the inability to do something effective.
I say to new members, and there are many in this house, that one of the first requisites, indeed the major requisite, to the proper discharge of parliamentary responsibility is that there shall be on the part of
HOUSE OF <
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker each member a more than rudimentary knowledge of the rules of the house. The second requisite is the opportunity to work. Here we have many new members in this House of Commons and we have believed throughout the years that something should be done to provide the opportunity to those who are new in this field of endeavour to make their individual contributions. For this reason we intend to place before the house the setting up of committees so that more effective work can be done. These committees, of course, will not be policy-making committees for such a course would infringe upon the basic responsibility for policy on the part of the government.
In the past the effectiveness of committees has been nullified because on all occasions the government of those days denied to committees the power, as I said a moment ago, to send for persons and papers. We are going to welcome the co-operation of the opposition in the discharge of their responsibilities in these committees in that those things which are not right, if such things exist, will be brought to the light of day.
We intend to set up a committee on estimates and if this committee performs its duties the membership of this committee will have endless hours and days of toilsome effort.
What about the committee on public accounts? I have been here since 1940 and whenever that committee was convened it was impossible to bring up any matter excepting those matters desired by the majority.
I am now asking that this committee be made effective and I doubt whether it would have been thought that action of this kind would be taken so early in this first session of parliament. I want to see that an effective committee is formed, not just a body set up for decorative purposes. We intend in so far as that committee is concerned to propose that a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition be chairman of that committee in order to ensure its effectiveness. 1 would urge some reference to that by my hon. friend.
There are of course other committees. Over the years, for example, the veterans of this country have been asking for a committee on veterans' affairs. There have been some select committees throughout the sessions but we intend to meet this situation by setting up a standing committee on veterans' affairs so that veterans' legislation introduced during this session will be available for full examination. Today my hon. friend the Minister of Finance referred to governor general's warrants and there was some reference made to a change of attitude on the part of this government. In the last day of the last session

an examination was said to have been refused in order to allow the matter to be dealt with. I was not in the house on that day until 5.45 p.m., but I read Hansard.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The house was not in existence when you came in on that occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: The statement of my hon. friend indicates that he has not read or, having read, has not appreciated.
We intend to set up this committee; we intend to have an examination of the expenditures made under governor general's warrants.


An hon. Member:: This is new.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of amount. There were governor general's warrants issued and passed and my reading of the record does not indicate that the stand we are going to take whereby the expenditures were made available to a committee of the house for complete examination was taken in the past.


Mr. Pickersgill:: They were made available to the whole house.


John George Diefenbaker: There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the committee on estimates. Mention has been made of defence and expenditures in that connection. The committee on estimates when set up will have an opportunity to examine the expenditures placed before it and will be in a position to determine by such examination, in a most meticulous manner, the basis for such expenditures and the general nature thereof.
If my hon. friends wish to find information on the committee system and the way in which it operates within the British parliamentary system, which after all is the basis on which we work, I ask them to read the latest volume of Beauchesne at pages 210 and 211 wherein are set forth in detail the committees which are set up in the House of Commons, the effectiveness of the system in the United Kingdom and also the nature of the United Kingdom procedure in this regard. In the United Kingdom, the motion is that a select committee be appointed to examine such of the estimates presented to this house as may seem fit to the committee, and to suggest the form, and so on, after which the number of members and other details are given; committees to report from time to time, to have power to have evidence taken by their sub-committees and so forth.
The public accounts committee, as mentioned on page 212, is designed in the United Kingdom to guarantee financial regularity and exercises great influence over the departments, though it possesses no direct power

other than the power to call for documents and to require witnesses to attend. Its power is indirect and lies mainly in the potential results of its report. Actually its power lies in the publicity which it is able to give to the questions it investigates and in the moral effect on the departments of its criticisms.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the Prime Minister permit a question before he leaves this point? Is it his intention in the setting up of these committees to follow the British system in regard to procedure, power and reports?


John George Diefenbaker: The setting up of these committees will be in keeping with the British tradition and on the basis of the terms which are set out in the speech from the throne.
In addition, I would remind the hon. gentleman that when an opportunity was sought on an earlier occasion to empower the production of papers or things he was among those who voted against it. I suggest that, in the light of the expereince when he was on this side of the house that he now realizes how beneficial it would have been if the government of his day had had the type of examination for which we in the then opposition were asking. We intend as far as possible to bring about a more effective House of Commons, bringing it up to date in so far as its procedure is concerned by giving an opportunity to many private members who would not otherwise have that opportunity to learn of the operations of the departments, so that they may be in a position, through examination, to make suggestions and recommendations.
Finally, I wish to say a word on another matter with which I will deal at greater length on another occasion. During the last session a motion was made with respect to the subject of closure. During this session full consideration will be given to this matter to the end that as a result of the changes which will be brought about, parliament will be made more effective, the House of Commons made, indeed, representative of the people, and-I underline this-the opposition given every opportunity for the fullest discussion without there being held against it the detrimental results which flow from the exercise of stringent authority over debate within the House of Commons. In other words, what we are trying to do is to restore something of the supremacy of parliament, to make it possible for this institution to discharge to the greatest degree possible the vast tasks which face it-great tasks, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said- which have a tremendous effect on the future of our country, as they have on the time of
57071-3-3J	*
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker those whose responsibility it is to discharge them. I think that by doing this we will make parliament more effective.
I have at all times been opposed to the broadcast of the proceedings of parliament, and I am unchanged in this opinion, but I think the course which was followed last fall on the occasion of Her Majesty's visit of having the Canadian people see the processes of democracy up to the time when debate actually begins has been one of the reasons why during the recent election campaign there was such tremendous public interest in the discussion of public affairs and such knowledge on the part of Canadians as to the operative nature of parliament and something of its traditions and rights. I am not here to deal with this matter in particular, but last evening I saw the television review of the opening of parliament and I thought it was outstandingly well done. There were some changes that might have been made in the light of experience, but in providing this educative opportunity for Canadians as a whole the C.B.C. did a worthy job.
Having done something to restore parliament in the measures which we have in mind, the next step has to do with assuring freedom within the legislative competence of parliament. Over the years I have belonged among those who have believed that in our country -which is the only country with a federal system of government that has not enacted a bill of rights-we, in so far as the jurisdiction of the federal parliament is concerned, should place on the statute books a declaration of our fundamental freedoms. As a matter of fact we are one of the few nations which have not done anything to implement the declaration of human rights as passed by the United Nations. We realize all the difficulties in connection with this matter but I would point out that we are one of the few nations accepting the United Nations and our world responsibility which have failed to do anything in the House of Commons and within the competence of parliament to implement any of the terms of that international declaration.
In years past I introduced motions in this regard. My own understanding of a bill of rights is based on the fact that when we bring it into effect it will redefine the landmarks of liberty; it will give positive evidence that when Canada accepted the universal declaration of human rights her acceptance was a dedication of the Canadian people. And above all it will place Canadians in a position whereby their rights will be clearly defined in so far as the national field is concerned, and there will be an assurance within the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker constitutional limitations of this country that discrimination of any kind will not be condoned.
I am one who believes that internationally today one of the great responsibilities of the free world is to assure that each of the nations within the free world shall so act that nations outside the free world will not be able to say that in any way is discrimination practised by those free nations. As soon as possible we hope to introduce this bill of rights within the constitutional powers of the federal government, thereby making the most material advance in our country in the maintenance and preservation of freedom which has been made for many years.
My hon. friend says that the international situation is such that there should have been reference to it at great length in the speech from the throne. I am in disagreement with him on that point. The speech from the throne is presumed to be the bill of fare or menu of parliament and mere fatuous declarations regarding idealistic things, unless coupled with actual legislative changes, are meaningless in that context and that is why there was no reference to the international situation in the speech from the throne.
I am acquainted with the views of my hon. friend in international affairs and I am going to refer to them a little later on. During the election campaign the hon. gentleman made a variety of statements on this subject which I think can be dealt with in a general discussion at a proper date to be determined at the convenience of the house when, in setting up a committee to which the estimates of the Department of External Affairs may be referred, an opportunity will be provided for a discussion of international affairs. I am eager to hear that discussion because it is by this means that we are able to secure a reasonable degree of unanimity in our international affairs.
I agree with my hon. friend that the responsibility of leaders everywhere in the free world is not to be inflexible but rather to show a spirit of flexibility but without appeasement to bring about those things that are necessary to preserve peace, for none of us is unaware of the fact that the grim alternative will be organized suicide.
While my hon. friend says there has not been any change within recent months my view is that the period of uncertainty which followed the launching of sputnik I and II and resulted in the December meeting of NATO in Paris has given way to a sense of greater assurance on the part of the west. The free world has reiterated its stand that NATO is not aggressive and I believe there

has been an improved situation in so far as the initiative is concerned in recent weeks. This is partly attributable to the recent behaviour of the soviet government whose attitude toward a summit conference has been considerably less accommodating than we might have expected of a few months ago, but I would need greater argument than the mere say so of the hon. Leader of the Opposition in order to agree with him that a summit conference should be constituted of only two powers. We believe that the United Kingdom and the commonwealth have the right to representation in any such discussion. We in Canada as a member of that commonwealth have a right to the expression of our views by our own selves rather than through a representative of the United States, and that is no criticism of the United States.
The diplomatic position of the west has been strengthened by the reluctance of the soviet authorities to join with other nations concerned in technical studies designed to eliminate the possibility of a surprise attack across the Arctic areas. There have also been signs in the last few days of the renewed difficulties that the U.S.S.R. is sustaining as a result of its external relations, particularly with Yugoslavia. I think the coalition of western powers as a result of the meeting in December and again in the last few days in the meeting in Copenhagen has emerged with a stronger sense of direction and purpose from what was admittedly a difficult time and that the examination of western policy that has taken place has brought about a unity that had been greatly weakened in the fall of 1957.
Ever since the birth of NATO it has been a Canadian objective to make this organization into more than just a military coalition. While it is reasonable prudence to prepare to meet a possible military threat, the economic and political dangers to western institutions and ways of life are just as urgent and much more difficult to combat. Because of our realization that the contest between the soviet and western systems has already been joined on political and economic grounds, all of us will be pleased with the increased willingness shown on the part of the NATO partners at these recent meetings to consider co-operation in the economic sphere.
My hon. friend says that is something we should effect. I would point out that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) has stressed that over and over again and the Leader of the Opposition took a similar stand in the days when he occupied that position but in the past there has not existed that co-operative spirit that would

bring into existence a realization that economic co-operation must be achieved.
There is a new spirit of co-operation. It is significant and a mark of the degree of confidence which exists among the member nations that representatives of three NATO countries, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, are at this moment acting as spokesmen for the alliance in the conduct of preparatory talks with the soviet government. As to the prospects of a meeting at the summit I do not think it can be said that the path is clearer or the gradient any less steep as a result of the preparatory talks that have taken place. On the other hand real progress depends on careful detailed preparation and that is the stage through which we are now slowly moving toward, I hope, an eventual decision.
As far as the west is concerned, I am in agreement with my hon. friend that we should take every opportunity to probe new openings. Our philosophy, as we affirmed after the NATO meeting in Copenhagen, is a belief in the principle of negotiation and a desire to put that principle into practice. But you cannot negotiate and you cannot achieve successful negotiations unless you discover something of mutual advantage between the negotiating parties and that is very difficult having regard to the negotiations that have been taking place over the years.
On May 9 on behalf of our country I sent a letter to Mr. Khrushchev in which I said that I was disturbed and disappointed-and I repeat that in this house-by the attitude of the Soviet Union in recent debates in the security council and particularly in the imposition of that veto by the U.S.S.R. in reference to the United States proposal which indipates very strongly that the hopes of mankind are not to be materially enhanced by the recent stand in that direction by the U.S.S.R. I think Canada has taken a very advanced stand in this regard. The U.S.S.R. contends that the northern Arctic areas are being used for aggressive purposes potentially as against the Soviet union.
We do not want to operate on a unilateral basis but if the U.S.S.R. does not wish to accept the reasonable proposition offered by the United States and the other free world nations of a large area being available to examination, we in Canada, having sovereignty over large areas of the Arctic, have gone as far as to indicate that if the U.S.S.R. should be similarly minded we would render available for ground or aerial examination and inspection the areas of northern Canada. If the U.S.S.R. had any foundation for its contention that the United States was acting
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker aggressively in the north, I think it would have accepted immediately any offer of such examination, particularly if its own areas are free from activities of an aggressive nature.
We can deal with these matters at greater length when another debate takes place. In the meantime there is one reference I wish to make. Today the Minister of Finance tabled the estimates. There is an item to be found on page 63 and amplified on page 447 that I feel deserves reference at this time. It is an item of $150,000 involving preparatory work not within the fields of particular departments on the subject of emergency defence measures. My hon. friend knows, of course, that during the days when he occupied the position of secretary of state for external affairs there was activity in this direction. He knows that consideration was being given to the necessary measures that would have to be taken in order to carry on government in this country in the event that war should occur and to look after the special needs of the people as well as the direction of the armed forces. Such work is an essential complement to that of our defence services in maintaining a state of readiness as a part of the policy of deterrent strength to resist any possible aggression.
During the days that he occupied that office the preparatory work went no farther than certain advance thinking and paper work. It has now been considered necessary to make further provision. If a major war should occur this continent would likely be under heavy attack. The war will reach maximum intensity almost immediately and certainly in the civilian field as in the military we shall not have time to make our preparations then, and I want to emphasize this. While the previous government made plans, the time has now come when the various departments of government operating in this connection must proceed to act, not, I want to emphasize, because there is any increased danger of war but simply because of the fact that questions will be asked as to why it is necessary to expend that amount of money on the item in question.
Again I reiterate that we are not taking this action because we feel war is any more likely than it has been in recent years, but as a result of these conditions it is necessary to expand our work in the preparation of civilian war measures. As my hon. friend knows, much of this has gone on in the various departments and agencies of government as part of their regular duties. The staff of the privy council office has in the past and since this government came into power been responsible for co-ordinating this work and
38	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. DiefenbaJcer seeing that departments did not permit other more urgent and more important business to cause this to be overlooked.
As I said a moment ago, this work has now reached the stage where I believe it is desirable that parliament should be informed of it and asked to approve of an appropriation as set forth in the estimates. When the estimates are discussed, fuller particulars can be given in this connection but within the limitations which security permits and demands.
I wish again to re-emphasize that the inclusion of a vote for this purpose does not in any way mean that war is more likely than before. But, as my hon. friend said, the tremendous changes that have taken place by way of technological advances in the last year, the launching of sputnik, the launching of intercontinental ballistic missiles and the like, may indeed have rendered that master plan of radar lines built during the period that my hon. friend was a minister not as effective as was the anticipation of those who made the plan.
Occupying as we do one of the most strategic positions in the world between the U.S.S.R. and the United States we must make every provision against those things which we believe to be improbable and which we hope will never come to pass: at the same time they cannot be left to the chance of the exigencies of the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will this mean the transfer of like ministerial responsibilities from present hands?


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to go any further at this time. I know that my hon. friend, with his wide experience in this field, will realize why I do not want to go further at this time.
I come now to some of the particular matters referred to by my hon. friend. He said that the speech from the throne was inadequate in that it did not refer to certain matters including international matters and the like and what he called the economic recession. It is interesting to find that that expression never passed the lips of my hon. friend or those associated with him when they sat over here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did not have one.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to go back over the history but this is one thing on which my hon. friends are somewhat vulnerable. As I said at the beginning, I am not going to relive the days of the election campaign, but I have a book too of the speeches of my hon. friend. It is a tremendous volume.


Murdo William Martin: Good speeches.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend did not participate. He spoke only seldom and his speeches were not always reported. The Leader of the Opposition did speak. He dealt today with certain questions. He dealt with trade and he built up a great picture. One could almost interpret from his words that deficit trading with the United States is beneficial to Canada. He says the solution of the problem is expansion of trade rather than diversion. I ask him this question. When did he first arrive at that formula, because it was when he and his party were in power that the deficit with the United States kept rising and rising to a position of $1,300 million.
I am not going to be persuaded to get into political considerations today. My hon. friend had various advisers, at least so the press reported. Oh, my hon. friend did not have any advisers? Mr. Speaker, that takes a great load of responsibility off some shoulders. One of those mentioned in this connection, who is a very great Canadian and who was here in Ottawa during the month of December, is Bruce Hutchison, a very learned editor from Victoria and a great Canadian writer. In a recent issue of Harper's magazine- it is a very recent one because he starts off by saying:
For Americans, the results of Canada's recent elections are more ominous than most of them yet realize.
This illustrates how recent it is. Then, he goes on to discuss the question of trade and he says this:
Canada is the United States' largest foreign market. Unlike some other markets, it pays in hard cash. It has never borrowed a nickel from the American government. The Canadian deficit is insupportable for any length of time-the equivalent of an unthinkable American deficit of over $10 billions in a single market.
Well, he is not a prejudiced witness. He says that deficit is unthinkable. My hon. friend says it is laudable, even beneficial. Again, I put on the brakes, because I am not going to get into a political argument. I will give you some of the figures in that connection merely for the purpose of keeping the record clear, not for the purpose of indulging in controversy. He said something today that struck me as a very unusual statement from the Leader of the Opposition because all these deficits were piled up, Canadian exports to the United States were going down and imports were going up creating a deficit of $1,300 million as compared to $500 million the year before, under the former administration. If I were in a controversal mood, I would ask what did he do about it.
They used to say that we must not take our stand because it will annoy. Today, my hon.

friend had the best of two worlds. He said, do not stand up for your rights in Canada because you are going to arouse groups in the United States. Then, on the other hand, he wanted both sides, and he said we should let the United States know that our defence arrangements cannot be continued in their present form without some realization that economic changes must be made. We never made threats like that, but we let the United States know that the situation was such that some action should be taken. Members of Congress were sent here, and I simply ask my hon. friends who are opposite to read the recommendations they handed to Congress. Almost everything that has been said is to be found within the confines of that examination that was made.
My hon. friend says, what have we done in connection with unemployment. He has said that unemployment depends on trade, so I shall deal with those two things for a moment. What have we done? Well, Mr. Speaker, we have acted. The last government knew of the situation; they realized the facts and yet they told us all was well. We came into power, and we have acted. I am going to show a few of the things we have done.
After all the committee on economic development in the United States says that four things have to be done to meet the recession which today has assumed great proportions in the United States. Four courses should be adopted. The first is that there should be a measure of reliance on monetary policy. It points out that businesses and governments tend to spend more if they have easier access to credit. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance faced up to this issue and credit restrictions and tight money were loosened. Then, if my hon. friend says that is not a fact, let me point out this. The figures available two weeks ago show that the amount of money in circulation as compared with the corresponding week a year ago was up 7.5 per cent, while the increase in the United States is only .3 per cent.
My hon. friend says that he does not want to be designated as belonging to that corps of gloom and doom, but I did not hear anything in his speech today that indicated support for that vocal statement. In Canada business failures are 38.5 per cent less than a year ago, while in the United States they are 52.4 per cent higher. We acted on the monetary basis.
The next point is that action should be taken in order to increase available moneys to cushion the decline in income and provide greater consumer demand. We acted in this regard with increased social security payments.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
The next point recommended is that encouragement should be given to housing and to public investment. In this connection the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) recommended to parliament that the sum of $300 million be made available for housing. The result of this action has been that at no time in the past in this country has there been anything to equal the expansion in the building of modest homes. They are just starting to do that in the United States. The administration in the United States has just recommended that $1,800 million be made available for house-building. If an amount were provided in the United States on the same proportion that we have already provided, it would require $5 billion.
In addition to what has been provided already we intend, at the earliest possible date and with the consent of the opposition, to introduce a measure to assure that a further sum will be made available for housing. These are but a few of the things we have done. The result has been that housing starts in February were up 129 per cent over a year ago, while in the United States they were down by 1.2 per cent.
In the month of March construction contract awards were up 14 per cent in Canada over a year ago. Yet you tell us that those were the days of halcyon plenty. In March construction contract awards were up 14 per cent in Canada over a year ago while in the United States they were 10 per cent lower.
My hon. friends who suddenly developed an interest in tax cuts did not develop it until after they were not in a position to do anything. As a matter of fact, when I read the glossary of promises I wonder why there was not something in this amendment to that effect. There is no indication, of course, at this time as to what will be in the budget but it would have been a nice effort on the part of my hon. friends if they believed that which they advocated.
In addition to that, it was suggested that something be done in order to meet the immediate problem by extending the period of seasonal unemployment benefits. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) recommended an extension and it was accepted and again in the present session and at the earliest possible date, again with the leave of the opposition, we intend to bring in a measure to extend the period of seasonal unemployment benefits.
Those are some of the things that we have done. Those are some of the actions. My hon. friend says, "What about unemployment?" He says that no Canadian can be happy at the situation. Then he proceeds

that this year there will be increased shipments of wheat from our country by way of exports over the year before. There have been increased shipments of wheat, cattle, uranium, aircraft and farm machinery. My friend says that our imports have fallen and that is true but, as a result, the deficit on commodity trade with all countries was reduced for that period from $241 million to $102 million. What is the effect of reducing that deficit? The effect is that the Canadian dollar is thereby placed in a position where Canadians can meet the competition of other countries to a greater degree than was possible last year.
My hon. friend dealt at some length with the question of trade and the figures he quoted are correct but we say, having regard to conditions generally in the United States and now also in Europe, that that record is one which indicates an application on the part of this government to the problem of trade which was not characteristic of the former government during the last two or three years.
The wheat situation has received prompt and continuous attention. One of the first assignments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was to accompany members of the wheat board on a mission to the United Kingdom and western Europe. The purpose of this mission was to investigate market possibilities for the crop year 1957-58 and to discuss wheat marketing problems with importers. These are the figures; as at March 31, Canadian exports of wheat were ahead of the previous crop year by 18 million bushels and that lead will be increased by the end of the present crop year. I ask my hon. friends: Is that not a statistic which indicates action for, remember, the piling surplus of wheat made impossible anything in the nature of stability in western agriculture.
It is asked: What is the situation in other exporting countries during that period of time? In the United States in the same year, that is to say the crop year up to March 31, exports were down by 100 million bushels. Argentine exports were down by 15 million bushels, Australian exports were down by some 50 million bushels, the latter figure of course being affected by a poorer wheat crop in that year.
My hon. friends talk about international affairs and it is of course remembered that in attaining these results the Canadian wheat board had to make a good showing in all commercial markets for wheat. We also realized that some commonwealth countries were urgently in need of food which they did not have the resources to purchase in the needed 57071-3-4
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker quantities. At the request of Colombo plan countries, certain residual Colombo plan funds were applied to the purchases of wheat for immediate shipment. We then made available up to $35 million to Colombo plan countries for the purchase of wheat on the basis of long-term credit bearing a nominal interest rate. I ask my hon. friend when he says we are doing nothing, why did his party not act in the period when wheat was piling up in this country? His party was speaking of the greatness of the Colombo plan, but why was there no major assistance to these countries in the manner I have indicated is characteristic of this government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that there was.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend had better look it up and he will find that there is no basis for the statement that there was made available to Colombo countries moneys with which to purchase wheat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We gave wheat to India.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask my hon. friend to check the facts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not need to check the facts. They are there and they still stand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You did not give them in these proportions.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


Mr. Chevrier:: He said we did not give them in these proportions.


John George Diefenbaker: These proportions are fair and nothing like this has ever taken place before. About 15 million bushels of wheat have now been shipped or will be shipped to India and we made available $15 million to provide wheat and flour to Colombo plan countries as a gift. As a result India, Pakistan and Ceylon have received further deliveries of wheat or flour. These actions have served a useful purpose in our wheat program and at the same time have enabled Canada to show a practical interest in the problems of our hard pressed neighbours within the commonwealth.
In addition to that, in order to meet the farmers' situation we undertook, despite ridicule on the part of the opposition, to make available cash advances for farm-stored wheat. My hon. friends said that such advances would not be used and that there was really nothing to that. I see, however, that nearly 50,000 producers in western Canada took advantage of this arrangement during the time when delivery quotas were relatively low owing to elevator congestion. At this session

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker in order to meet some of the anomalies which have been found as a result of experience, the house will be given the opportunity to make amendments to the act and we will welcome suggestions from members in any part of the house, as we did when the act was set up, to the end that it may be made effective.
I am now going to sum up the question of trade in these words: That exports from Canada reached an all-time high in 1957, amounting to $4,936 million compared with $4,863 million in 1956; there were substantial increases in our exports to the United States and as far as imports are concerned I have already dealt with that subject. I have also dealt with the question of the trade deficit which was sharply reduced in 1957 when the over-all deficit fell from the figure of $842 million in 1956 to $687 million in 1957. There, in general, is the answer to the allegation of my hon. friend with respect to trade.
I want to say one other thing so far as agricultural exports are concerned. These were down in 1957 as compared with 1956. The amount of exports of Canadian agricultural products as a whole was $909 million in 1957 compared with $1,009 million in 1956, but that was an unusual year. As compared with 1955 the exports last year were very high for in 1955 the total agricultural exports amounted to $801 million. I could go into the various products exported and the major increases which have taken place as the result of immediate action by this government but I do not intend to take any more time except to make one reference and that is to our general plan.
First we meet the problem of unemployment by again removing the difficulties inherent in the extension of the payments. Secondly, we increase trade and we have brought about an expansion of trade as the figures will show. Next, we launch our national development plan whereby in this country we will provide new opportunities for Canadians as a whole by the opening up of our northland. We remove some of the inequalities in the maritimes. My hon. friend said we did not do anything about the maritimes which they would not have done. Well, we got thanked, anyway. We have taken steps to equalize opportunity in every part of Canada.
We are making provision now, with the province of Saskatchewan as an example, for that development which over the years has been advocated by this party and by two of the hon. members of this house in particular, one of them the Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Hamilton) and the other the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones): equalizing opportunity, providing jobs through
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
a public works program, the largest that has ever been launched in this country, and, having done that, extending our trade in every way possible, making available as a result of monetary action greater opportunities for expansion of trade and then, finally, initiating in this country a new concept of development.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has ridiculed it, but the Canadian people see today something of what might happen within this country, with its vast resources. They know that there is a government in power which sees something of the potentialities of this wealth and which is prepared to provide an opportunity, not to nationalize our development under any socialistic plan never leading to national development, but by cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments. This could also be done within the provinces, when the provinces are desirous of having it, and in those territories which it is our responsibility to develop, to multiply our resources to the fullest extent.
We saw something in the picture given yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon who knows whereof he speaks. He told of what has taken place up there and the significance of that leadership which has been given for development. That is just the beginning. This party has an appointment to carry out a development policy in Canada which will bring about the achievement of a prosperity and an expansion which was the vision of Macdonald in a policy which was followed by the opposition party whenever it was in power, of changing the direction from east to west to north.
That is our purpose. That is our intention. That is our plan, to make sure that the policy for Canada will be greater than ever before, with equal opportunities-a policy that will be positive rather than negative, active rather than passive. Our plan will bring about in this country a new unity- and there is that unity today-whereby in every province the people of this country see what can be achieved, even though that vision is not granted to the opposition.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker,
my first words in this debate will be to congratulate you upon having been elected to the high office of Speaker. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what I said yesterday, except to assure you that you have the co-operation of the members of the C.C.F. group, and that I know you will also have the co-operation of members of all groups in the house in the exercise of your very important duties in the days to come.

I wish also to add my word of congratulations to the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) on being elected Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea), our friend in this house now for some years, on being elected chairman of committees. I am sure that they, too, will bring honour and dignity to their positions and will rule in fairness whenever the occasion arises.
(Translation):
I wish to extend my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Lafreniere) for his excellent speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
(Text):
The mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Lafreniere) made a very commendable contribution for a new member, as did the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and I know that members of this house are looking forward to further contributions from these hon. members.
Since this, apparently, is the time to extend congratulations to all possible hon. members I should like to add my congratulations-and they are sincere congratulations- to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to hon. members of the Conservative party on their very outstanding victory in the recent election. I am sure that no government in recent years in this country carries with it support of the magnitude that this government has in the country-such good will and such good wishes as this government now enjoys. However, I do feel that because the government has such an overwhelming, almost all-powerful majority, many thousands of Canadians will be examining its work very meticulously; indeed I may say many have been doing that since the election and asking themselves whether or not they might have gone too far in giving the government such a tremendous majority.
I think the great victory which the Conservative party won was not really on March 31 when they obtained so many of their members but on June 10 a year ago. On that occasion the Conservative party did not obtain an over-all majority and when they went to the country last March the sportsmanlike people of this country-and that includes them all-gave great consideration to whether or not the government should be given a clear working majority. A lot of people asked themselves: should we not give the government a chance? Or, let's give John a chance. It was just as simple as
57071-3-4J
The Address-Mr. Argue that. It seems as if countless people had the same idea; they went to the polls and voted the same way. I know that a lot of those people are thinking today that they should have considered giving the opposition a greater chance, and the government must tread very cautiously in its actions affecting the people of this country and affecting parliament in the days ahead or else the sympathy which the government had in the recent election will be with the opposition in the next election, and the very opposite result may follow.
We were pleased with the indication contained in the speech from the throne and referred to again today that the opposition will be given a greater opportunity to function in this parliament in certain respects than has been given to opposition parties in previous parliaments. The suggestion that a member of the opposition should serve as chairman of the public accounts committee is a good one and I thing the government might well consider whether this could be extended to the chairmanship of other committees of the House of Commons. I am thinking particularly of the estimates committee which will be an important one and have referred to it the estimates of major departments of government. If that were done I believe it would receive acclaim from the people of this country.
The C.C.F. party did not fare well in the recent elections and of course the same thing can be said of other opposition parties. The strength of all opposition parties has been reduced substantially. As far as the C.C.F. group is concerned we lost not only strength in our numbers but among those we lost were very highly qualified members of the House of Commons. It was with extremely deep regret that we learned on election night that the national leader of this party, Mr. M. J. Coldwell, had gone down to defeat in his constituency of Rosetown-Biggar. When this was announced on television I understand that the C.B.C. commentator said it was a national disaster. Here was a man who for 23 years used his voice inside and outside parliament against injustice, intolerance and exploitation. He was a friend of the poor and the champion of the underprivileged and insecure. He was a man whose honesty, integrity and ability have been acknowledged and acclaimed by both political friend and foe alike. Those of us who worked with him in the C.C.F. in parliament have found him a true friend, a wise counsellor and above all a thorough democrat. Before I got to know Mr. Coldwell intimately I read in 1943 an excellent statement written about him by Professor Frank Scott and Mr. David Lewis who were at that time the C.C.F.

The Address-Mr. Argue national chairman and national secretary respectively. A higher tribute could not be paid.
He has a thorough grasp of economic and social problems and a profound appreciation of the ends which must be served by the democratic society. Not only in abstract principle but in his daily actions as leader of the party he shows his firm belief in democratic co-operation. He always seeks and takes the advice of his colleagues in parliament and on the national executive. He pays close attention to the views and wishes of the C.C.F. membership. His rejection of material advantages in order to serve the cause in which he believes is itself proof of his devotion to the socialist principles of the movement which he leads.
Mr. Coldwell today is in good health and in other ways he is carrying on for this nation the long service he rendered in the House of Commons for 23 years. I am convinced that when the history of this nation is written Mr. M. J. Coldwell will be considered one of the great Canadians of the twentieth century.
We also lost in the past election the services in this house of Mr. Stanley Knowles who in the last parliament was the deputy leader of the C.C.F. group and who represented the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. From 1921 to 1943 that constituency was represented by the late Mr. J. S. Woodsworth. During the time Mr. Woodsworth represented that constituency and since 1943 the voice from Winnipeg North Centre has rung out in the parliament of this country in support of the aged, the weak, the disabled and indeed on behalf of all those who deserved and required a champion in this chamber. Stanley Knowles' zeal coupled with his unequalled knowledge of the rules of procedure of the House of Commons makes his early return highly desirable and certain.
I could go on and name the other members of our group in the last parliament who were defeated on March 31 but time will not permit. I must say, however, that each of them made a substantial contribution to the debates of this house over the years and I am certain that as the session progresses and we consider measures in which those gentlemen had been interested their past contributions will be referred to in all quarters of this house.
In the recent election the Conservative representation to parliament increased from 112 to 208. The Liberal representation was reduced by more than half, from 106 to 49. The C.C.F. losses were large and painful for us, a reduction from 25 to 8 in our representation and the Social Credit group of 19 members was entirely wiped out.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was saying that on the basis of the results of the election some people might say that the splinter parties have now ceased to exist and that this is the end of the C.C.F. movement in this country. Before they jump to that conclusion, however, I have some figures I should like to place on the record indicating the votes obtained in the election. The C.C.F. vote in this election held up well compared with last year. In 1958 we polled some 689,000 votes, a drop of just 18,000 votes from our total of 707,000 last year. Taking the popular vote in the country, we dropped 1 per cent, namely from 11 per cent to 10 per cent.
On the other hand, in 1958 the Liberal party experienced a loss of 290,000 votes compared with the election last year. The Social Credit vote was down 240,000 from 1957. If one compares the votes in 1958 with 1953 one finds that the Liberal party lost 140,000 votes and the Social Credit party lost 125,000 votes while the C.C.F. party gained 53,000 votes.
Everywhere across the country we have heard reports that our organization was relatively good, that there was a great deal of enthusiasm, our supporters worked hard, meetings were well attended and the response by way of financial contributions from our supporters was exceedingly generous. We are not at all discouraged. Since we have been able to survive the Conservative landslide with much the same vote we had a year ago, with a substantial increase over our vote in 1953 and with the morale of our supporters and workers across the country high, we look forward in spite of our losses to the day when the C.C.F. movement in this country will gain in strength and will occupy the treasury benches of this parliament.
Our movement is 25 years old. It was born officially in 1933 at Regina. We advanced a lot of ideas at that time that have been promoted over the years and have found their way into the statute books of this country. The policy of the C.C.F. party and its objectives in 1933, as stated in the second paragraph of the declaration issued at Regina, is as follows:
We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supercede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality, will be possible.
Since that time many progressive measures which the C.C.F. has promoted have been adopted in this country. One can refer to such

items as the Bank of Canada, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the National Housing Act, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Old Age Security Act, to mention just a few. It has been said over the years that the Liberal party stayed in office by stealing planks from the C.C.F. platform. Probably as long as it was stealing planks and stealing enough of them it was able to stay in office but in spite of some improved legislation I think that the Liberal party was too slow and too backward in adopting progressive measures and that is the reason the Liberal party is now in opposition.
The Conservative party took office after making many promises to the people of Canada. We have now had the speech from the throne indicating that a very small part of that load of promises will be implemented during this session. It was interesting this afternoon to hear the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). Neither one really wanted to mention the word "recession" but both got around to it. The Leader of the Opposition said that the government is responsible, that it is not doing anything. The Prime Minister said that it is the 22 years of Liberal administration that are the cause of the trouble but in spite of the measures that the Prime Minister stated are being adopted I have noticed that the main economic problems that were with us when his government took office are present today and most of the major problems we faced on June 21 last when the Conservative party became the government are more serious today than they were at that time.
It is said that we are experiencing a period of recession, a period of unemployment, a halt in the economy. I was always taught that any time there was a recession under our present economic system there was an overproduction of goods, that in such a situation there was a relatively smaller demand and the price level would go down. But although we have surpluses of many goods prices are not coming down. Prices are in fact going up.
The change in the cost of living index from June of last year to April of this year shows a larger increase than in any similar period since June, 1951. In other words, when we face a recession, when we face widespread unemployment, we face also an increase in the cost of living, inflation and lessening purchasing power of the dollar. I think we all agree that inflation is very costly for the nation, that inflation places a relatively larger burden on the people least able to bear it, that those who have made savings over the years find their savings reduced in value. It
The Address-Mr. Argue takes away many of the benefits social security payments would otherwise provide. People with low incomes find the increase in cost of living a very real burden. The C.C.F. believe that the only policy that will prevent inflation is a planned economy and control of the price level.
A number of figures have been placed on the record today regarding unemployment but all the figures placed on the record show that unemployment is increasing. The Prime Minister has stated the policies that the government is adopting to provide assistance for the unemployed and to provide jobs. The Prime Minister has been outlining the policies that his government is following, but when he had adopted those policies unemployment still increased.
Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a great to-do about the British free trade proposal, and said the government should be acting in this regard. But I can remember that while the government did not react in any positive way towards the British proposal when it was first made, the Liberal party, and particularly the present Leader of the Opposition, had no policy in that regard whatever. When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking in this house on October 23 last he replied to a question concerning his policy with regard to the United Kingdom offer. His reply as recorded at page 334 of Hansard for that date is as follows:
Our policy over here is to get the government which is responsible to tell the people of Canada what their policy is.
I suggest that that is a very inadequate position for a political party to take after a proposal is made, then in the meantime turn a somersault and today advance what they say is their policy, so long after the offer was made.
We have had an amendment moved this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like at this time, if I may," to move a sub-amendment seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That all the words after the word "requires" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"firstly, planned economic policies to ensure an ever-rising standard of living for the people of Canada; and secondly, an expanded level of international trade that will be promoted by vigorous measures to develop and expand trade with all countries."
We are suggesting by this amendment that it is not only necessary to adopt new trade policies in the international field, it is necessary to adopt new policies within our country if we are to increase our markets. The C.C.F. program for increasing markets has been presented in this house on many occasions in the past. We have suggested

The Address-Mr. Argue that where necessary sterling should be accepted; that barter arrangements will increase our trade; that we should be prepared to exchange the goods we have for the goods we can use which other nations wish to ship to our country. We have suggested further that if after exploring every possible measure to increase our trade we still have surpluses, we should be prepared to give some of our surplus to the needy nations.
So far as our own economy is concerned, we feel there is a great opportunity to increase our home market. I have referred to the unemployed in our nation. I have calculated that in the last year, on the basis of the gross national product, because of unemployment we have lost more than $1.6 billion. If those men and women had been working we can see that our own home market would have been greatly increased. This is a suggestion that we make to increase our home market, namely full employment policies in this country.
There are other ways in which our home market could be increased. We suggest that there should be an overall social security program which guarantees real security to people who are in need. We have noticed that although during the last session the government made a great deal about a study to provide a social security program in Canada comparable with the social security program in the United States, no mention has been made of it in the speech from the throne. We hope that the government will move in this direction and that the incomes of our old age pensioners will be greatly increased. This too would increase our home market.
We suggest that family allowances should be increased. The purchasing power of the family allowance cheque should be at least as great today as it was when family allowances were first inaugurated back in 1944. These are some of the measures we feel the government should be adopting now as part of a plan to provide full employment, full production, security for Canadians and an expanded home market.
The problem of inflation is not being tackled. Inflation is worse today than when the government took office. Unemployment is more severe than when the government took office in June. In spite of all the words that have been uttered during the election campaign and in the house this afternoon, I suggest that the agricultural industry is not in an improved position. During the last parliament we had a long battle over the government's agricultural stabilization act. The government said that this would give adequate parity; it would give the farmers their fair

share of the national income. We noticed that the prices under this act were not announced until April 7 after the election. When the prices were announced we knew why the announcement was delayed, because in almost every instance they were a great deal lower than the market price.
The prices announced under this act have not helped the agricultural industry at all. As a matter of fact, if one relates the purchasing power of the support price under this act to the purchasing power of the support price under the old act introduced by the Liberal government in general the purchasing power of prices under the present act is a good deal lower. In other words, there has been no progress, there has been retrogression. It has been a step backward when compared with the position of the farmer a few years ago.
There is another crisis that faces the people of this country, and that is in the field of education. There is nothing in the speech from the throne that suggests to me that young Canadians, with ability to attend university but who have not the financial resources, will be enabled to enroll in the university. As a matter of fact we hear almost daily announcements that the tuition fees in our various universities will be raised in the coming year from ten per cent to twenty-five per cent. Our nation is starved for university graduates. There is nothing in the government's program to meet this crisis by providing financial resources to enable young Canadians to attend our universities.
These are some of the things that the new government has not tackled. These are the basic, underlying problems of our economy that have not been solved. Indeed, the major difficulties that face this nation today are just as severe as they were a year ago today. The C.C.F. believes it has a program that would solve these basic problems. We are not alone in this belief that action should be taken with regard to these matters. I know the country was greatly interested in the resolution that was passed in Winnipeg recently by the Canadian Labour Congress in regard to political action. This resolution, which was almost unanimously adopted, instructed the executive council of the 1,300,000 membership Canadian Labour Congress to meet with the C.C.F., to meet with farm organizations, to meet with small business organizations generally and liberal-minded people, to discuss the establishment of a political party in this country based on the principles, policies and philosophy of the C.C.F. movement, but with a broader and extended membership which would be attained by increased support from these organizations.

I know that farm organizations today are not generally inclined in the way of political action. But I also know that there are a growing number of persons, members of these organizations, who feel rather frustrated in coming time after time, cap in hand to the federal government asking for equitable treatment, and going away empty handed. A growing number of farmers in these organizations believe it is time that they were part of a political party that had a real chance of forming a government, so that as part of the government they could expect to obtain the kind of legislation they desire. They know that farm organizations in the United Kingdom and in the United States have been forced to take political action and that as a result of that political action they have greatly improved the position of the agricultural industry. 1 believe that the self employed business men could gain much from such a new political realignment.
The retail merchants association last year in a brief to the government pointed out that this so-called free enterprise system, unless the government stepped in, would soon squeeze them out and that the whole retail field across this country would be gobbled up by a few large corporations. They asked the government for specific measures to help the self-employed and independent business man to carry on the very important service that he provides to his community.
The resolution of the Canadian Labour Congress at Winnipeg gives the C.C.F. new hope. It gives the ordinary people of this country new hope that there will be built in Canada within a few short years a political movement with a broad membership, a political movement that will as the C.C.F. obtain its finances entirely from ordinary persons, which does not receive contributions from the great corporations and which therefore is free at all times to work in the interest of the ordinary people of this nation. The C.C.F. membership in this house is small today; notwithstanding we think that our program is just as valid as it has ever been. With the encouraging signs on the horizon we look to the future with confidence; and we expect that in the not distant future the electorate of this country will place their confidence in the movement to which we belong.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I had
thought, Mr. Speaker, that today was known as leaders day in the house but I found that I was having the opportunity to speak. I then realized that this must be a misnomer. At the same time I think we could possibly call the day congratulation day. It is, of course, the first opportunity for us to speak
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton to you, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate you upon your appointment to the chair of this house. At the same time I think that congratulations should be offered to your new deputy and also to the deputy chairman of committees. I might say a special word there because of my long friendship with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea). As well, I think congratulations are due to the two new members on the treasury benches. I think all of us wish them well as they take up their new assignments. I think we also should take note of the move to the office of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of the honourable and lovely lady who represents the constituency of Hamilton West, Mrs. Fairclough. From some short experience I can say to her that she faces a great challenge in that portfolio but, at the same time, a highly rewarding one because, of course, the duties that she undertakes deal to a great extent with the problems of human beings; and there can be no greater satisfaction than that to be found in solving problems of that type.
A few short months ago, I found myself in almost the identical position in which I find myself tonight. At that time I said I might also offer congratulations to all of those who got here. But at the same time I should like to say that there will be those who were here whom we shall miss. To many of us here it has been a great lesson to find that no matter how heated the debate may be in this House of Commons or on the election platform, it has not altered or affected the friendships which grow up over the period of years. I thought I was just getting accustomed to this position-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him in order to correct an omission of my own. I should have read the motion which was moved by way of sub-amendment by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I should be glad if the house would permit me to do that, now or would take it as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it be taken as read so as not to interrupt the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think all hon. members heard the amendment.


John Borden Hamilton: I was saying, that I felt that I had just become accustomed to speaking from this side of the house when everything appears to be changed. I have only one warning for those who continue over here and that is that when we are taking up position for attack we wait

The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton
until we see the whites of the opponents eyes lest we might fire at the wrong group.
Many words have been spoken, of course, about the speech from the throne but it seems to me that we cannot adequately talk about it unless we go back and assess the problems which faced this administration at the time it first took office last year and see what progress took place in the interim and what is now suggested as a plan for attacking some of those problems. We are in a very peculiar position today because for the first time I think we have seen a change take place so quickly that suddenly all political parties seem to agree on what the problems were.
It may have been that prior to June 10 there was some difference of opinion. But immediately the post June 10 period commenced we found that all parties agreed on the problems that faced us. I refer specifically to such items as the state of affairs in the House of Commons, the question as to how this body should carry on its business, as to what might be done to help the members of the group. The next problem deals with the treatment of old age pensioners, of the sick, the veterans and such people, and after June 10 we found that there were many recommendations from all parties, since the problems facing those people were serious ones. Furthermore, we had the situation where the provinces had met with almost complete foreclosure in respect to their attempts to obtain fair and equitable treatment from the federal government and that problem was also raised by the members of the new opposition after June 10, 1957. We also had the problem of the conduct of foreign affairs and investigations as to why we appeared to have lost contact with our best friends overseas and, to a certain extent, with our best friend on this continent. We had the problem of trade, a situation where we were carrying on business with a billion dollar trade deficit each year.
In addition to that we had a situation where more and more of our own resources were owned outside this country. Also we faced a continuing pile up of western wheat crops and, in connection with the trading position, the growing problem of unemployment. Lastly, many statements were made about development in this country, statements from all parties as to what was required to bring about the type of development which we would all like to see here.
What have we done and what are we prepared to do further to the speech from the throne in connection with the first problem, namely, the House of Commons? We have heard today the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) say that he is prepared to see that all

members of this house have a full and equal opportunity of taking part in deliberations and in the setting up of special committees where, in one case, he recommended a member of the opposition being made committee chairman.
This is a new look in so far as this House of Commons is concerned and I think it is an indication that no longer will the scrutiny of the affairs of our people be limited to the decision, if you like, or the will of the majority alone. I think it is a very firm answer to the many editorials and the cries of havoc which arose in the opposition press on the morning of April 1; as a matter of fact the last result was hardly in before we were told that this massive majority in Ottawa was going to be a terrible thing. Let me say this: 1 do not think it is the question of numbers which determines the effectiveness of this House of Commons; I think it is the true spirit of this house which will in the long run determine whether or not the people of our country will see a good or a bad government.
I say tonight that there is a grave responsibility upon the members of this house who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, and upon that other group sitting on your far left because, of course, we will have to ensure that we do not go back to the situation obtaining in previous days. It will be our responsibility to treat fairly those propositions put forward by the opposition, to listen to them, and to consider them and, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) said last year, if the criticism that should be directed this way is not directed then I think it is our responsibility to see that it is.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry we will be on the job.


John Borden Hamilton: As a matter of fact I was wondering for a moment, whether my hon. friends were going to be on the job or not because at six o'clock the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) had just reached the point where he said they had been all wiped out and it is just as well that he got back on the track at eight o'clock and explained that they were going to remain on duty.
In any event I feel that the responsibility is in good hands and, if I might point this out, I believe there must be 35 or 40 of us who have been opposition members. We know what it is like to serve in a very small opposition group. I do not think we shall ever forget what it was like to so serve and I feel it should be pointed out that at the time of the election of June 10 there were very very few who sat on the government benches who had served in opposition prior to

1935. I think we can discharge our duty and see that this place retains its prestige, not only among its members but among the people.
The second point, as I mentioned, deals with old age pensioners, the sick, the disabled and so on. I do not need to go over in full what has been done for them during the previous administration. I think the voting of those groups clearly indicates what had been done for them. The hon. member for Assiniboia touched briefly on what might be expected for these people under an administration which he might head at some time.
I do not think we need to chronicle every item in the speech from the throne, but it was mentioned in this house that a study was being made of the serious situation facing the older people because of inflation and there was also an indication of a study of the program in the United States. We may not all agree with that program but I believe we can look forward to an attempt by this administration to remove from the ballot-catching category the problem of payments for the aged, the infirm and the sick. I am hoping it will be an achievement of this administration that it will not be a case of running up to each election with each party attempting to see just how many votes it can get by a specific appeal to a special group of people.
Next we come to the provinces and although I heard it mentioned that there was nothing in the speech about them I find there are words in the speech from the throne dealing with their improved position as a result of meetings held over the last few months. There has been a previous indication of further meetings along this line.
When we talk about education, as did the hon. member for Assiniboia, we should note that there has been no restriction made on how the money which is being given to the provinces is to be spent. If the federal government is in a position to give them a better deal, then I am sure we can trust the premiers of the various provinces to see that those items which need help most will get this money. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) not too long ago gave one of the finest speeches I have ever heard in this house and at that time he talked about the dominion provincial conference being the country's twelfth government. He pointed out that it was only through this instrument of the provinces coming to Ottawa that a true opposition could be expressed to the policies of the federal administration.
Let me say that I hope that that type of thinking is no longer required. I think we have evidence that it is no longer required.
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton We have seen the special assistance given to the maritimes; we have seen a Conservative prime minister of Canada able to sit down with the C.C.F. premier of a province and work out a deal which will give that province the South Saskatchewan dam, something that had been promised by previous administrations for the last 30 years without result.
This is an indication that the "twelfth parliament" will no longer be required, an indication that people will be able to sit around a conference table in an amicable manner and work out the transactions necessary to see that many of the problems raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) are solved.
What about foreign affairs? They are mentioned in the speech from the throne, and I refer in particular to the visit of the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the visit of the President of the United States. What does this- indicate? It seems to me that under this administration we can look forward to a period of much closer relationship between government and government. May I say that I hope the day of the personality cult in connection with the administration of our foreign affairs is over and that we will have the direct approach of government to government and head of state to head of state. As long as these continuing negotiations take place I am sure we can look forward to better relations throughout the world.
We have heard the Prime Minister say that he feels we should have an opportunity to express our feelings about a summit conference. It is no longer the case of one or two nations deciding in a bilateral or, sometimes, in a unilateral manner who should take part in these discussions.
Now we get down to trade. There was an indication in the speech from the throne that a commonwealth trade conference will be convened. We have had an indication that an aggressive sales policy is to be undertaken. I believe that this will go a long way toward solving the problems of unemployment.
We have been accused of not saying anything about unemployment. I should like hon. members to listen to what the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent said back on January 10, 1955, when we had some signs of a real recession. This is what he said at a time when there were many speeches made dealing with unemployment:
There is some unemployment in Canada. There has been some unemployment in Canada every year. At the opening ol every session of the Canadian parliament for the last three or four years there has been considerable anxiety over the kind and extent of unemployment in Canada. However, because of the resources, material and human, to which, the hon. gentleman paid tribute, that situation has eased as the season advanced, and there is reason to expect that it will do so again.
50	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. B. Hamilton
This is the attitude that was expressed about unemployment. We had it with us all the time and, as a matter of fact, it is the same attitude as that which existed with regard to unemployment right through the spring and summer of 1957. It is as a result of this type of thinking on unemployment that we are faced with the conditions which exist today.
What about development. I said that perhaps this should be called "congratulations day". Maybe we should call it vision day. I wonder just what type of vision the people of Canada expect from their government? Is it the type of vision that they hear about after an administration is out of office? Is it the type of vision that they hear about from a party which has no prospect of getting into office? Is it the type of vision which is to be brought about by some kind of planned socialist economy, or is it the type of vision which has been drawn for us today by the Prime Minister?
I do not think there is any doubt about which type of vision will be preferred by the people of Canada. As a matter of fact they have a very easy chance to look back on the record of the two principal political parties over the last few years. As I said once previously in this house, I think the history of the development of this country can be divided into two periods-the period from 1867 to the end of the first world war, about 53 years, 33 of which were spent under a Conservative administration, and, secondly, from the end of the first world war to date, approximately 38 years, 31 of which had Liberal administrations. In the first period of Canadian development there were tremendous demands for expansion. There was the need for rail transportation, the opening up of new territories, the encouragement of new methods of production, the seeking and finding of new markets for new products. It was no time for a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the government. It fell to the government of that day to support, to inspire and to initiate long-term projects of development and to lay a firm basis for business in its expanding period. I say this to you, sir, that the government of Sir John A. Macdonald never fell down with regard to providing that inspiration and that atmosphere which goes along with progress.
In the second period, what did we see?


An hon. Member:: 1930 and 1931.


John Borden Hamilton: We saw a government which was quite satisfied to do nothing in the way of assistance to economic development or investment, a government which failed to provide any initiative for industry. As a result, we have gradually gone down the hill while others took advantage of


this situation and, as we know today, own many billions of dollars of capital goods in this country. I think the former prime minister said it required something more from governments than just to stand by during these development periods. I am only sorry that his colleagues in the house did not take advantage of his advice. The question of development is fully outlined in the speech from the throne: the railway to the north, the construction of the necessary airways and airports and the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam. Here again is an indication that the new phase in development is being faced boldly and I am sure the administration will not be found wanting.
Is it important that this is the vision we should grasp? Yes, it is. I have said before that this is the country of the future, the country of the young at heart. It does not matter how old one is. This is the country of the adventurous spirit, the country of all those prepared to work because we will not accomplish anything unless we are prepared to work. I cannot help but recall to mind the Prime Minister's words when he said it is the duty of all of us to see that production increases and costs are kept down in order to ensure that this country can compete on an equal footing all over the world. If we do that, we will have caught the vision. This will provide security for all of us here and boundless opportunities for succeeding generations.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr.  R. J. Mc@: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address you on a question of privilege, if I may. The question of privilege is this. I would like at this time to claim the right to speak because there are two hon. members from the government side who have risen to speak since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke this afternoon. This is contrary, in my estimation at least, to the practice that has obtained in this house over the years. Having regard to that it would strike me that it is now up to a member of the opposition at this juncture to have the opportunity of making another contribution to the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege I think it should be pointed out that this debate unlike the ordinary debates on a bill or a resolution can only run for



a set time. There is a limited time for the debate and such practice came into effect only a very few years ago, while the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was out of the house and engaged with the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I do not know exactly what the hon. member is aiming at in raising this question of privilege which is not really a question of privilege at all but I can assure him that the government is trying to be fair to all the hon. members in the house and particularly to the hon. members of the opposition and the C.C.F. and that this will be our course throughout the session.
I would also point out to the hon. member that in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne members from all the constituencies of Canada have the duty of bringing to the attention of the house and in that way to the press and to the country the problems which face their constituents. Surely the hon. member is not contending that in a house divided as this house is divided and on a debate where the time is limited that the private members supporting the government should only have half the chance of presenting the problems of their constituents that the other private members have. We are prepared to give the Liberal and C.C.F. parties far more time than their numbers would justify in a debate of this kind but it would be absolutely unfair to the private members who happen to be supporters of the government if they were to be precluded from speaking in this debate by giving Liberal and C.C.F. members much more time than that to which they should be entitled. The hon. member for Laurier and his associates I think will find that they will be treated fairly, not only in this debate but on all other occasions. I do suggest that all hon. members should have a reasonably equal opportunity to express their views in this particular debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the question of privilege which has just been raised?


Mr. Speaker:: May I with respect to all hon. members ask that they defer the matter of priority in this debate until tomorrow. There may be some question as to whether the hon. member for Laurier should have been recognized when he rose but I recognized the hon. member for Halifax carrying out some arrangements which were made by the whips. I do confess that they were unable to agree completely but I have taken the liberty of making the choice. If the house does not agree with my choice it always has the
13, 1958
The Address-Question of Privilege remedy under the rules to move that a particular member be now heard but I hope that course will not be taken. It is my hope that the whips will agree to a rotation. It is true that every hon. member in the house has an equal right to be heard in this debate. It is a limited debate and I shall endeavour within my power to hold an even balance and see that every hon. member has his turn. I will recognize the hon. member for Laurier next which will give him an opportunity of speaking tonight.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with great respect I rose to speak only because of the statement which has been made, I am sure in good faith, by the leader of the house in regard to the practice in the past which was not, as I understand it, accurate and in accordance with the facts which existed at that time. The hon. member pointed out that while a practice may have existed before the change in the house took place in 1957 whereby the official opposition which were few in number were given a high proportion of the speaking right nevertheless this was altered in 1957 because of a change in the rules which limited the time of debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and on the budget. He said that since that time the earlier practice had not applied. I simply wanted to point out that the facts are that in the debate on the address in 1957 after the rules had been changed and after the debate had been limited to ten days there were 169 members in the government party of whom 55 spoke on the address; there were 51 members of the official opposition of whom 30 or more than half spoke; there were 22 members of the C.C.F. of whom 17 spoke; and there were 15 members of the Social Credit party of whom ten were given the right to speak. We ask that that proportion which we think is fair in view of the practice since that time should be adopted now.


Mr. Speaker:: I am aware of those facts and I am sure they are on the record. I would hope that the matter would not be debated because it is not actually a debatable matter and I would hope that the representatives of the parties will be able to find a satisfactory solution of a difficult problem because if I were to recognize members strictly in the proportion in which the parties now sit in this house it would obviously mean that those in the opposition would speak but infrequently and I trust that some arrangement will be made before this matter arises again. In the meantime I recognize the hon. member for Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.

The Address-Mr. McCleave


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in taking part in this debate must be of congratulation to yourself and through you to the other officers who will preside over the affairs of the house. It is a great personal satisfaction that your fairness, courtesy and humour have been recognized by most of the members.
I should also like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for their approaches which are modern and youthful, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency for his attack on hidebound prejudice and the hon. member for the Yukon for his strong stand against the pessimistic spirit which could be called "igloo-ism". I noticed that the other member for the far north came here yesterday clad as if "iglooism" were the order of the day. There may in fact be a cold chill in his section of the house but we Conservatives face the future with optimism. To the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) I recall words spoken in the election campaign in Halifax when I said about our province: "You have kept faith with us. We will keep faith with you on March 31."
My province was not unique in its appreciation of the devoted intelligence and energy, the courage and vision that the right hon. gentleman has brought to Canadian life. To the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) I offer the comfort that can be obtained by a study of one of the great characters created by Anthony Trollope, his favourite author. He will know whom I mean when I say that the gentleman in the Barset series made out as best he could in charge of an institution which unfortunately was quite hopelessly out of date.
It is my honour to be the first speaker from Atlantic Canada. Once I would be known as a maritimer but Newfoundland has come into confederation and we try to include that province in the naming of our area. Atlantic provinces as a phrase has become rather cumbersome to the newspaper editors in our area and they have asked for some shorter form. Five years ago, if I had been asked, the ancient name Atlantis would have come to mind from mythology, being reasonably close to the word "Atlantic" and also conveying the suggestion of a body of land submerged under the water of Liberal indifference. Now, however, an active government is in control, we no longer feel submerged, and another name is necessary for the four provinces by the sea. For my newspaper editor friends I suggest the name "Atlantica". It fits nicely into one-column heads. But if they do not like "Atlantica",

then may I suggest that we revert to the old old name of "Maritimes" with the thought that it includes Newfoundland.
Atlantica or the maritimes welcomed the decision of the cabinet to hold off the latest freight rate increase. We and the west have at last found a champion, we feel, who will rectify the iniquities of many years. It is, I think, basic that where the railways encounter intense competition from other carriers such as trucks or steamships the railways realize that the raising of rates to the levels authorized by the board of transport commissioners would lead to loss of traffic. It has therefore been the practice to apply only part or perhaps no part at all of increases in the central region of Canada. However, in areas where this competition is weak or non-existent, the traffic is captive and it gets the full load.
Let me illustrate. Take an example of a class 100 or first class commodity such as drygoods moving in less than carload quantities of 10,000 pounds from Montreal to Toronto, a distance of 335 miles depending on which way you are going-it is probably 335 miles moving from Toronto to Montreal and it may seem longer going back-and from Moncton to Sydney, a distance of 348 miles. On both movements, for the sake of this example, the rates are door-to-door rates because the railways will pick up and deliver. On January 1, 1948, before the first of the post-war series of freight rate increases became effective, the Montreal to Toronto rate was 60 cents per 100 pounds. On January 1,	1958-and this does not
include the suspended increase-that rate had become 76 cents per 100 pounds, an increase of 26.7 per cent. On the other hand, the Moncton to Sydney rate, which on January 1, 1948 was 70 cents per 100 pounds, had become $1.54 by January 1 of this year, an increase of 120 per cent. Why is there this discrepancy in the relative percentage increase? Competition and the lack of it provide the only answer to an increase of 26.7 per cent in the one case and 120 per cent in the other.
Let me take another example of carload traffic rated class 70 or third class moving in quantities of 20,000 pounds from Oshawa to Montreal, a distance of 301 miles and from Halifax to Sydney, a distance of 294 miles. On January 1, 1948, the Oshawa to Montreal rate was 63 cents per 100 pounds; on January 1 of this year it had risen to 75 cents, an increase of 12 cents or 19 per cent. On the other hand, the Halifax to Sydney rate, which on January 1, 1948, was 48 cents

per 100 pounds, had become $1.05 by January 1, 1958, an increase of 118.8 per cent in the same period or almost 100 per cent more than in the other case.
The explanation of the discrepancy in the percentage rise between the two rates is again that competition sits hard on the railways in Ontario and Quebec. The solution to such a problem is not easy to see. The problem may solve itself should the St. Lawrence seaway bring about a coastal trade between central Canada and Atlantica. Nobody, I think, can foretell that this coastal shipping trade will spring up or will provide a solution, but the thought of it is at least a consolation that better days are ahead.
I realize, that in expressing that opinion I run contrary to the views of many mariti-mers who fear the St. Lawrence seaway. Time will either confirm or dispel the fears. But in the meantime we of that area ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to direct the present survey committees which are studying Atlantica problems to look into these matters too.
A few weeks ago, the new federation of West Indies islands was born. Halifax regards itself as the gateway to this federation, although Saint John may also put in a claim. A Canadian group, including several ministers, travelled south to watch the new nation in its parliamentary birth. I am sure Canada will do what it can to help this new nation.
Halifax county is the finest place in Canada or is for two of the members of this house, but in recent months our skyline has been marred by eight strike-bound ships of the Canadian National Steamships fleet. It is perhaps an oddity of the election campaign that a Liberal candidate chartered a dory and rowed out to the fleet. I do not know what he said but I presume it was not complimentary to the government. The eight ships formed a poll-number 359 is its place in electoral history

and the voters aboard the ships voted very strongly Conservative. I hope that my Liberal opponent found the air bracing in rowing to and from the ships.
But this was not the only paradox in the election campaign in Halifax riding. The other concerned the message of trade preached by our opponents. When Liberals appeared at the waterfront, bounding about the piers and declaiming that Conservative trade policies were ruinous, the workers had a simple reply-old grapefruit, old oranges and, to provide protein, some old lettuce. There should perhaps be a word of explanation as to this. Two years ago more than $392 million of Canadian overseas exports and imports were not routed through Canadian ports.
The Address-Mr. McCleave This was as a result of Liberal policy. It is something about which we in the port cities of Canada are most concerned.
Some solution must be found, but free of coercion of Canadian business, to give our Atlantic and Pacific ports more business.
As for the Canadian National Steamships strike, the general feeling in our riding is that, regrettable though the strike is, the parties should not be put to compulsory arbitration. Whatever happens to the fleet, I hope that Canada will keep in mind the growth of that new nation in the Caribbean.
In his speech the Prime Minister made considerable reference to the rights of parliament and the strengthening of this institution. May I recall that a few months from now will occur an anniversary which should be of interest to this house. On October 2 Nova Scotia will observe the 200th anniversary of the first legislative assembly to meet anywhere in what is now Canada. Nineteen men met in the old court house at Halifax on October 2, 1758. They were citizens, I suggest, quite disinterested in anything but the highest service for upon checking ancient records I find that the 19 unanimously decided they would serve without pay for that first session. I hope this will not be considered a precedent to cut our stipend.
I should like to note what many historians have written, that the legislative assembly of Nova Scotia was the first to be established in the British Empire, as it was then. However, Bermuda and the Barbados, and possibly Jamaica, preceded my province in the establishment of legislatures. However, Nova Scotia does lead in Canada. It was not until 1773, or fifteen years later, that Prince Edward Island followed with a legislature, and in 1786 New Brunswick. Both Upper and Lower Canada had legislatures in 1792. This 200th anniversary will be commemorated by a special postage stamp issue later this year, for which I believe much of the credit must go to my minister, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan).
As a professional journalist who has spent time in the parliamentary press gallery, I should like to make two suggestions for the consideration of the government. The first is that extra space be provided for the gallery. Some eighty members now occupy space that more properly holds twenty-five or thirty. From time to time, while housecleaning, an absent-minded member of the gallery is apt to sweep not only his old notes but also the new notes of a colleague into the waste-paper basket. This has happened. The day will surely come when private radio stations seize upon this great source of news, the House of Commons, and will wish to place

The Address-Mr. Chevrier men and women in the press gallery to supplement their present wire services. There is no room for such expansion now.
The other suggestion I should like to make is that the government consider the appointment of a new type of officer in the major departments. He would be a spokesman for the minister on policy at such times as the minister is not available. The ministers are busy. At least one British department, the foreign office, has such a spokesman now. I need hardly refer to the examples in the United States. A person to fill this position could be drawn from the ranks of present information officers in the departments, given a voice at policy meetings of the departments and enabled to work out some arrangement with the minister so that ministerial control would be ever present. The dividing line between public relations and press information officer may seem a thin one, but I am sure that a public relations officer would be an asset to many a busy minister.
The big news in the Halifax riding will be the housing redevelopment, plans for which are proceeding at best speed. I may mention also the new international airport, the fine harbour, excellent vacation land in parts of the county, a new machine for drying pulp at Sheet Harbour which is attracting people from all over the world. Our story is one of growth in this finest of countries, and I hope I have communicated to the house some of my enthusiasm for the riding.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me at last.
I am happy to take part in the debate this evening. It is the traditional debate which follows upon the reading of the speech from the throne in the house and which allows the members to voice their opinion on the measures which the government intends to bring forward during the session. The circumstances surrounding the onset of this discussion, this time, are extraordinary. Not only is this a new parliament where the government enjoys a majority unprecedented in the political history of this country, but a parliament in which the opposition has been decimated by the popular vote.
I am glad to be back in the house where I am pleased to see again many familiar and friendly faces, with whom I have had the pleasure to sit for over twenty years of public life. On the other hand I regret that many others I have known have now disappeared, swept away, as it were, by the fortunes of politics.
Let me at once congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on his brilliant and unprecedented victory. For us


in the opposition there is only one thing to do; it is to face the facts, and bow before the will of the people which has been expressed in such unequivocal fashion.
In circumstances such as these, the government has a great many responsibilities to discharge, first of all to its own friends- of which I have nothing to say-and also to the opposition.
We who sit on this side of the house took power in similar circumstances in 1935 and 1949.
I still hear, Mr. Speaker, the groans of those then sitting in the opposition, who complained of the way in which the government treated them and, in due course, expressed their discontent.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the situation is reversed and since the government supporters have experienced this situation for many years, I am sure that, recalling what the conditions were then, they will want to put in practice the recommendations they made at the time.
I congratulate you, sir, on the great honour conferred upon you. For the second time in less than a year you have been chosen to preside over the proceedings of this house. For the second time also you will, I have no doubt, exercise your heavy responsibility with justice and fairness, just as you did in the last parliament. I hope-indeed, I am convinced-that you will continue to play your part with dignity and efficiency.
At the risk of offending your modesty, let me recall a fact which for members from the province of Quebec is of special significance. In your city of Toronto where more than
40,000	French-speaking Canadians are living at the present time, a great campaign has just started in favour of the opening of a bilingual secondary school and you, Mr. Speaker, have agreed to act as honorary president of this fund-raising campaign. I congratulate you for doing so and at the same time I wish you complete success in this campaign.
I congratulate the new ministers from the province of Quebec and, incidentally, I point out to the Prime Minister that we have waited fairly long for the appointment of those ministers. I also congratulate the government on having made a choice and, even if they were sworn in only on the eve of a new session, without being given too much time to prepare the estimates of their departments, I am convinced that the wise and learned advisers in their departments will see to it

that, in a very short time, these ministers are able not only to familiarize themselves with their departments, but to control their administration.
I also seize this opportunity to tender my heartfelt congratulations to the Deputy Speaker. I am happy to see him occupying this position. Of course, down deep, I would have liked to see him filling some other post, but, as it is not up to the opposition or to me to decide which office the hon. members are to assume, I shall just tell him how pleased I am to see him in the Deputy Speaker's chair and tender him my best wishes in his new responsibilities.
According to a parliamentary custom now several years old, I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere) and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I congratulate them, not only on their being so honoured, but also on the way in which they have acquitted themselves of their task and in which they have dealt with their subject matter.
I would also like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank my electors of Laurier who, for the second time, have seen fit to place their confidence in me. I will always try to be their faithful representative in this house so as to show myself worthy of the confidence with which they have honoured me once again.
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, denouncing federal assistance to economically under-developed countries and commercial relations with the communist nations. They have opposed our national security program and federal grants to universities, and have refused to recognize that the federal government has concurrent rights with the provinces in the field of direct taxation.
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. That is the choice facing them. We will look with interest upon their attitude and the directions they will take.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
As for the Conservative party it is now faced with the first opportunity afforded to it since the end of the Macdonald-Cartier alliance, to arrive once more at a certain unity of doctrine and to preach the same thing from one end of the country to the other. The Liberals, and I am sure Canadians as a whole, will hope that the Conservative party will avail itself of this opportunity since, by unifying its principles, it would be serving the cause of national unity in this country.
This unity of doctrine must be arrived at, before everything else, in the field of federal-provincial fiscal relations. That is a very important problem which has been revived by the Prime Minister himself and to which an early solution must be found so that the provincial governments may know what to expect and be in a position to prepare their budgets.
We Liberals believed that in 1956 we had struck upon a general formula for fiscal arrangements which was such as to satisfy the often contradictory conditions of federalism as it is conceived in this country. Even if the tax rates involved in these agreements have to be revised according to circumstances, the general formula itself has a permanent value which compares favourably with all other plans proposed up till now. It leaves provinces absolutely free to use their taxation rights themselves or to rent them to the federal government. It allows provincial governments to draw considerable revenue from direct taxes while avoiding double taxation. It provides for stabilization payments to the provinces so as to prevent a decrease in their revenue during periods of economic recession.
Finally, this formula provides specially for equalization payments which permit a redistribution of national wealth throughout the country and favour the poorer provinces.
The equalization principle involved in the present financial agreements is the very basis of the Liberal doctrine in the field of federal-provincial relations. It is a principle of justice and equality which should be accepted also by the present Conservative government.
We all know that Mr. Frost, the premier of Ontario, is strongly opposed to the principle of equalization. Undoubtedly that is why up to now the government has had a vague and uncertain attitude in this field. Yet this attitude will have to be made clear at the next federal-provincial conference which should be convened as soon as possible. Even before that, even in this debate, Conservative members from the province of Quebec will have to state their position clearly in this house. They often discussed this financial problem during the last election campaign.

The Address-Mr. Chevrier They now owe it to their constituents to repeat in this house, for the whole country to know, what they think of this matter and to say if they share Mr. Frost's opinion on this point.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, as this twenty-fourth parliament opens its session we face, in my opinion, a serious economic situation. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) opened his campaign in Winnipeg some three months ago the position with reference to unemployment at that time was that there were in this country no less than 520,000 unemployed. Today these numbers have been increased by 70,000, and the figure is now 590,000. When I say "today" I mean, of course, the figures which we have as of the month of March given to us by the bureau of statistics. In addition to that figure which I have just mentioned, there are some
38,000	persons who are on temporary lay-off.
Thus, according to the bureau of statistics, the seeking work figure for the month of March is 10 per cent of the labour force in Canada as compared with 6 per cent in 1957, 5.3 per cent in 1956 and 7.4 per cent in 1955. This comparison reveals that the current economic situation, no matter what has been said in this debate this afternoon, is not normal. Of course the March figures are still affected by seasonal unemployment and we can expect a decline in the total number of unemployed throughout the summer. Such a decline, however, should not be interpreted as a real improvement in the economic situation and as a sign that the recession is over.
On the contrary, if current trends do not change, unemployment will rise again next fall and next winter will be worse than the last one, which was bad enough. When I say this I do not mean that the Canadian economy is heading for another depression like that of the thirties; I am merely urging the government to take a realistic view of the current economic situation and to take action in order to correct it. We on this side of the house would like to convince the government that it should apply the most effective remedies to cope with the very undesirable conditions which have arisen and I may say, with all respect, that I do not think the proposals contained in the speech from the throne even begin to cope with that situation as I understand it.
During the campaign we were told that the situation would be met by a huge public works program in the amount of $1,185 million and that that was the undertaking, in part, for the first quarter of the year,


the rest to be dealt with during a twelve month period. Anyone who has given that program any attention at all knows full well that this would not suffice even if it were all new, but it is not all new. It is nothing of the sort. Its main portion is the normal annual program for public works and maintenance which is regularly presented in the House of Commons for approval by parliament. These things would have been presented in any event even if we had full employment. In fact, when I looked at the program I could come to only one conclusion, that it is but a drop in the bucket. All I have to do to find the basis for that statement is to compare it with the St. Lawrence seaway project. There is a project which, notwithstanding what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, is greater in amount than this proposal of his. It goes beyond the $1 billion mark and I would not be at all surprised if it reached the great sum of $1,200 million. Notwithstanding that fact, the house may not be aware that both with reference to power and navigation that great project will not employ more than
35.000	men on site, 25,000 in Canada and
10.000	in the United States.
The most effective way to deal with unemployment is by means of tax reduction and not by means of publics works. I do not mean that public works do not have their place. Indeed they have, especially to ensure long-term growth, but they are not effective in order to deal with the current situation immediately unless they have been in course of preparation for some time.
We of the Liberal party have always felt, and we still believe, that under present economic conditions the most effective and immediate method of putting the unemployed back to work is to reduce taxes. We are not alone in holding such a view. This afternoon the Prime Minister jeered at some of the statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) particularly having regard to what was said concerning the reduction of taxes. I should tell him that we are not in bad company when we suggest to the government, as we suggested during the campaign, that the best and most immediate and most effective method of dealing with unemployment is by way of reduction of taxes. In recent months labour unions in both Canada and the United States, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Post and our best economists have made similar proposals in order to restore prosperity. Recently the matter has been more forcibly drawn to the attention of the public than ever before by the investigation of the financial conditions of the United States carried out by the committee on finance in that country. That

committee was chaired by none other than Senator Byrd who sent to the presidents of twelve federal reserve banks of the United States a questionnaire the last question of which reads as follows:
List and briefly discuss what you consider the causes of the present recession and what should be done to terminate it.
The reply of the twelve banking institutions was unanimous and I quote:
If consumer spending sags this spring a substantial but temporary reduction in broadly based taxes would be most effective and appropriate.
The presidents of the twelve federal reserve banks mentioned cuts in personal income tax, excise and sale taxes and also said as follows:
Some forms of corporation tax reduction might also be expected to have stimulating effects on business activity and employment.
The bank heads said:
Any government public works program that might be required should concentrate on projects that either have been started or are ready to go. The great danger in a public works program, they said, is that it will only attain substantial momentum after the greatest need is past and may then accentuate inflationary tendencies.
This is not the member for Laurier or the Leader of the Opposition speaking. This is a group of well informed bankers and it is also the result of a study made by the committee composed of many senators in the United States.
I have dealt, because of time, only with what the presidents of these banks have said but I could go through the report and quote from it, as I will in a moment on another subject, statements not only to substantiate the position I am taking but statements which are in direct opposition to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon.
It is also interesting to note the answers to the first part of the question which I mentioned earlier-"list and briefly discuss what you consider the causes of the present recession"-and at page 153 of the hearings of the committee on finance, chapter 1, one of the presidents of the banks states as follows:
The underlying causes of the recession of 19571958 are to be found in the excesses and imbalances that have developed during the boom of the preceding two and a half years. These developments included a growing inefficiency in the utilization of labour and resources, inaccurate estimates of sales potential in certain major industries and an accompanying over-expansion of business investment in plant, equipment and inventory. In addition the high degree of liquidity, which was built up in 1954 and carried over in 1955, contributed to the rapid expansive developments of the period.
These and other statements made by bank presidents during the whole of this inquiry,
The Address-Mr. Chevrier as reported in the proceedings of the committee which I hold in my hand, sound to me very much like the report of the governor of our own Bank of Canada. According to his report it is not credit restrictions which brought about the recession but the decline in business investments following the development of excess capacity in a number of industries as set out in the quotations from the committee on finance in the United States. To illustrate the point, here are a few quotations from the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance for the year 1957. First at page 1 I read as follows:
The great upsurge in economic activity which had been the outstanding feature of 1956 continued to dominate the scene in the first part of 1957.
And again on the same page:
Expenditures . . . had risen dramatically in 1956, and capital investment intentions for 1957 showed that total planned expenditures for the year were 8 per cent above the record level of the previous year.
On page 5 there is another quotation I would like to give as follows:
Despite these signs of weakness in certain areas, the total of investment plans continued to rise and the mid-year survey of investment intentions published by the Department of Trade and Commerce in July indicated that the total of investment programs for the year 1957 had been raised by a further 3 per cent during the preceding six months.
Actual total expenditure on fixed investment (both public and private) in the second quarter of 1957 was almost 30 per cent of total output, an exceptionally high rate by any international comparison and greater by one-half than the rate in the United States.
As a matter of fact it was greater than that in any other country in the world. I continue:
As already mentioned employment was rising as rapidly as it had in 1956, and continued to do so until October.
And then, on page 7:
The main effect of the easing of world markets was to bring about an earlier decline in resource investment than would otherwise have occurred.
The present economic situation calls for a sound and realistic appraisal of its underlying causes and, above all, for quick and bold action. Now that the government has an overwhelming majority in the house the Canadian people will expect it to devote less time to politics and more to the solution of our urgent problems. It will also expect the government to work more closely with its advisers and genuinely to seek the advice of its experts before reaching policy decisions.
We have been disturbed by the recent resignation of top ranking officials and by the attacks made by ministers upon the governor of the Bank of Canada. It is widely recognized that our civil service is one of the best in the world. The government should

The Address-Mr. Chevrier not forget, however, that more than 20 years were required to develop that service but that mistrust and frustration could rapidly destroy the usefulness of this institution which is so essential to efficient government.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Does the hon. gentleman think the civil service began in 1935?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say it began then, and if the hon. member had listened to what I was saying he would not have made that interruption. I said it took more than 20 years to build up the efficiency of the civil service and that ministers of the crown should not be attacking civil servants as certain ministers did in the not too distant past.
Now I should like to say something about trade, and I am sorry the Prime Minister has left his seat. When the Prime Minister returned from the United Kingdom in July of last year he went immediately to the press gallery, and is reported to have said at a press conference in Ottawa that he would divert 15 per cent of United States purchases to the United Kingdom. And on July 8 the Canadian Press, referring to the Prime Minister, carried the following statement:
He would like to see about 15 per cent of Canadian imports from the United States diverted to Britain to give that country more dollars with which to buy Canadian goods. He did not think this would be detrimental to Canada-United States business.
Then a trade mission was sent to the United Kingdom for that purpose and on November 22 the Ottawa Journal commenting on a Canadian Press report on the Prime Minister's farewell to the trade mission to Britain, contains this sentence:
The mission's task is to try to implement as much as possible of Mr. Diefenbaker's proposal of last July that Canada should divert to Britain 15 per cent of its purchases from the United States.
Further, the Montreal Gazette of the same date reported as follows:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker said here yesterday that he has every confidence that the Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom would achieve its objective of diverting 15 per cent of Canadian imports from the United States to Britain, and thus save this country from ultimate economic danger.
The mission departed and some months later made a report, a report not on the amount of trade diverted but on divers other subjects. Meanwhile, on February 4, the Montreal board of trade held a forum to which it invited seven of the people who had been on this mission and asked them to contribute to this forum their impressions of the trip to the United Kingdom. All these people stated that they had had a successful trip, that they had been royally received and that they had made excellent contacts which would be beneficial both to Canada and to the United Kingdom. But no one was able to indicate in dollars and pounds sterling,


any more than was the Minister of Trade and Commerce what would be the result or what was the result of the trade mission. At the end of the forum Mr. H. S. Sutherland, the president of the international committee of the chamber of commerce, said, "Mr. Diefenbaker would without doubt wish today that he had never spoken of his famous 15 per cent."
Although the Prime Minister was loquacious in many respects this afternoon there was one thing on which he was entirely silent, and it was on the diversion of trade, notwithstanding the remarks made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition.
Then again, speaking with reference to the forum in Montreal, Mr. Lush, president of the manufacturers association of Canada, stated that even if it were desirable to increase the volume of our trade with Britain it was far more important to manufacture the greatest possible quantity of finished products in Canada rather than to import them even if it were to be from Great Britain. To put it succinctly, he said this:
Manufacture in Canada as much as possible before buying elsewhere, even in Great Britain.
Now the Prime Minister comes forward to state that at no time did he propose to divert 15 per cent of Canada's trade from the United States to Britain. In an interview published in the U.S. News and World Report he is reported to have said:
At no time did we say we were going to divert 15 per cent.
As my leader said this afternoon, if this is the case why did the Prime Minister not make that statement before, and in parliament, rather than to a news publication? During the fall session and during the election campaign the Liberals made reference to the 15 per cent diversion proposal on many occasions. If the Prime Minister had really been misquoted on such an important matter in July, 1957, he should have set the record straight immediately or at least during the fall session. Why did he wait until after the March election to deny these press reports. The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister subsequently realized that such a trade diversion was impossible and he did not want to admit before the election that he had made a mistake.
Now that the Prime Minister has rejected his own trade diversion proposal we are left without a government policy on trade. This is a matter of the greatest concern to the Canadian people because our economy depends more than ever before on external trade for its rapid expansion. If the government has no trade policy at present we

have some indication as to the orientation that the government might take in this field. Here- is what the Prime Minister said at a meeting in Cornwall, an important textile centre, as reported in the paper of that city on February 25, 1958 and I quote:
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker told a crowd estimated at over 2,500 that he saw no reason why protection cannot be provided for the textile Industry.
That statement is a pretty important statement. Is this to be the new commercial policy of the government? While we on this side of the house, particularly from Quebec constituencies where there are numerous textile industries, and from Ontario constituencies where there are many textile industries, realize that the textile industry needs special assistance in order to readjust itself, we are opposed to a trade policy aimed at greater tariff protection.
Such a policy would be disastrous for Canada. It would certainly have an unfavourable impact on our export industries, our standard of living, the level of our national productivity and the rate of economic development. It would impose new burdens on the Canadian economy as well as rigidities which would prevent the efficient working of our free market system.
The western world is threatened at present by the emergency of isolated economic blocs. In the United States this orientation toward economic isolationism and greater tariff protection is certainly possible. In Europe six continental countries are prepared to form a customs union to be complemented by free trade arrangements with the United Kingdom and probably also the Scandinavian countries. When these arrangements are complete this large area may well aim at greater economic self-sufficiency.
The emergence of such isolated blocs would be a very serious threat to the western world, especially in view of the new policy of the U.S.S.R. It seems more and more evident that the soviet leaders do not intend to conquer the world through a global war. Their aim seems to be to engage in economic competitive coexistence with the west and to spread their influence in the world through greater economic efficiency. It would be most unwise if under such circumstances western nations were to decide to become more independent of each other in the economic field, to practise economic isolationism and to create separate economic blocs which would undoubtedly reduce their overall economic efficiency. A policy of greater tariff protection would, therefore, be very undesirable not only for Canada and each of the other western democracies taken separately but also for the western world as a whole, especially because of the soviet chal-
The Address-Mr. Chevrier lenge in the economic field. We feel that Canada stands to lose most if those economic blocs do emerge. That is why we believe that the government instead of embarking on a program of greater protection should use every means at its disposal to prevent other friendly countries from moving in that direction and that our watchword in Canada should be greater and greater co-operation in the reduction of barriers to international trade.
If I may I would now like to refer to one or two other matters which came up for discussion during the course of the debate this afternoon. The Prime Minister made particular reference to that paragraph in the speech from the throne which reads:
My ministers will propose that a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition be elected chairman of the committee on public accounts.
I have no comment to make on that statement contained in the speech from the throne other than to say that now the government is in office and exercising executive powers I am wondering whether or not the executive has not in some form or another started to dictate to the opposition what its conduct should be.


Howard Charles Green: You are entirely too suspicious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not after tonight.


Lionel Chevrier: Knowing my friend the Minister of Public Works as I know him and remembering his conduct when he sat on this side of the house I know too well how suspicious he was of everything we did at that time.


Howard Charles Green: But I had good reason to be.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I am sure that he will not blame me if I have some suspicion as to the reason why this was placed in the speech from the throne. It seems to me if that was the intention of the government, that was not the place to have put it nor the method to suggest it.


Mr. Monieilh:: Do you not want the chairman to be appointed from among the opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Laurier particularly as he had difficulty in getting started but his time has expired.
(Translation) :


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter I propose to deal with, I hasten to offer you my warm congratulations. But then, as it is getting late, I believe it would be preferable to adjourn the debate.
( Text):
On motion of Mr. Allard the debate was adjourned.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the Minister of Public Works who is again the genial leader of the house what he proposes as the items of business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to ask for interim supply and following that, through an arrangement between the parties, we should like to take the resolution preceding a measure to provide for the temporary extension of the seasonal benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act for a six weeks period from May 18 to June 28 of this year. As hon. members will realize the present benefits expire on tbe 15th so we would like to get this measure right through third reading as it still would have to go through the other place.
We intend to follow that with the resolution preceding a bill to amend the National Housing Act in respect to only one section, in -fact, subsection 1 of section 22, the purpose of the legislation being to increase the amount available under that section from $400 million to $750 million. There is urgency there, too, because until we get this additional money we cannot continue with our small homes loan program.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask if it is the intention to interrupt the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne until these three measures have been passed?


Mr.. Green:: That is the intention at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 14, 1958