1958-05-28

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and since I have not had an opportunity of giving him notice perhaps he will take this as notice. I should like to ask him whether there are any negotiations under way with Japan or any other country concerning the sale of uranium and, if so, whether those negotiations are likely to be completed in the near future.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



TEXTILES-STEPS TAKEN TO PREVENT DUMPING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister inform the house if during the past months his department has started to employ or train personnel who will be able to stop the unfair dumping practices which are seriously affecting the Canadian textile industry?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to phone me and acquaint me with the general purport of his question; I did not have the wording of it before me. In general I could reply in the affirmative. The customs branch of the Department of National Revenue has authorized the employment of 40 more appraisers to deal specifically with appraisal work. These have been cleared with the civil service commission and appointments are being made as rapidly as possible. As these appraisers are appointed they will be going to various parts of Canada and exporting points where checks will be made on the value of goods exported to Canada.
In addition, instructions have been issued that in future there must be more detailed information given on an invoice, particularly covering textiles coming
into Canada, so the appraisers will be in a better position to deal with valuations in these matters. Instructions are now being issued that in connection with textiles there shall be attached to each invoice a sample of the material which is purported to be covered by that invoice so the appraisers can check the sample and deal with it in an effective way on a valuation basis. These roughly are the steps that are being taken in this matter up to the moment.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are any of these appraisers to be sent to the United Kingdom?


George Clyde Nowlan: I would suspect that appraisers will be sent wherever the department in its wisdom decides they are needed in order to perform their duties.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. On Thursday, May 22, I asked him about the cost of the buying mission to the United Kingdom and got a reply. I also asked if the report of that mission would be tabled. I thought the minister answered in the affirmative, but it does not appear in Hansard. Will the minister say whether this report will be tabled, and when we may expect it?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report of the Canadian trade mission to the United Kingdom?


William Hector McMillan: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought a copy had been tabled. I was also under the impression that the dollar-sterling council had mailed a copy of the report to each member of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will look into that matter immediately.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Bumaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister give

Inquiries of the Ministry the house a progress report on the study we were told was being made concerning the problem of increases in pensions for retired civil servants and retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Can the minister supply any information as to when an announcement of government policy in regard thereto might be expected?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the study of this matter, which has many complications, is continuing.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, which in his absence perhaps could be taken as notice or answered by the house leader, the Minister of Public Works. With all parties in this house and people throughout the democratic world paying tribute to Colonel George Flint for his courage, devotion and integrity, would the Prime Minister state whether active consideration can be given to posthumously awarding him the first Canada medal?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I will be very glad to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. May I say it is always a pleasure to direct a question to the Minister of Labour because he generally gives a direct, fair and decisive answer. I should like to ask the minister if he intends during this session to bring down further legislation pertaining to the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act is now under active consideration by the unemployment insurance commission. In turn it will be brought to the attention of the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission and then the government, and I hope that eventually, toward the end of this session, I will be able to bring in amendments to that act.
[Mr. Regier.l


William Limburg Houck: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he intends to bring down any further labour legislation?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker, not at the moment.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether farmers who suffered loss of cattle as the result of an inoculation for rabies will be paid compensation under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act? Can the minister also say whether consideration will be given to an increase in the rates of compensation paid under the act?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask these two questions. As far as the first is concerned, the federal government has no responsibility in connection with the death of cattle in the Thurso area due to having been vaccinated against rabies with dog vaccine instead of cattle vaccine. Consequently the answer to that question is no.
With respect to the second question, the answer is that we are giving consideration to that matter.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Otiawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he advise the house as to the extent of the contamination caused by the uranium fire at the Chalk River plant of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and how long it is expected that the NRU reactor will be closed down as a result of the accident?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this question and giving me an opportunity to make an explanation which I have received from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
A piece of uranium fuel rod caught fire at ten o'clock Saturday night after being removed from the NRU reactor at the Chalk River establishment of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The reactor had been shut

down to remove a defective rod. This operation proved difficult and part of the rod broke off and caught fire. The fire was quickly extinguished, but in the meantime radioactive dust was spread throughout the interior of the NRU building. No one was injured and the reactor and the rod removal equipment were not damaged. The reactor is likely to remain shut down for three or four weeks while the whole of the interior of the huge 12-storey building is thoroughly examined and the radioactive dust cleaned up.
The area surrounding the reactor building was not contaminated and work at the establishment is proceeding normally today-that was May 26. A road between the reactor building and a waste disposal area became slightly contaminated when some material was spilled during the clean-up operation yesterday. I have been assured that there is no danger. This is not a serious accident, and things will be back to normal there shortly.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has an application been made on behalf of Air France for fifth freedom rights at Montreal, and has a decision been rendered thereon?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me of his intention to ask this question. An application has been received and is at present under consideration by the board.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question which was asked on Monday by the hon. member for Timmins, who inquired if I had been informed of an accident in Hamilton harbour to the Manchester Pioneer, and also if the vessel had a pilot on board.
I am advised by my officials that while passing through the Burlington canal, outward bound in a strong wind, the ship sheered and one of its derricks caught a wind brace on the bascule bridge. Damage is estimated at only $300, and the operation of the bridge has not been affected. The shipping company has accepted liability and will pay.
57071-3-37i
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hamilton is not an established pilotage district and there was no pilot on board.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I ask
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether his department has at present any plans to bring together the two parties to the pilots' dispute?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, almost from the beginning of this dispute my department advised both parties that we were ready at any time to act in any way they considered would be useful in helping to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion, and that we would be very glad to act if we were approached. We have not been approached by either party to act in this way.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture who, like his predecessor, I know is always willing to give information. Can the minister inform the house if it is now government policy, under the authority of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, to make deficiency payments where considered necessary for perishable agricultural commodities and provide support prices for durable agricultural commodities?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question, which notice I received just before coming into the house. The hon. member seems to be under a misapprehension as to the meaning of "support price" and "deficiency payment". A support price is a minimum payment which is provided under the Agricultural Stabilization Act as far as any particular commodity is concerned.
That minimum price to the farmer is maintained by various methods. One of these methods is by outright purchase, as is done by the stabilization board in the case of butter. A second method is to make a deficiency payment. That method is used with respect to a considerable number of commodities recently put under support under the stabilization act. It applies to wool, sugar beets and so on. A third method is by means of a flat payment. This is really the type of payment for which the western pools are asking with regard to wheat, oats and barley, although they refer to it as a deficiency payment. Actually what they are asking for is a flat payment. There are various other methods

Inquiries of the Ministry that could be used in order to maintain a support price. I think that explanation is an answer to the question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Because of my previous ignorance will the minister say whether, When any payment is made with respect to apples, that will be a deficiency payment or a support price payment?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thought my explanation would have removed any misapprehension as to what a support payment is compared with a deficiency payment, but apparently the hon. member still suffers from it. A support price for apples may be maintained, depending on what the circumstances are and what seems to be the most practical means of handling the situation, either by the stabilization board purchasing the apples or by paying a deficiency payment or by making a flat payment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We need a dictionary in connection with this legislation.



MAPLE SUGAR AND PULPWOOD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture advise the house if it is the intention of the government to establish floor prices on maple sugar and pulpwood?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In so far as maple sugar is concerned, I replied to a similar question last week and the hon. member will find the answer in Hansard. In so far as pulpwood is concerned, we are giving some consideration to that matter but to date we have made no decision.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence and as there are no parliamentary assistants perhaps the house leader would answer or take it as notice. Is it correct that General Partridge, commander of the North American air defence command, will be or is in Ottawa to bring Canadian military leaders up to date on air defence plans for North America? If so, is it the minister's intention to give similar enlightenment-on non-security matters, of course-to the house?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister in the absence of the minister who was called away for the afternoon I will take the question as notice. I presume the minister will be back tomorrow and will give an answer on his return.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, yesterday while I was not in the house the hon. member for Skeena addressed a question to me. That question related to the exchange of parliamentary delegations between the Soviet union and Canada. In answer I may say that no consideration has been given to that matter.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: My question is a supplementary one to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In putting it I might say that I did not hear too clearly the answer he gave to the question I asked yesterday. My question was not whether the government had given any consideration to this question of an exchange of parliamentary delegations, but rather will they undertake to do so.


Sidney Earle Smith: I regret that the hon. member for Skeena did not hear me down at that end of the chamber. My answer was that no consideration had been given to that question. To that answer I will add, in reply to the supplementary question, that I can give no undertaking in that regard.



DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder if the minister could say what consideration has been given to the request of the wheat pools and other farm organizations for deficiency payments on grain crops in order to meet current financial difficulties facing western farmers.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the question of deficiency payments has been before us for some time. I want to assure the hon. member for Assiniboia that the other 47 members

from the prairie provinces, who are now on this side of the house, have an equal concern with him in the problems of prairie agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: Forty-seven equals one.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They want to ease his
burden a little bit this year. The question of deficiency payments has concerned them. They have spoken to me about it, and it is being studied. I have had a number of papers prepared on this subject by the experts. Again today we have received representations from the interprovincial farm union council with regard to this and other matters. The whole question, which is a complicated one, is receiving very active consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the government considering referring this general subject to the standing committee on agriculture so that farm organizations can appear before the committee and submit proposals?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This has not been considered as yet, but the hon. member's suggestion will, I presume, be taken into consideration by the committee.



VARIATION IN DELIVERY QUOTAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister comment on the wide variation in grain delivery quotas? Can he say what steps are being taken to provide box cars and shipping orders in such a manner as to equalize quotas and facilitate the movement of grain?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I see my hon. friend from Port Arthur is now cast in the role of a representative of the prairie provinces. I can assure him that every year there has been a wide variation in grain delivery quotas, as a result of the fact that shipments from the various ports vary from month to month. If shipments through Vancouver, say, exceed shipments through the St. Lawrence, then quotas in Alberta and western Saskatchewan will be higher than quotas in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. This is not new to the farmers, to the grain trade or to the wheat board. Action is taken by the wheat board and by the railways to provide box cars as shipping orders come forward.
I should like to say this, that on all occasions on which I have received complaints or suggestions from people who think they are not receiving adequate box car allocations and shipping orders I have, in due course, referred
Inquiries of the Ministry those to the wheat board, and prompt replies have been received and prompt action has been taken. I believe everything is being done to equalize quotas across the prairie provinces. I want my hon. friend to rest assured we will continue to take such action as is necessary.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the minister not aware that for many years the representative of Port Arthur has been interested in this particular matter?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, yes, and I am very happy that he has that knowledge. I am sure his contribution to the House of Commons will be enhanced thereby.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister inform the house what progress has been or is being made with regard to the transplanting of disease-resistant oysters on oyster beds in Kent county?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to thank the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick, for his kindness in giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The hon. member is probably aware that in 1957 the department transplanted 100 barrels of oysters in Kent county on an experimental basis. This transplant has proved successful, and mortality has been slightly less than normal.
In the 1958 season the department intends to transplant a minimum of 1,000 barrels in Kent county as part of a program of transplanting 4,300 barrels of disease-resistant Prince Edward Island oysters to New Brunswick. This program of transplanting commenced on May 1, and it is expected that this part of the program will be finished shortly. It is our intention to plant 200 barrels at Richibucto, 200 barrels at Cocagne and 600 barrels at Buctouche.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL-MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice of this question to the Prime Minister. As he is not in the chamber I will ask it of the Acting Prime Minister, because I presume it is the result of a cabinet decision. Would the Acting Prime Minister care to comment on last evening's C.B.C. television news report to the effect that, when

The Address-Mr. Garland speaking to the mayor of Edmonton, the Prime Minister announced that a federal-municipal conference would be called in September?


Howard Charles Green: I shall be obliged to ask that this question stand over until the Prime Minister is in the house.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Can the minister say when the royal commission will complete its report on patents, trade marks and industrial designs, and when these reports will be made public?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The report on copyright was submitted about three months ago, and I hope the report on industrial designs will be submitted in the near future. I cannot say definitely when the report on patents of inventions will be submitted, but it will not be for some months. As to trade marks, the commission has left this matter to be dealt with later because the new Trade Marks Act came into force only in 1954.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Lafreniere for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, last night at 10 o'clock I was reviewing briefly some of the political events of the past year. I was pointing out that after the promises made by the Conservative party during two election campaigns and one short parliament, people had the right to expect, in the light of two Conservative victories, more than a few "Liberal dividends" handed out freely until funds were exhausted and, on the other hand, an old patched up "business as usual" sign in most fields of government activity.
I was raising the question, where is this brave new world, this new way of life promised by the Tories? I was about to point out that the Conservative government assumed office during the greatest period of expansion and development this country

had ever known. It can scarcely be coincidence alone that within a few months of the Conservatives taking office our economy started to sag.
Mr. Speaker, the refusal of the Conservative government to bring down a budget during the twenty-third parliament did more to destroy confidence in Canada than any other single factor. This refusal to give a national accounting destroyed confidence in the conduct of our domestic affairs among many people outside Canada as well. This lack of confidence is one of the main factors underlying our present economic difficulties. Investors at home and abroad had shown by their investments a tremendous interest in Canada's future. Such investment, I might say, is absolutely essential to Canada's continued growth and development, unless we are prepared to accept a reduced tempo of Canadian progress.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members are experiencing difficulty in hearing, and perhaps the reporters are also. Possibly the hon. member would speak a little louder, and the house might settle down to listen.


John Richard Garland: The lack of confidence in Canada's new government was further accelerated by its pronouncements in the field of trade. The Conservative policy of trade diversion pursued so vigorously in the last year by the new government has caused understandable problems. It is little wonder that our neighbours to the south view with some concern the members now occupying the treasury benches. I need hardly recall the comments made by Conservatives during the years they were in opposition concerning what they called the "dangerous infiltration" of American capital. It is to be hoped that responsibility of office will modify their thinking to the extent that continued Canadian development will take precedence over narrow Canadian nationalism.
I think all members of the house will agree that the major problem facing the government today is the economic recession or, if hon. members prefer another expression, the economic pause. This problem can best be overcome by the restoration of confidence at all levels. Unfortunately we have heard very little in this debate from the occupants of the treasury benches concerning government plans or policies for tackling Canada's major problem, that of licking this recession. I can only assume they intend to spend their way out of the present recession. If this be so I would remind the government that they are embarking on a dangerous scheme.
As I see it, today we have a special situation in Canada, inflation in the midst of recession. The government in embarking on a

$6 billion spending program is, in effect, not only turning its back on its election promises to reduce government spending but is also saying that it is more capable of spending the people's money than are the people themselves.
Some of us believe that these special circumstances require special action. Some of us believe that these special circumstances could have been more effectively dealt with by immediate and sizeable tax cuts. In other words, let the people spend their own money for the commodities they require. To me this is a more logical and natural procedure than the more artificial approach of higher public spending.
We all recognize that increased financial burdens can be carried provided the production of the nation, which represents the taxable base, goes on expanding. However, at the present time our national production is diminishing, not expanding. The government evidently proposes to pay its bills by borrowing. Here too is a procedure which can easily be overdone. The government is evidently gambling on the eventual resumption of an upward trend in the national income, when all the facts today clearly indicate the opposite.
Now I should like to refer to another aspect of a solution to our economic slowdown. It is in the field of government closest to our people, at the municipal level. We believe the current economic recession demands a new look at the problems of the hard-pressed municipalities. As one measure of assistance to our local governments we suggest the establishment of a municipal loan fund to make available additional finances on a long-term basis for badly needed municipal improvements. Had funds been quickly available they would have made possible immediate starts, this spring, on municipal projects now awaiting financing, and thus would have speedily provided jobs throughout Canada, the kind of jobs most urgently needed by our unemployed people.
In addition, such assistance would help to bring about a rapid expansion of urgently needed municipal services which in many cases have been delayed by lack of sufficient funds. We propose that the exact scope and administrative set-up of this fund should be settled in consultation with representatives of the provinces and municipalities. It is to be understood this fund would supplement, not replace, existing methods of financing for normal municipal purposes.
There are many fields of government activity to which I should like to refer. However, there will be other opportunities when we are dealing with specific measures that will be presented later in this session.
The Address-Mr. Winkler We in the opposition, while reserving our right to criticize, stand ready to support any worth-while legislation the government may present. However, in the field of trade we feel the government has fumbled the ball rather badly, and that as a result it has added to the depressing strain on our Canadian economy.


Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I formally address this house for the first time, and it is with humility and pride that I join the hon. members of this house in Canada's highest level of government. It is, Mr. Speaker, a privilege to congratulate you publicly on your election to the position of first commoner, and the wisdom of your election is in keeping with the responsibilities of your office and synonymous with the integrity you have shown over the years. I extend, also, congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The humility and pride I feel stem from the realization that my constituency has seen fit to send me to this house to assume my share, with other hon. members, of the responsibilities of federal government, and to speak on their behalf in matters affecting them directly. Pride, because of the emphatic manner in which they expressed their views, both last June and again on March 31, bearing in mind their previous faith and allegiance, which they obviously felt had been breached prior to June 10, 1957; pride also because in the largest plurality since confederation they also expressed their support for the right hon. gentleman who leads the party to which I have the honour to belong. It is worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, that the constituents of Grey-Bruce, in both the last general elections, exceeded the national vote average considerably, a very healthy sign of their interest in federal government.
First, in referring to Grey-Bruce I must explain that as in other cases the constituency consists of portions of two counties, as the name implies. This is because of the fact that it was necessary, through the process of gerrymander, to acquire support in this way. However, I must report that this area, too, agreed with the national results on both June 10 and March 31.
About the constituency of Grey-Bruce, Mr. Speaker; I should like to take this opportunity to inform the house that it is about two-thirds rural and one-third urban, the urban percentage being composed of a number of small towns, the largest slightly more than 4,000 in population, bearing names such as Chesley, Durham, Hanover, Walkerton, Mark-dale, Flesherton and Dundalk. The people are

The Address-Mr. Winkler almost all of Anglo-Saxon or German descent and many of the pioneer family names are very much in evidence today. Since world war II names of other ethnic groups are becoming more common, reflecting our ability to assimilate these people into our society in the friendly atmosphere that all visitors experience.
Grey-Bruce, Mr. Speaker, though quiet and reserved-one can now legitimately say "Conservative" in character-has given to this country many outstanding men. At one time a former resident of this constituency held the high office you now hold. Miss Agnes Macphail, champion of penal reform, was one of my predecessors in office. From Grey-Bruce came the only Canadian world champion in the field of pugilism, Tommy Burns, who held the heavyweight champion belt. We have given to Canada another champion, who through his ability and devotion has won the confidence of more Canadians than anyone since confederation. I refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). It may be, Mr. Speaker, that I boast for Grey-Bruce, but I feel that the advantages to that right hon. gentleman in taking his first breath in my constituency were a powerful factor in his political aspirations. I must also mention the great honour that has fallen to my constituency in the appointment of Hon. William Brunt to the other house.
In Grey-Bruce we manufacture more hard furniture than any other centre in Canada, and in this industry you will find the original pioneer family names such as Knechtel, Peppier, Kroehler, Krug, Ackerman, Bogden and Gross. We then are also interested in the general economy of this country as it affects this industry, and at this point I will mention some statistical data in regard to production, imports and exports as well as total employment, these figures having been prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics, the international woodworkers of America and the furniture manufacturers association.
First I will state that almost 100 per cent of the people in this industry are in the provinces of Ontario or Quebec, and with the number of people in the industry in the year 1949 equalling 100 as the average, we note the increase on the prepared index scale rising to 112.8 for Canada, 110.4 for Ontario and 119 for Quebec, for the year ending December 1957, and later the decrease following that year. The decreases reflected in the latest monthly figures available for 1958 are 106.9, 102.4 and 114.5. I will not deal with the figures in detail, but will submit the table for the record and the reference of hon. members if they so desire.
Next, in regard to shipment of furniture, so you might more readily understand the


latest picture I submit for the record the following. In March, 1957, 62 of these companies shipped $4,494,333 worth of furniture, and in March, 1958, the same firms shipped $4,364,297 worth of funiture, a decrease of 2.9 per cent, and April as compared to the average is down 10.7 per cent. On the basis of averages the industry has shown a monthly decline for some time, but it is anticipated that this trend will reverse before the end of the current year.
With regard to imports, we are not immediately concerned about the net percentage of importations, but the current trend is rather alarming and we note increases in percentages from all countries, as shown in the table I have in my hand. I will merely refer to the totals and submit the details for the record and interest of the hon. members. A 13-month total shows an increase of 4.9 per cent from the United States, and for the same period 28.8 per cent from all other countries. Included here for comparison is a table showing yearly totals in dollars of Canadian production, and below the totals of imports in dollars and the percentage increase from all countries.
To summarize the table from 1950 to 1957, imports of wooden furniture from the United States increased by 33 per cent, while Canadian production was gaining only by 22J per cent. United States imports gained on Canadian production a total of 8J per cent over a three-year period, to August 1957. Since that time United States imports have been running 10.6 per cent ahead of the previous year, while during the same period shipments from Canadian factories were down by 6 per cent in wooden furniture and 2 per cent in upholstered furniture. In view of this slightly depressed condition, we in Grey-Bruce are very grateful for the action this government has taken in the field of housing, since the prosperity of both industries is closely linked, and we trust that the current trend of increased housing starts will continue.
Thinking again of Grey-Bruce, I would take this opportunity of mentioning some of the points that should be considered by this government immediately and in the future. Since we do not have the government institutions found in other ridings I would suggest, in the interests of my constituents, an experimental or model farm for guidance and progress in farming methods and techniques, as well as increased compensation in line with present values for farmers whose stock is ordered slaughtered because of tuberculosis or brucellosis under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. Then, thinking beyond my constituency, I suggest a vigorous effort to decentralize industry for the benefit of the

whole country. I believe, with present planning for the future, this suggestion should have merit from a national security point of view, and it is quite logical that the leadership in such a plan should come from this level of government.
Further, I would suggest consideration of the establishment of a national park in the Bruce peninsula. This entire peninsula would lend itself to such an institution, and it has the historic and natural attributes necessary for such consideration. It is but 200 miles from all densely populated areas of southern Ontario, and such a park would give the tourist industry a considerable lift in that area.
Eeferring more specifically to the debate, the many points and comprehensive program indicated in the throne speech reflect the mature thinking of members of the government and their competence to deal with the heavy responsibilities of our day. As to the criticism voiced during this debate, particularly by the members of the Liberal party, I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that the brief record of this government during the twenty-third parliament will on the long-term basis be repeated in accomplishments. I hope I will be a member of this house to compare the record of the next 22 years with that of the past.
As the member for Grey-Bruce I am pleased to note several specific references which will be particularly welcomed by my people, namely extended unemployment insurance benefits, many and extended public works, the announcement of the national hospitalization program, the amendment of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, an agency for the promotion of small business, and increased moneys for the housing program which is very necessary to the concentration of the furniture industry in Grey-Bruce, as I have mentioned.
I would suggest that this housing fund be made a revolving fund and that in due course it be made self-sustaining so long as it is necessary to be maintained, and that we bear in mind the importance of this industry to our anticipated growth.
We of Grey-Bruce also appreciate the results of the vigorous program by the government to reduce agricultural commodities in surplus supply and the similar vigour to extend markets for the sale of all commodities; and with the program as outlined for agriculture we look with anticipation to further improvements in the industry. We also see improved credit conditions through amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act, long overdue in the interests of the farmers I have the honour to represent. Credit from 57071-3-38
The Address-Mr. Winkler other sources, through the former tight money policy, was virtually denied this large percentage of my constituents, as it was to so many other Canadians in other branches of our economy.
Again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents may I say that I appreciate the broad application of all the other measures referred to in the throne speech for the benefit of all Canada, and also the beginning of the fulfilment of a national unified vision for the development of Canada for Canadians. The people of my constituency believe and know that I will endeavour to support and promote such a program and such unity of thought and purpose. We are aware that those who endeavoured by various means to permanently divide the two traditional cultures of this country have been the makers of their own fate.
When I think of the unity of this country and of those who would divide us, my thoughts return to my experience in world war II, when I was a member of a bomber crew which included two French Canadian boys, one from Prince Edward Island and the other from Montreal. I remember how fearlessly and with what cool calculation Emile Leblanc of Prince Edward Island flew to his death that the rest of us might emerge alive. I can only think with scorn of those who for political gain would follow the course they have pursued, not just for a short time but over a period of years. My thoughts for the French speaking members of this house can be expressed only by the best French I can muster when I say "bienvenue".
There is always some concern, Mr. Speaker, about new citizens and others speaking English. Indeed, for those whose mother tongue is other than English I believe it is an advantage for them to speak English at the earliest possible opportunity, just as I believe it would be an advantage for me to speak French. I noted with concern that on May 20 one of our members spoke derisively about a group of immigrants who were doing a certain job and who could not speak English. I do not wish to agree with the immigration policies of the former Liberal government, but I do take exception to such remarks about immigrants; because it was not too many years ago that English was not the language used in my own home, and I am sure that will apply to many other hon. members. We must be patient and understanding with those who do not speak English and who have seen fit to choose Canada as their new home.
I would now ask the indulgence of the house while I make reference to those parts of the speech from the throne which mention that unremitting efforts will be made to assist

The Address-Mr. Winkler in the peaceful solution of international problems, and that we must maintain armed forces adequate to deter potential aggressors. Strangely now in peacetime, through the alliance of NATO, we have an opportunity of extending our own democratic processes of government and our institutions for the benefit of member nations and of the whole world, even though many people may view it as a strictly military alliance.
In January of this year I had the privilege of participating, with 11 other parliamentary representatives of member nations, in a tour of NATO installations in the United States, to view the economic, technical and defence centres contributing to the whole organization; also centres of missile production and training, plus the headquarters of NORAD at Colorado Springs. We were privileged to discuss with leaders in all fields the importance of each contribution to the NATO alliance defensively and economically.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would thank the government of the United States for this tremendous experience and also the officials who assisted in making this event an international success. This includes the officials at SACLANT, NORAD, and the El Paso missile base. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention the magnificent efforts of Mr. Leo Dolan, Canadian consul general in Los Angeles, in the promotional and public relations work done for Canada, and on the courtesies extended by his office, which was characteristic of all consular offices I had the privilege to visit.
In making mention of NORAD, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Canada and all Canadians can feel justifiably proud of the efforts of the deputy commander of NORAD, our own Air Marshal Slemon, who at the time I visited that headquarters was in complete command. I assure you that had an emergency arisen that required immediate decision during the time I spent there, it would have been made by Air Marshal Slemon, whose responsibilities are as important to North America as those of his immediate superior, General Partridge.
In reading reports and listening to debates these days, when I think of the briefing and the information acquired at that particular centre I often wonder which of the two countries, Canada or the United States, is relinquishing the more sovereignty, since in each briefing during this tour and each discussion a summary would usually be presented and it would always be clear that the efforts and the expenditures were made for defence as a deterrent to war and for the maintenance and preservation of our way of life. I strongly urge, Mr. Speaker, the full

participation of Canada in this organization through our agreements with the United States.
Further, Mr. Speaker, as a result of some of the discussions mentioned and more recent and continuing current events, I would submit to this house that we might well take a long and considered view of education in this country, with the thought of raising the standards, broadening the scope and increasing the opportunities. This has been dealt with in more detail by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Smith) who made a comparison with standards in the schools of Russia, where I believe, it would be rather simple to get the results they require under a totalitarian government such as they have. But it is also quite interesting to note the importance the Russian government places on the teachers in the profession in that a well qualified high school teacher, according to our standards, would receive the equivalent of $28,000 a year.
I believe, too, that this is a matter of importance and necessity in order to prepare the future generations for the very changed world in which they will live through the development of atomic energy and other relevant developments that will soon be available to the public for, I hasten to add, peaceful and domestic use. These are some of the thoughts that occurred to me as we discussed these issues with the members of the faculty of the California institute of technology and I believe they are appropriate in this debate.
Article No. 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization states:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Because of the fact, that NATO itself evolved in part from the Brussels treaty which was to be a basically economic and defensive pact and because the Brussels treaty too was the forerunner of the European free trade market, I suggest that we look with favour on this trade alliance and with the United States seek to support it in accordance with the above-mentioned article of the organization. But I do not advise that we at present become a member of it and I disagree with those in opposition who make this suggestion just as readily as I disagree with those who would make our contribution to NORAD dependent on our trade agreements

with the United States, for reasons which would take up too much time of the house to discuss fully.
However, I would mention that our NORAD contribution is a moral obligation and the ineffective criticism that the government has been subjected to will be proven such in the years to come. I add that should war occur in the future we would have about 15 minutes advance notice, 30 at the maximum. To say the least, this may be reduced with technological advance and it would seem utterly ridiculous to think that agreements involving the NORAD organization should in any way affect our discussions with the United States on trade.
With respect to trade as mentioned in article 2-I make the reference so as not to be too paradoxical, I trust-it might be of interest to know that the other members of NATO have similar situations as that in which we find ourselves in that they all have trade imbalances with the United States. Some members such as Italy, Turkey and Denmark, to mention but a few, suggested that their very entry into the European free trade market was to develop a united industrial machine based on that in the United States so their standards of living could be raised accordingly from the results of their own efforts.
I would submit to the house that although we in Canada are in a peculiar position for the moment it is our moral duty to assist this organization even if it requires sacrifice. The very unity of NATO spells success or failure for the free world and we must assist our allies of western Europe to the end that not only will their standard of living be as near as possible to our own but so that we will warrant their contribution, efforts and position for our mutual cause and security.
As I look ahead into the future with due regard for the past I would ask hon. members, also labour, management and business organizations, to join me in our several duties in support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the government and follow that high road of prosperity and progress that is neither too far to the left nor too far to the right where we will pass the ugly stop signs of recession and unemployment and go on to Canada's rightful position in the world culturally, socially, industrially and politically.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: The Address-Hon. Paul Martin ing of Grey-Bruce but one. He mentioned Miss Agnes Macphail, a very distinguished member of this house over a period of some 17 years and he mentioned other former members who have represented Grey-Bruce.
But I could not help but wonder why he failed to mention a very distinguished member of this house who sat for the riding of Grey-Bruce for 17 years, was a member of the government, served in the portfolio of finance and was the only member of parliament serving in the armed forces during the second world war who was wounded in combat. I refer, of course, to the former member for Grey-Bruce, Mr. Walter Harris, whose contribution to public life and to the welfare of Canada will long be remembered by those of us who were his colleagues and by the people of Canada generally.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has a great responsibility in this house. We all have our sphere of responsibility. We, in the opposition, have our obligations which, as my leader said, we will discharge in a responsible manner. But on the Prime Minister rests a particular responsibility, a responsibility to see that democratic procedures are carefully observed. I was a little surprised the other day when in acceding to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States should be discussed in this house by way of a specific resolution the Prime Minister should have seen fit to use the particular words that he did. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 244 of Hansard for May 20, 1958:
However, my concept of my position, in view of the disproportionate percentage of government membership in the house, in the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite, and also because the opposition seems desirous of having a vote in order to show its opposition to the exchange of notes-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: -is that I would have no objection whatsoever to having a resolution submitted so that hon. gentlemen may have the opportunity to stand up and be counted on this matter.
I want to make this observation. The reason why this resolution should be put forward in respect of a matter so important as this is not so that the Prime Minister will have an opportunity of counting or seeing how particular members vote, but because it is the right of parliament in matters of this sort to pass on acts of the executive; that is the reason and the only reason for the practice which the Leader of the Opposition requested be followed. It is not because the Prime Minister has a large number behind him. It is not because he wants to see how people are going to vote. It is, I repeat, because we on this side of the house, and every hon. member in this house, has a

right to express his views and to vote in respect of such important matters as have been decided already by the executive arm of government in Canada. So I say to the Prime Minister, knowing his great zeal for civil liberties and parliamentary rights, he will not mind if, on occasion, we remind him that he has a very heavy responsibility in these particulars as leader of the government at the present time.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister made much of the unsettled state that existed in so far as fiscal relations between the federal and provincial governments were concerned. Members of the house are, of course, familiar with his words in that regard. I should like to recall some of them, uttered during the election campaign of 1957 in Massey Hall. At that time, in the presence of the premier of Ontario, the present Prime Minister said in part:
We intend to form a government to immediately convene a dominion-provincial conference to bring about a settlement of these problems, not in the spirit of arrogant domination as displayed by the present government, but in the spirit of unity and amity and with mutual tolerance and respect.
That was in May, 1957. He said he would call a dominion-provincial conference in the month of September to resolve this problem that imposed such heavy obligations on the provinces and on the municipalities. The conference was not called until the middle of November. This conference, which lasted two days only, did not come to any decision. The Prime Minister indicated in correspondence later with the premier of Manitoba and other heads of provincial governments that the conference would resume sometime in January. The conference did not resume in the month of January. Instead the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), by telegram, announced to the provinces on a unilateral basis that the federal government had decided to make certain interim payments, totalling I think some $80 million.
Since that time we have not had any word from this government as to what it proposes to do with respect to the matter which the Prime Minister had earlier said was one of the essential conditions for maintaining unity and furthering the economic welfare of this country. Why has this conference not been called? Ten days ago the premier of Ontario said that the conference would take place sometime before July 1. I asked the Prime Minister if he could confirm the correctness of this view. The Prime Minister said that no decision had been reached. We are now, therefore, in the position of not knowing when this conference is going to take place. I believe we have a duty to ask the government why the conference is not taking place. If there were strong reasons in May, 1957

for the holding of a conference, certainly there are strong reasons a year later for asking this government to make known finally to the provinces and to the country its position on this important matter.
Could it be because the government, now faced with additional financial responsibilities, finds itself embarrassed in trying to meet some of the demands and some of the propositions, particularly of the two senior provinces? Is it because the premier of Ontario is not yet satisfied with a mere interim payment of $22 million? The premier of Ontario said in the presence of the Prime Minister, according to the Ottawa Citizen, on March 20:
-the $22 millions additional tax revenue Ontario has received from the Diefenbaker government must be regarded as a downpayment. Ontario had found it much easier to work with the federal Conservatives than with their predecessors-the Liberals^ "I've talked of $100 millions," said Mr. Frost. "I'm confident as I never was before that we're going to produce a new deal." Mr. Diefenbaker, without committing himself, said he was sure Mr. Frost would ask nothing more than fairness and justice.
What is the fairness and justice of it? What does this government propose to do? It clearly indicated in 1957 that the statements of Mr. Frost were justified. The result of that commitment to the premier of Ontario, with the Prime Minister of Canada standing by, was undoubtedly reflected in the election itself.
But could it be that this conference is not going to take place because there are other situations developing in the province of Ontario? Could it be that the observations of a new member of the government of Ontario, Mr. Macaulay, are of great concern to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance? Mr. Macaulay, now a member of the Frost government, says he is not satified with the principle involved in the present agreements. He would not amend them at all, but would repeal them entirely. He would provide for a provincial payment on the basis of a provincial share of the gross national product. This would mean that Ontario, instead of getting another $78 million would get many additional millions. It would mean instead of a total payment of $600 million by the federal government to the provinces, apart from grants to those provinces requiring special assistance, the federal government would be paying a total of one billion dollars. Is it because of these developing views that the dominion-provincial conference is not being called? Is it because there seems to be a difference between the position taken by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in the matter of equalization?
The Minister of Finance said last January that as far as this government is concerned,
28, 1958	589
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin it would commit itself to the principle of equalization payments only for a year. But in the city of Winnipeg during the election campaign the Prime Minister said that he was now in favour of equalization without any limitation whatsoever. Could this be among the reasons why this conference has not been called? As a matter of fact, could it be that the premier of Quebec, now that he has played such a great part in the strength of the Conservative party in this country, is demanding of this government some considerations which were not in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite last February?


Howard Charles Green: Could it be that you are just trying to make trouble?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is quite right. The opposition is here to make legitimate trouble. Here is what Mr. Duplessis must have read on April 30 last year. When picking up Le Soleil he must have seen the following:
(Translation):
Last evening, Mr. John Diefenbaker, leader of the Progressive Conservative party, criticized present federal provincial tax agreements and promised that his party, if elected to power, will remedy the situation.
In a speech at Charlottetown, capital of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Diefenbaker gave the assurance that, if elected to direct the federal government, he would immediately convene a conference for the purpose of redistributing taxation fields.
"Our desire, our wish, our intention, he stated, is to give provinces their fair share."
(Text):
Is that the reason why the Prime Minister arid the Minister of Finance find it difficult at the present time to call the dominion-provincial conference? But whatever the difficulties this government has a responsibility in accordance with what it told the people in 1957 it was going to do. It was not going to do what the arrogant St. Laurent government had done; it was going to resolve finally this question of the fiscal relations between' the federal government and the provincial governments.
There is another reason why this conference should be called and called forthwith. The Prime Minister in 1955, when' we had a measure of unemployment, said that the provinces should be called at once so that the federal government and the provincial governments could discuss with one another their respective responsibilities in the matter of unemployment. Here is what the then leader of the opposition said on March 2, 1955, as reported at page 1652 of Hansard:
In all earnestness I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) not to wait to write to the premiers with respect to the taxation conference before dealing with this immediate subject. This is something that should be dealt with right away.



S90 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
I am confident that if the Prime Minister sent a telegram to the premiers of every province in Canada and asked them to come to a conference immediately to deal with the problem of unemployment and ways and means of meeting the situation, he would receive an affirmative response from every one of them without delay. That conference could take place within a week. It should take place within a week.
Lest anyone think that the leader of the opposition of that day was alone, may I point out that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is reported in Hansard at page 1681 as saying this:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who is here in the house at this moment, if he will consider immediately summoning a dominion-provincial conference, not next month or the month after that, or at the end of the year, but right away. If he gets his wires off today, or if his people can get in contact with them over the telephone he can get the provincial representatives here over the weekend in order to discuss this matter so that people across Canada can have a decision by this government as to how they are willing to participate in the cost of providing relief for the unemployed employables at the present time, and providing the needed public works, I will sit down for just a minute if the Prime Minister will give me an answer.
Then the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) and the Prime Minister himself, as reported at pages 1707 and 1708 of Hansard, expressed similar views. If that was a fair argument then, in view of the long lapse since May of 1957 or since November 1957 and the present time, surely it is not unfair to throw those words back to the treasury benches as an additional reason why this long delayed dominion-provincial conference should be called. It should be called to resolve the fiscal problem but it should also be called to enable the provincial governments as well as the federal government to make some real, genuine, substantial step, as they said they would do during the election, in order to try to erase this serious problem of unemployment, which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), in his cavalier manner the other night, seemed to think was not a serious one at all.
As a matter of fact, I was amazed that the genial Minister of National Revenue should have been so oblivious of the real urgency of this problem all over Canada at the present time. For instance, he said that in the automobile industry sales in the case of at least one company in the month of April this year were better than they were in the corresponding months of the year previous. These words of his will be found at page 430 of Hansard.
I say that the facts are otherwise. By the automobile industry, to whom I sent the remarks of the minister, I have been advised as follows: Retail sales of Canadian manufactured automobiles are down 14.5 per cent

in April, 1958 as compared with April of 1957. For the calendar year to date, from January to April, sales are down 12.5 per cent. For the calendar year from January to March, all new cars including foreign manufactured cars, are down 3 per cent as compared with the same period last year. Canadian manufactured car sales in May are running behind those of May, 1957; and I am advised that figures now available for the first ten days of May indicate a decline of 23.5 per cent relative to the same period last year.
I do not blame this situation entirely on the government. But when a minister of the crown rises in his place and tells this parliament that the sales in one month are better than they were in that month a year previous and that generally the situation is getting better-
Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: May I ask
a question?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Ferguson Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John Ferguson Browne: Did not the
Minister of National Revenue say "in respect of one automobile company"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I just dealt with that matter, as my hon. friend will see if he will read my remarks. When a minister rises in this house and makes a statement of this kind about the improvement in the sales of automobiles, I say with the greatest respect and understanding that he demonstrates that he personally, at any rate, is not fully alive to or fully appreciative of the seriousness of this problem in this country at this time.
I was a little bit amazed at my hon. friend who just interjected because the other night he made an interjection which he will on some occasion, I am sure, be obliged carefully to explain. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) was talking about unemployment and pointing out how serious the situation was, when the distinguished Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) said "So what?"


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I continue.
Mi. Browne (St. John's West): May I make an explanation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to come to what I think should be an explanation on the part of the hon. gentleman. I find that the two ministers in question, namely

the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland, with his incredible interjection of "So what?" could hardly-


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I must appeal to you on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have the opportunity at the end of the hon. gentleman's remarks to make his explanation. That is the proper course under the rules.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentlemen could hardly have examined the critical situation which exists, not only in Canada generally but particularly in the regions which both of them represent in this house. I find that in the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island the percentage of the labour force in active search for work was 10.8 in the month of April; and in the province of Newfoundland the percentage of the labour force seeking work was 24 per cent, the highest in Canada.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Paul Joseph James Martin: So nearly a quarter of the labour force was without work.


An hon. Member:: So what?


An hon. Member:: Shut up.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, this hon. gentleman on the other side continues to bark across the house-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member is rising on a point of privilege. I will hear what his point of privilege is.


William Joseph Browne: My point is this: that the hon. gentleman who is speaking at the present time is insinuating that I was indifferent to the position of the unemployed throughout Canada.


An hon. Member:: You said "So what?"


William Joseph Browne: There you are, Mr. Speaker, that is proof that all the hon. gentlemen in the Liberal ranks think the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the Minister
without Portfolio wished to make an explanation of what he intended by his remarks. He will have an opportunity to do so if he claims it immediately after the hon. member has finished his speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the
hon. gentleman will have an opportunity of taking part in the discussion, and that he will explain exactly what he meant. But I am
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin pointing out to him what the situation is in the Atlantic region, and I am pointing out to the Minister of National Revenue what the situation is in his own province. The Minister of National Revenue made the point that the working force of Canada had grown, and that if it had stood stationary the unemployment figures in Canada would amount to only 295,000. He called the increase in the labour force a "tremendous increase". Actually, it is an increase of only 3.8 per cent over the preceding year.
But these are the important facts: there are now, according to government figures, 516,000 men and women out of work in Canada. Last year, in the month of April, the corresponding period, there were 306,000 out of work. We all know that the labour force of Canada has grown. It grew in 1956. During the 12 months of 1957 the Canadian labour force rose by about 4 per cent, according to the report of the Bank of Canada at page 11. Thus, while we readily concede that the labour force grew during the past year, it also grew in 1957 as compared with 1956 by a like magnitude.
The real difference-and this is the important point to which the Minister of National Revenue did not refer-is that employment opportunities continued to grow in 1957 until the fourth quarter of the year, when the trend in employment turned down. In the latter part of 1957, even though the growth in the labour force tapered off, job opportunities continued to decline and unemployment rose. These are considerations which the Minister of National Revenue did not emphasize in the speech he made to this house. He did not even mention this problem. Still before us, and making allowance for the improvement in seasonal employment, is the fact that there remains a hard core of unemployment in Canada, and in the light of the assurances given by the administration to the people of Canada it is the duty of those of us on this side of the house to remind the government that it has a responsibility in this particular to discharge which it is not discharging at the present time.
If the government wished to do something about these sales of automobiles which the Minister of National Revenue said were now up as compared with the previous year, why could the Minister of Finance, without waiting for a budget, not have resorted to the technique used last December to bring in a special provision for the complete reduction of the excise tax in accordance with the promises that had been made?


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not do that last year?

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman asks why we did not do it last year and I give him the answer-because last year there was no comparable unemployment in Canada. We have been told by the Prime Minister that this government is dealing with unemployment, and the evidence given by the Prime Minister was: we have brought in supplementary unemployment insurance payments.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says "hear, hear". Is that the way to cure unemployment, to put people on relief rolls?
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a speech at the opening of this debate during which he asked the Prime Minister certain questions. The Prime Minister did not answer those questions. Immediately after the Leader of the Opposition spoke, the Prime Minister, in accordance with the traditions of parliament, should have addressed himself to the main points made by the Leader of the Opposition. One of those main points was: what is the attitude of this government toward the proposal recently made by Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom with respect to reciprocal trade arrangements? The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to be clearer in his definition of what he called his objective-formerly it was referred to as his proposal-to divert 15 per cent of Canadian purchases from the United States to another country.
The Prime Minister completely ignored those questions. We have not heard from any member of this government at any time, either in this session of parliament or in the last, any statement by the Minister of Finance, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), by the Prime Minister, by any minister of the crown, or by any minister concerned in these matters with respect to these two very fundamental questions which affect the economy of our country and which thereby affect, in a large measure, the extent to which we have or will have unemployment in this country. We are entitled to know from this government what is its attitude toward the British proposal. The Minister of Public Works can easily say: What is your attitude?-


Howard Charles Green: You haven't got any.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My attitude would be that of the Leader of the Opposition who said that we would at least have told the British government that we would give sympathetic consideration-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Immediately.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -immediately, to a proposal of this sort. And I would say to

the government that a proposal of this sort would mean a great deal to the automobile industry of this country. It would put many thousands of men in my riding back to work.


Howard Charles Green: Are you in favour of it?


Murdo William Martin: I would be prepared to give it the careful consideration that it deserves. I hear some hon. members laughing. They laugh at that kind of reply-


Howard Charles Green: We are laughing at you.


Murdo William Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for his usual form of politeness and courtesy. I say that if we in the opposition are prepared to say that we would give careful consideration to a proposal of this kind-


An hon. Member:: And that is all.


Murdo William Martin: -does the hon. minister not realize that as a minister of the crown he and his colleagues have an obligation to tell the house where they stand on this matter?
They could at least have said, as the secretary of state for commonwealth relations said the other day about the conference which is going to take place in the month of September-this conference which has been talked about so much by hon. gentlemen opposite during the election of 1957; the conference which was to bring in a new deal for Canada and the members of the commonwealth-that it was not even to be attended by heads of government.
This is going to be a conference of ministers of finance only to be held in the city of Montreal. How different from the conference that was held in this very chamber in 1932 presided over by the then leader of the Conservative party, the then prime minister of the day, the late Lord Bennett. The British delegates were headed by the then British prime minister, Mr. Baldwin, and the chancellor of the exchequer attended as a delegate. This conference on commonwealth relations to which the present government has attached such great importance is not even going to be held in the capital of our country but will be held in the city of Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and Montreal deserves this kind of treatment, of course. But it should be a conference presided over by the Prime Minister of this country if it is going to be as important as the Prime Minister led this country to believe it was going to be. We do not even know what the main discussion is going to be about.


Mr. Pallell:: What happened between 1935 and 1957?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We increased our trade, that is what happened.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The secretary of state for commonwealth relations said that the conference should have three main themes. The British are interested in the strengthening of the sterling area, the expansion of inter-commonwealth trade and the provision of additional capital for development of both the old and the new commonwealth countries and the machinery through which it may be implemented to maximum advantage. At least the British government tells us something about these things. The only way we can learn about the attitude of the Canadian government with regard to the British proposals and the only way we learn anything about what this government thinks or what it proposed to do at the economic conference to be held in Montreal in September is by reading the words of a member of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the London Times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is correct. That is the way in which this government seeks to take into confidence this parliament which the Prime Minister has described as the guardian of the liberties of the people.


John Cameron Pallett: You do not quarrel with that statement, of course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There may be an opportunity later on for the Prime Minister to answer these important questions and to comment on the important observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. They cannot be glossed over by ignoring them completely. The country is demanding of this government an answer in the face of the current unemployment situation and the government will not long be able to hide behind its great majority nor hide away from us and from the people the highly important policies in respect of these matters which it considers are necessary in order to provide some stimulus to the economy of our country.
The other day the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp) in a very moving speech closed his remarks by telling us that once he stood before the statue of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and expressed through that particular instrument his gratitude for being a citizen of Canada, he, who now, some years later, is a Canadian citizen of German ancestry and also a member of this house. I must say to the hon. member that his words which I have read several times
The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne moved me deeply as I am sure they have every hon. member of this house. Just as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) said a moment ago, speaking of the languages of those who do not come from the two basic cultures of our country, we must in all parts of this house recognize that the Canadian -family at this time is made up of many groups of people who have come from all parts of the world to play their part in the developing of this nation and in receiving the kind of sanctuary many of them have been afforded by being allowed to come to this country.
It is that kind of spirit of understanding and tolerance and particularly that enunciated by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort which moves me to join with him and with the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) who spoke the other day of the contribution being made in Canada by all groups in our country, French, English and all European ethnic groups who now constitute the citizenry of this country, in expressing the wish that this will be the spirit that we in all parts of this house will want to emulate and encourage and not the kind of suggestion which was made by one hon. member from western Canada-and because he is a new member I will not identify him or his seat-who spoke disparagingly of new Canadians, so-called.
I say, and it is the policy of this party, the party that has done so much to bring many thousands of people to this country, that once people are admitted to Canada and accept the responsibility of residence and citizenship it is the obligation of all of us, born here, to give them every encouragement so that together we can go on building the honour and extending the prestige of this country, the most envied country among the nations of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I promised the hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Browne) the opportunity to make an explanation which he was unable to make during his speech if he wishes to do so now.


William Joseph Browne: I must thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy and I wish I could thank hon. members on the other side of the house for a similar courtesy. I expect from them justice. I know that frequently here in this house hon. members make interjections spontaneously without giving very much consideration to them. I was following the interesting speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) very carefully and was as much interested in the subject of unemployment as he was or the
594	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. W. J. Browne hon. member who has just taken his seat. I think it is extremely unjust and ungenerous for them to impute motives of callousness to me which they do when they ridicule and jeer in the fashion they did during the past few minutes.


Mr. Robichaud:: Poor fellow; so what?


John Ferguson Browne: My interjection followed a reference by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres to an item in the Gazette concerning the number of people who had been employed which was greater than last year.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Unemployed.


John Ferguson Browne: Employed. I have the quotation here as it appears at page 360 of Hansard of May 22. It reads:
Canadian employment in April moved ahead of the year-before figure, but unemployment remained substantially higher than in April, 1957.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, as reported at that page of Hansard, then went on to say:
It is the last part, Mr. Speaker, which I believe is important. Still, there are people who are unemployed who are not considered part of the group usually classed as seasonally unemployed. There is unemployment which is far above the normal seasonal unemployment level.


Some hon. Members:: So what?


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) making the explanation or have I the privilege of doing it? After my interjection, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres continued in these words:
So what? What is 820,000 unemployed? It does not matter to you at all.
I then replied:
Yes, it does, but they have the same problem in the United States.
I have no portfolio, Mr. Speaker, and I have plenty of time to read about and study the unemployment problem. I am just as well acquainted with it as those hon. members to whom I have referred.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What is your question of privilege?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to sit in his seat and interrupt me at every sentence I utter? If I am out of order please tell me so but if I am allowed to speak I feel I should not be interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister without Portfolio has the right to make an explanation which should be confined to a reasonable limit and I hope he will draw it to a close


shortly. He should not be interrupted any more than I prevented him from interrupting other hon. members.


William Joseph Browne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to a conclusion. I was just going to comment that I have been following the unemployment situation both here and in the United States. I think it is a reasonable thing to say there is a great resemblance between the problem here and in that country. I was asking the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres what was his solution. He stated what he believed were facts and I requested him to tell us what his solution of the problem would be. That was the meaning of my interjection.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What is yours?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Are you applauding yourself?
Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without
Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, like everyone else who has spoken I should like to refer with pleasure to your continuance in the position you occupy. You and I are old friends and it is a special pleasure. I recalled, as I heard the almost overwhelming expressions of good will to you, a rather dour quotation which I am sure people will say would only be quoted by a dour Presbyterian. The quotation is from chapter 6 of St. Luke and is as follows:
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!
I mention it only because, while it might apply to some people who would throw their weight about, that is far removed from anything that you would do.
I would like to speak of the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and the seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and how well they acquitted themselves. I would like to comment on their youth and to say how happy I think we should be in this house that there are so many young people when there are problems that require youth and strength to face them.
The columnist of the Globe and Mail suggests that it would need a cannon shot to catch the ear of the house in this debate. He thought it was a rather dull debate, but that was before the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) had spoken, and I propose a little later on to make some comment on what the hon. member said. It has caused me to change my speech a bit, because the first part of my speech was to suggest that all the front benchers had been rather soft.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question? I wonder whether it would be possible for

the minister to speak a little louder for the benefit of those who are a little infirm?


Mr. Macdonnell:: I will be glad to; I am flattered to know that anyone would want to hear me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I always like to hear the hon. gentleman.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this better?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was about to say that the remarks I am about to make must be qualified by reason of this characteristic outburst that we have had from the former minister of national health and welfare. We all remember that on defence he was so good. Whenever he was asked a question he always had a little speech in his desk and we all got used to this practice. The desk lid would be raised and the little speech would come out and the man who had asked the question found that while he might by accident get an answer to his question what he was really getting was a plug for the government already prepared. Today the hon. member was a different man and I shall come to him in a minute, but I cannot throw away the whole of my speech and I am going to make one or two remarks which would have been entirely correct if it had not been for this spirited outburst on the part of the hon. member for Essex East.
What I was going to say was that the front-bench members had been taking it so gently. What they had to say was, what shall I say, so soft and tentative that it was really like punching a soft rubber ball to reply. Take the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) himself. He dealt in a very good-humoured way with the defeat. He referred pleasantly to the words from Henry V:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
I noticed he did not go all the way and quote the king a little later on in the play, where he says:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;


John Whitney Pickersgill: That day will come.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was wise in that they have had enough casualties for the moment and I am sure he does not wish to incur any others just now.
The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was also rather tentative and rather soft, I think. I am sorry he is not here today, but that does not matter because he says-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He left here just a moment ago.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry he is not here.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He had to go to a meeting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He says I can put him to
sleep quicker than anyone in the house. He has said that more than once, and I was anxious to see whether I could keep him awake today, but he is not here and that is too bad. I must, however, refer to one thing he said because it surprised me and it showed what I thought was the curious inability on the part of certain members of the opposition to believe that it is possible for a party, and particularly a party which has a big majority, to have a very sincere regard for the rights of parliament, even the rights of a small minority.
I was very happy that we decided that the chairmanship of the public accounts committee should go to a member of the official opposition. It is not an original idea. It is the practice in England.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, that is for parliament to decide, not the executive.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The executive puts it before parliament and what the executive did was to suggest this, and it is the response of the hon. member for Laurier that I shall read, as reported at page 59 of Hansard.
He does not seem to be quite as good on constitutional law as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), because he says:
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.
That interested and surprised me because it seemed to me that it was an inherent tendency to suspect that there was some dark, hidden design in this. '


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just an impropriety.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to say a little
about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He complained about the speech from the throne and about the vagueness of language. That was rather a curious remark because as I read the speech from the throne it seemed to bristle with plans.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was talking about the international situation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will have occasion to read them again when I am replying to the hon. member for Essex East. The speech from the throne contains measures to accelerate house building; there is a reference to public works; to an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act; to slum clearance and so on. I shall have occasion to refer to that later on, therefore I shall not go on with it now.
596	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
Another thing that I want to point out is that, apart from everything else, we have really got a new conception of the north country. The Prime Minister has really introduced a new dimension into our thinking about Canada-north as well as in the east and west. I am not suggesting that the former minister was not interested in the north. Indeed, I remember seeing a photograph of him once in the north; but I do suggest there was at that time no real interest which had affected the public mind as to the north country.
Perhaps the greatest satisfaction that I think we might have as a result of this election is that we can now proclaim in a way which I believe has not been true for many years that we now have national unity in this country. I think we can say that we have gone back many years, almost to the time of Macdonald, when he had a representation in Quebec which was, I am sure, the greatest happiness to him. Now that we have 50 members from Quebec it is going to be impossible for the old racial talk to go on which wounded so many of us so greatly, and which was practised in this house for so many years. I think it is fair to say that in this debate that we are taking part in now there has been practically no racialism. I cannot remember any. I am sorry to say I understand that that was not quite true of the election but nevertheless it is true now, and that is a very great thing to have happened and I am proud to be a member of this house and this party when that has happened.
I would like to say not more than a word about the gentleman, now sitting in rather reduced numbers in opposition, at a time when they were sitting on this side of the house. We remember the serried and disciplined ranks. We remember discipline even to the point that on a certain famous occasion they sang in unison "Onward Christian Soldiers."


John Whitney Pickersgill: They did not shake their fists at the Speaker.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That was part of the discipline of those days and we have got away from it. The official opposition, I might point out, was almost cut in two last June and then cut in two again this time. That is something I suppose we shall never see again in our day. So much for the official opposition.
I wish to say a word now about the C.C.F. They were reduced by 75 per cent but what a grand time they are having. There are only eight of them popping up and down like jacks-in-a-box. They can speak every day; they can ask questions every day. I should think their only difficulty is in doing their


homework. We notice that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) really does not seem to have the time to embroider his questions with all the quips and paradoxes that he usually uses. Indeed, when he asked a question yesterday it was just asked in plain, ordinary English.
I hope that the members of the C.C.F. present will not object in any way when I say that the situation reminds me of an experience I had in the first world war. There was a first war. Some people doubt it but there actually was. I remember being in the trenches one day as an artillery officer with a small group of survivors of the Royal Irish Regiment. They had been terribly decimated not long before but when their supplies left the base they had been still at full strength. These few survivors got the rum issue for the whole platoon. In other words, 5 or 6 men got the rum issue for 50 or 60 men and it was really delightful to see how they took the war. The war no longer had any terrors for them, not for the time being. It seems to me that the C.C.F. members are in somewhat the same position. They get all the nostrums sent up from the base. They get all the heady mixtures which they deal out to us and there are only a few of them in the position of discharging the ammunition.
I had not intended to deal further with any of the speeches from across the way. I thought my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), had done that but by reason of what the hon. member for Essex East said today I certainly must have something to say in reply. The hon. member undertook to reproach this party for being careless, slack and negligent of their duty with regard to unemployment. I think the simple answer to that is just to read to him some of the things we have done in the short 8 or 9 months we have been in office. I would doubt if there is any record to equal it. I will read a few of these things which I think will impress the hon. member who, when he is himself, among friends and not feeling it necessary to take a party fine, is a fair-minded man.
We brought about substantial increases in pensions of all kinds, old age assistance, pensions for veterans, pensions for the disabled and for the blind. We increased the salaries of civil servants. We have restored the construction industry to good health by making $300 million of government funds available for mortgage loans. We have brought about a new atmosphere in relations between the federal and provincial levels of government and have increased the provincial share of personal income tax this year by an estimated $87 million. The hon. member talked a lot about doctrinaire grievances in

this relationship but the fact is that things have happened and things have been done.
We have increased the federal grant for hospital construction from $1,000 to $2,000 a bed. We have instituted a new system of support prices for agricultural products, provided cash advances on farm stored grain, sold and moved wheat at a record rate out of the huge stock accumulated in recent years, enlarged Canada's Colombo plan aid and embarked upon a program of development of resources in co-operation with the provinces far beyond anything ever known in Canada's history before. We have taken measures to expand Canada's trade abroad. A plenary commonwealth trade and economic conference will be held in Canada this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would he tell us by how much our exports have been increased this year over last year?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not carry that figure in my mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have considerably decreased.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not apologize for not having all these figures in my mind. I am stating things which are facts, things which have been accomplished and which have had results.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have conferences; we had trade.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As mentioned in the speech from the throne, there are other things that are going to be done such as measures to accelerate public works, slum clearance, the railway to Great Slave lake and other things. The answer to the hon. member for Essex East is that an enormous number of things have been done and are under way.
The hon. member also tried to smear the commonwealth conference. He wants to know why it will not be held in Ottawa. There is a very good reason for that. You cannot be sure what will be happening here in Ottawa. It has not been unknown for parliament to sit in the autumn and there just would not be room to have the conference. That was given very careful thought and that is the reason for that. As to those who are going to attend it, all I can say is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is going to attend. What the hon. member said about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) is quite true, but the fact is that there will be the closest contact by the Prime Minister with what is going on. It is suggested that in some way the conference is going to be a second-rate affair because of the people who will attend. If I may say so, that to me is sheer moonshine.
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
I think that is all I want to say about the hon. member's speech. To my mind what has happened in these last months is that we have taken a vigorous and constructive attitude towards unemployment. The situation has not been easy but a great deal has been done. The situation is still not clear but every effort has been made and will be made to take care of it.
I want to answer now one rather loud noise from the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) who demanded that $5 million be put into the civil service retirement fund. In that regard I wish to refer to the Ottawa Citizen of February 12. It is reported there that the Minister of Finance had said that day that "percentage increases in civil service pensions to correspond with general salary boosts are under active consideration by the government." I think we can fairly boast, with the record of the government so far, that "active consideration" when used by a minister of the present administration means something. It is not just a put-off.
With the permission of the house I should like to talk about democracy for a few minutes and the challenge which faces us. This is partly inspired by words which Field Marshal Montgomery used when he was here the other day. I often wonder whether we who have been born and brought up under a democracy and free institutions take enough time to realize, first of all how fortunate we are; second, that these things do not come down from heaven unassisted; and, third, that they must be preserved by the constant vigilance of serious men.
We sit in what we call a free parliament, and I should like to ask in a word what a free parliament is. To me the essence of a free parliament is a parliament where the rights of the opposition are scrupulously observed. I remember an incident in the election campaign of 1945, the first one in which I had any part.
One of the Russians who was here, and who apparently had been very sceptical about the reality of our free institutions, apparently was convinced at last that there was such a thing as freedom when he found that the opposition was free to criticize the government, the only restraint being the law of libel. I like to think of that. I think there is a great danger that some of us may, as I say, take it for granted. We may forget certain important things. We are inclined to think of it as something that has existed from time immemorial.
We have heard that the Athenians had democracy 2,500 years ago. We do not take the time to recall that that type of democracy was something entirely different from ours. It had no relationship to ours. We forget

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell that democracy, as we have it, with universal suffrage is less than 100 years old. We are apt to forget that it extends over only a small part of the earth. It is only when a country like France, for which we have the greatest admiration and respect, is faced with the difficulties she is experiencing there now that we recall these things. Even when we do recall these facts, we probably say to ourselves: "It could not happen here." The answer to that is it could happen any place where people are off their guard and are not zealously cherishing their free institutions.
I should like to read a short quotation from a speech by Viscount Montgomery. We do not usually take our political wisdom from soldiers, but he said some things that are very interesting and which are worth looking at. The other day, speaking to the Canadian Club here, he said some things which are reported in the Ottawa Citizen. I quote:
It is high time that the contest against Russia be regarded as a world-wide struggle.
We now face a global contest which will be a political, financial, and economic war, directed at the very foundations of our civilization and standard of living.
Political chiefs must put first things first and decide the priorities as to the tasks to be met on the various fronts.
Then, he had this to say about Canada, and this is what I want us all to consider:
"It seems to me Canada is in a unique position to provide robust world leadership", said the hero of El Alamein. "Your nation cannot be charged with the stigma of colonialism; you're lucky that way. You have a very good amalgam of French and British blood; that's good. It is quite clear to me that the nations of the world are looking to Canada for a lead. That is a fact. I am not saying that to please you. I would like to see Canada develop a foreign policy of its own, not tacked on to someone else, and give that lead."
I am not asking you to take Viscount Montgomery's words with exact literalness. I think perhaps he did exaggerate our part, but nevertheless it seems to me that we cannot do less than take them seriously, particularly when we contemplate what is going on in France at the moment.
I should like to quote briefly from a thoughtful writer. He is not a political partisan of ours but he is a man who I am sure loves freedom as much as anyone. I refer to Bruce Hutchison. He re-asks the famous question of Lincoln at Gettysburg, that is whether "a system conceived in liberty and dedicated to government of, by and for the people could long endure". He believes the answer is far from certain. He notes that democracy is in an ultimate crisis, and then he points out that the western world's superiority is now disappearing; that the feeling we have that no other system could ever

equal ours in power, intelligence, efficiency and wealth has broken down. Then he says:
After telling ourselves, and apparently proving in two wars, that all other systems were damned by their inward torsions, and by their enslavement of man, we ought to realize that this expectation is false, at least for the calculable future.
Then, he goes on to speak about the way government has entered our lives. He says:
Fifty years ago government was remote from most men's lives, almost irrelevant to their private business, but they could understand all it was doing and easily correct it from time to time.
I have brought this to your attention, not because I have any right to preach sermons, but because we in this house have to guide ourselves. We live in this world where democracy is being questioned, where it is under fire and is receding in certain quarters. I suggest that all of us, and I am perhaps thinking mostly of the large number of private members in our own party, should recall that the Prime Minister has given us a lead. He has shown unmistakable signs that he intends to treat that expression of "democracy-parliament" with scrupulous care. I drew attention already to one thing that has been done.
I should like now to read a short quotation from a great statesman of former years who was regarded as a great Conservative. I refer to Burke who said that he was not a member for Bristol, but a member of parliament; that he would consider the views of his constituents, but would never be bound by them; that his concern as a legislator with legislation was with the national, not with any sectional interest; and that the legislator must do what he considered right, acting on information not always available to the voters, regardless, if necessary, of their current opinions. Many of you will say that that is a counsel of perfection; how could we do that? We are sent here by the voters. All I can say is that I am not setting myself up as a prophet. All I am saying is that those are words which none of us can afford to neglect. This is one of the advantages of the strong position of the government in this house, that we are in a better position to look at questions of this kind in a serious, informed and responsible manner.
I feel if I have said any word which will cause us to consider these things for ourselves, to consider that we have great privileges and that it is an inescapable fact that with great privileges go great responsibilities, then I have achieved something. Whether or not we can do what Viscount Montgomery has put forward, there is a challenge which I think none of us can afford to ignore.


Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to add my congratulations upon your appointment as Speaker of this house. Possessing as you do the necessary attributes for a good Speaker, we may rest assured that you will successfully occupy the chair during your sojourn in the House of Commons. I should like also to express my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, as well as to the mover (Mr. Lafreniere) and seconder (Mr. Nielsen) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These hon. members can be satisfied that when their constituents read their speeches, they will be proud of their efforts.
I should like also at this time to pay tribute to our leader who, at the present time, enjoys the recognition of the world for his outstanding contributions to peace.
Since confederation North Renfrew has been quite a political battleground. I am very happy to be able to say today that the people of the constituency returned to the fold, although their decision was somewhat delayed. Lumbering, dairy farming and cattle-raising have been important factors in the development of my riding. Recently however, in the past 10 or 15 years, the situation has changed somewhat with the arrival of industry and the development of the Petawawa military camp as well as the atomic energy plant at Deep River. These two new industries, as I call them, have meant a great deal to the people of my riding, and it is to be hoped that they will continue for some considerable time.
As a member of the House of Commons and one who is not too ambitious because of age, I feel that my paramount duty is to my constituency and to contribute as much as possible to the welfare of all members of the constituency regardless of their political color or stripe. Industries of which we have not too many have suffered like others during this recession and, as a result, we have a substantial number of unemployed. The day before yesterday I obtained the figure. The number was 2,405 which compares with 2,719 a week ago and 1,380 a year ago. However, in fairness, it must be admitted that part of this unemployment is seasonal. The opening of the saw mills last week has returned jobs to 300.
North Renfrew is noted as well for its natural beauty, its many lakes and streams and as an outstanding hunting and fishing territory. The tourist trade in our riding is increasing each year, and we all know how important it is to maintain this business and to expand it throughout Canada.
While I have not the slightest desire to cry havoc with regard to the unemployment
The Address-Mr. Forgie situation, I think it is obvious that a public works program is not the answer to unemployment. I firmly believe that the solution lies in a policy of increasing the spending power of the consumer. That objective can be largely if not completely accomplished by increasing the income tax exemption of married couples and single people. If we were to construct five public buildings in the town of Pembroke, outside of which I live, it would not take up much of the slack as far as unemployment is concerned in my section of the country. This subject has been discussed by practically every hon. member who has risen in the house since the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne began and I shall therefore not belabour it. It can be discussed in the proper place later on. Of course, as to the increase in tax exemptions for both married and unmarried people I might say that, as you know, was our battle cry in the last election.
I am very happy to say that the plans for the construction of buildings at Petawawa and Deep River, which were made by the former Liberal administration, have been accepted in the main by the government of the day and that the work is going forward in a satisfactory manner. Petawawa camp and the atomic energy plant at Chalk River make terrific contributions to the town of Pembroke which, as hon. members possibly know, is the county town. The combined payroll of Deep River and Petawawa military camp for those people who are residing in Pembroke or beyond-at Westmeath and other places-is greater than the combined payroll of industry in the town of Pembroke. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to realize that this matter is of great importance to my section of the country.
There is one point I should like to make and I should like to have the ear of either the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) or the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley). In the construction of these houses outside Petawawa military camp I should like to see the government co-operate, if possible, with the village of Petawawa which is anxious to co-operate, in order to see to it that when the services are laid on with respect to the 176 acres that were acquired there during the last regime they will meet with the council of the township of Petawawa and see whether a satisfactory arrangement cannot be made so that pollution of the Petawawa and Ottawa rivers will be stopped. I think that could be done. From discussing the matter with the council I know that they are prepared to pay what they can afford in order to remove this situation.
We were very fortunate indeed in securing these lands. We obtained 176 acres, as we

The Address-Mr. Forgie thought, for $13,500. But when the survey was put in, we found that we had 219 acres, so we obtained 43 acres as a gift. That went to the Veterans Land Act administration under which veteran homes are being built and the balance is turned over to the Department of National Defence for the construction of homes for the wives and children of soldiers who are at present at Peta-wawa camp or who will be there in the future.
There is one point that I should like to bring to the attention of the government, of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Defence Production, and it is this. We have an abundance of excellent timber and cement blocks that can be bought within five miles of Petawawa military camp. The Ottawa valley, as you know, was noted for its lumber production-that is what made the valley-until the last 20 years or so. I submit that these materials should be acquired by the contractor at Petawawa to carry out these contracts now awarded. I would ask the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Defence Production to investigate this matter thoroughly and to see that the people in my riding engaged in lumbering operations and the construction of cement blocks be given an opportunity to supply these materials.
I may say that all along that has been the situation, except that we had difficulties when the Liberal administration was in power in connection with the contractor bringing in low-priced labour there and allowing our chaps in the district to stand by; they were unable to get a job in Petawawa military camp at the time.
At the present time one of the leading contracting firms at Petawawa has not been obtaining its labour from residents of the riding although the Department of Labour, through its representative in Pembroke, offered every co-operation to the contractor when the contract was awarded. It is my understanding that only four employees were sent up last week. There has been a great deal of ballyhoo about this thing, but I can assure you that no people have been employed from the unemployment office. The figure I obtained yesterday was four. As I said, we had a similar situation there during the Liberal administration and it took a bit of doing to straighten it out. It was not satisfactorily straightened out, in my judgment, even with all the work that was put on it. These unemployment insurance offices go to a great amount of trouble to secure jobs for people in the various localities throughout the country. It is my opinion that these contractors who secure government contracts should play the game with the government

when it comes to the question of employment, especially in times such as those through which we are now going.
In discussing with selective service this matter of employing men from Arnprior and Renfrew at Petawawa camp it was pointed out that these men would be compelled to seek board and lodging in Petawawa near the job, and that this would result in a substantial reduction in take home pay.
At a meeting held in Pembroke by organized labour prior to the last election I pledged my support to organized labour. It seems that many of the employees, to whom it has been stated jobs will be given at Petawawa, are opposed to organized labour and that even the contractor himself holds the same view. In a letter to the Pembroke Observer written, apparently, by a union carpenter, it is stated that non-union men are getting the preference on this new job.
I sincerely hope this is not the case, but if it is I would expect to have a complaint lodged with me so that I can discuss the matter intelligently with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). I have no intention of ignoring the pledge I made to organized labour prior to March 31. Petawawa camp and the contractors who have been working there during the past 15 years or so have always played ball with Pembroke workers and veterans of both world wars. There have been one or two unpleasant incidents, but on the whole working conditions have been satisfactory and are so today.
I should like to see the contractors in our district awarded some of these government contracts but I am afraid they are unable to raise the large sums required as deposits when tendering for 250 or 300 houses. If these contracts were broken down I believe our contractors could handle the construction efficiently and expeditiously. I was responsible, in 1947, for building 15 houses for veterans in Pembroke beside the cottage hospital to exactly the same plans and specifications as houses of similar type built in Ottawa. Construction of the houses in Pembroke cost $400 less than that of similar houses in Ottawa. I say this to illustrate the advantage of having the work done locally. These contractors are thrifty, hard-working individuals and it seems a shame to me that outside contractors should be coming in to take these contracts. The only way in which the government could exercise any real measure of control over them would seem to be by way of the cost-plus system-


Howard Charles Green: You don't want that, surely.


James Moffat Forgie: No. I did not say I did.

To turn to another matter. I do not think my riding would be facing its present unemployment situation had it not been for the attitude taken by Mr. Drew and later by Mr. Frost in the provincial government in transmitting from Des Joachims 450,000 horsepower and taking it to industry in south and southwestern Ontario. The Quebec government had the right idea in my judgment; they brought industry to power, with the result that they have developed important sections of that province. If that principle had been adopted in our case-and we did fight for it-I do not think we would today be discussing unemployment in my part of the country.
In this connection-and this concerns the Department of Trade and Commerce-I would mention that a new nuclear power generating unit is being constructed at Des Joachims by Atomic Energy of Canada in conjunction with the hydro electric commission of Ontario and the Canadian General Electric Company. At the present time progress on this project is in abeyance pending certain decisions which are of vital consequence.
I hope the government of the day will see to it that the expected 24,000 or 25,000 horsepower to be generated is retained in my riding for the use of industrial concerns which are prepared to come in, and not transmitted to southern Ontario. The power generated will not be produced economically, we know, but it will lead to the development of electrical energy on an economic basis, and I urge the government that it should be left in our section of the country.
I am, of course, deeply grateful for the soldiers' vote, but I am disturbed about the method of taking this vote. In discussing the procedure with authorities who know much more about it than I do, I suggested that the forces' vote be reported the same day. Machinery to accomplish this is not easy to provide, but the forces have strenuously objected to the present procedure, claiming their ballot is not secret. Possibly the soldiers' vote could be added to the advance poll vote, if it is decided to have advance polls in each riding. This vote, to be tabled at the same time as the main vote, would have to be taken in advance and, possibly, nomination day could be changed to three weeks before election instead of two.
Another problem concerns voting by wives of members of the forces overseas. This is much simpler. The wives of military personnel found that although they could have voted in Germany they were unable to vote in Canada because they had not been resident in Canada for 12 months prior to the issue of the election writ. The elections act
The Address-Mr. Forgie should be amended to avoid this denial of the right to vote.
Another matter which I should like to raise concerns the Canadian farm loan board.
I suggest that the field activities of the board be reviewed. I have no intention of being unduly critical of the board. As one of the solicitors for the board for some years prior to 1953 I know how efficient it is. But I believe the board is short of field men, and I suggest that they might use the field men of the V.L.A. who are outstanding. We who sit on veterans affairs committees are fully aware of this fact. It is obvious that the scope of the board will be broadened within the next few years. Loans will increase in numbers and amounts and additional field men are urgently required in my opinion and in the opinion of other members of the house as well. I believe an hon. member on the other side of the house has made a similar recommendation.
There is another matter which I think will be much discussed during the next few years. I refer to western crops, and I would urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) to see to it that more funds are made available to provide extensive research in the soybean field. I know a bit about this versatile bean, as two of us owned the first processing mill at Milton. It did not prove a financial success, but it was the beginning of the soybean industry in Canada. The farmers of Pelee island got 400 bushels of soybean seeds, and for the last 10 years they have been taking $350,000 off the island in beans, so that in the end it did prove a financial success. Our little camp was the beginning of the industry, and when Mr, E. P. Taylor came in with me he bought a $2,500,000 plant on the waterfront. I think it has now been transferred to another company.
I should just like to quote a few figures at this point. I am speaking from personal experience of this question. I have spoken to over 35,000 farmers in southern and south western Ontario on the growing of soybeans, and I think hon. members will find that the following figures are of interest as illustrating the growth of the industry:
Soybean Production in Ontario and Average Price For Past 5 Years
Acres Bushels Average Price
1953	
216,000	4,406,000	$2.451954	
254,000	4,953,000	2.401955	
214,000	5,650,000	2.091956	
239,000	5,269,000	2.121957	
252,000	6,476,000	1.95
And I read in Hansard that the Minister of Agriculture has placed the floor price at $2.10 a bushel. I am heartily in accord with the price. However, I would point out that we do not supply all of Canada.
602	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Forgie
I have some figures which are of interest. In 1954 we exported to the United Kingdom
605.000	bushels of soybeans with a value of $1,700,349; in 1955, 945,122 bushels valued at $2,481,669; in 1956, 1,119,980 bushels valued at $3,026,369 and in 1957, 1,508,449 bushels valued at $3,948,209. Exports of soybeans to Germany in the same period are as follows. We exported 27,698 bushels in 1954 valued at $80,324; 7,541 bushels in 1955 valued at $21,868; 56,000 bushels in 1956 valued at $142,240 and 44,800 bushels in 1957 valued at $114,380.
As a result of effort expended there are now
4.000	bushels of soybeans planted in Manitoba. The difficulty is that the oil content of the soybeans produced there is not as high as in the case of Ontario-grown soybeans. There is no question but that the soybeans grown in the province of Ontario are the finest in the world.
Seven years ago there was a large stretch of sandy soil west of Pembroke covering at least 1,000 acres. I obtained from the experimental farm in Ottawa 45,000 tobacco plants. I planted four acres myself and distributed the rest among farmers in my area and we had a fine crop. These developments take place slowly but as time goes on improvements are noted. Under date of May 8 I received a letter from a representative of a large Canadian company the name of which I shall not divulge advising me that the company plans to conduct a small experiment this year growing flue-cured tobacco in the area. This is an industry which I think can be much further developed in our district. Because of the sterling situation the British market is quite restricted but many opportunities are available for the expansion of this industry in Canada.
Another matter was mentioned this afternoon but the Minister of Agriculture did not reply to the question that was asked. I would like to see pulpwood designated as an agricultural product and a floor price established for the farmer on pulp taken off his own land.
I sometimes wonder where this process of subsidization will lead us. There is an Ontario statute regarding pulp taken off crown land in this province. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture realizes that pulp and paper companies are at most times in a much better position to bargain for pulpwood than are the farmers for its sale. Pulp and paper companies alone know what quantities of farmers' pulpwood will be sought in any wood year. This means that the farmers who supply approximately 25 per cent of the total pulpwood must wait for indications of demand on the part of the buyers. Pulpwood is the most important forest product in Canada and


in 1953 it had a total value of $371 million. It is of course higher now.
Referring again to soybeans I might mention that I hope to be a member of the committee on agriculture and colonization and doubtless the members of that committee will have ample opportunity to discuss this matter.
Several new hon. members have already spoken of the crisis in education in this country. There is no doubt but that many new problems are arising in the administration and financing of education but we in this parliament have to remember that the jurisdiction over education is not ours but under the constitution belongs to the provincial legislatures. There is, however, one way in which the federal government could help meet one of the greatest needs in this field without even the suggestion of interference with provincial autonomy.
The rapid growth of population, particularly of school age, has created a tremendous need for more classrooms all across the country. This need is all the greater because municipalities and school boards have not felt in a position to keep pace with the demand in a period of building boom. At the present time we are all worried by the decline in investment and the decline in construction which is certain to follow. We are also seeking ways to reduce seasonal unemployment. I would suggest the government might help education, assist the municipalities and succeed in reducing seasonal unemployment by setting up a fund to contribute a share of the cost of providing the new classrooms needed in this country.
My idea is that the contribution should not be on a percentage basis but that it should be a fixed amount per classroom regardless of total cost, somewhat analagous to the situation with respect to hospitals. This would give proportionately more help to rural areas and smaller communities where building costs are lower and where capacity to pay is also lower and indeed that is what we are after. We should get right down to the township level. I also suggest that such grants should be conditional upon construction being continued through the winter months and that they be paid direct to local authorities but only on a certificate from the provincial authorities stating that the school is recognized by the laws of the provinces and the additional classrooms are needed. Such grants would relieve unemployment quickly because standard plans for school buildings are available in all provinces and very little advance planning would be necessary before the work was undertaken.
In order to give new hon. members an opportunity to discuss this proposal I will subsequently give notice of a motion to be

placed on the order paper in substantially the following terms:
Resolved that the government should give consideration to the establishment of a substantial fund from which federal contributions would be made to new classrooms constructed by local school authorities recognized by the laws of the provinces at a fixed amount per classroom provided the need for such classrooms was certified by the appropriate provincial authorities and construction was continued without interruption through the winter months in order to assist in meeting the problem of seasonal unemployment.
It is my hope that many hon. members will find it possible to support my proposed resolution.


Mr. J. E. Bissonnette (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, my first words to you are words of congratulation for the honour bestowed on you in your re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons. Your great distinction and your spirit of decorum and impartiality have already qualified you for the holding of such a high office and I know you will discharge your tasks to the great satisfaction of hon. members of your party. Your selection as Speaker has been unanimously approved by all hon. members of this honourable assembly. Allow me to mention at the risk of shocking your modesty that when you speak the French language it reminds me of genuine Parisian French.
I am also happy to offer my sincere thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for having added to his cabinet the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Courtemanche) as Secretary of State and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. O'Hurley) as Minister of Defence Production. Both are gentlemen of great merit and I assure him that in them the province of Quebec is very well represented.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am also very happy to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker. I would also like to remind the house of his distinguished father, now Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, who himself, forty years ago, occupied the Speaker's chair in this house. The hon. Chief Justice Albert Sevigny has been a model father for his son and has set him an inspiring example.
I might also congratulate my two young colleagues the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere) and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for the honour which has been conferred upon them on being invited to move and to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne and for having done so with so much talent
The Address-Mr. Bissonnette and authority. This was most certainly a fine mark of confidence that both had well deserved.
I had no intention of rising in the first few days after my arrival in this house, following in this the advice given by Sir John A. Macdonald himself to the new members of his day. The first thing to do, he said, is to learn to hang your coat and hat, to sit, to listen, to observe and to think. However, if I make so bold as to rise at this time and to fail to conform to Sir John A. Macdonald's advice, it is first of all to reassure those who might have some doubts about the matter and to tell them that, as a member for the province of Quebec, I sit in this house as a militant Conservative, as one who has long been fascinated and enthralled by the tales of the political careers of Sir John A. Macdonald and of Sir Georges Etienne Cartier whose names shine out above all other fathers of confederation.
Consequently, my party called me to service and I agreed to do what I considered to be my duty. I did not come here to create a situation for myself, because I had one in my profession which allowed me to be envious of no one. The noble medical profession which I practised for the past 38 years in the midst of an essentially working population filled me with satisfaction and happiness.
The electors of my constituency whom I served in great numbers and for a long time in the medical field have shown me confidence and have thought that I could be of service to them in this new field as I had tried to be as their family doctor.
Nor will I fail to dedicate myself to the interests of my province, within the limits of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the constitution, and also to the interests of other provinces with rights and privileges equal to those of the province of Quebec, and thus help achieve the legitimate ambition of all true Canadians, national unity, something which we Quebec Conservatives have been desiring and seeking for a long time.
It will then be simply a matter of respecting in good faith and harmony the rights and privileges guaranteed each of the provinces by our constitution.
May I now, Mr. Speaker, introduce to this house the electors of my constituency of Quebec West, 85 to 90 per cent of whom are workers of all trades-joiners, carpenters, plumbers, painters, laborers, and so on-a whole population seriously affected by unemployment at the present time. This is a serious problem for the worker and it must be solved. I promised them that I would continue to devote myself on their behalf as would a true doctor to heal this aspect of suffering.

The Address-Division
Here, I must pay tribute to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to his colleague who, as good doctors would do, offered in the speech from the throne the emergency treatment which was necessary by extending for some time the unemployment insurance benefits. As true clinicians, they understood, with all due deference to my hon. friends from the opposition, that oxygen and a blood transfusion are always indicated to allow the patient to survive until the necessary treatment can be applied and prove effective. My electors were calling for that emergency treatment and will be glad to see that it is being applied.
If I were to be consulted as an intern on duty here, I would moreover suggest a substantial increase in family allowances and their extension to the age of eighteen. This increase and this extension in assistance for our families would indirectly contribute to the solution of the educational problem.
What is there left to do in my constituency? Put public works into operation as soon as possible. What public works? Our hon. friends in opposition and especially those who have now left us, know what works should have been implemented in the city of Quebec. In my own constituency, Quebec West, hard working and large families have traditionally been crowded into small homes in an already overpopulated area. A low cost housing project was being carried out on some extremely fine property, whose price had not as yet risen to an exaggerated level, when it was decided to bring in credit restrictions, thereby limiting the scope of this development. But now that a considerable sum of money has been voted and that the small house builder is now in a position to attain his ambition to become a home owner, I would urge the government to leave nothing undone so that this work may be undertaken as soon as possible in order to reduce unemployment. However, it would be highly desirable to reduce the interest rates on such loans. There is an old French saying which we often hear sung on the radio: "So goes the building trade, so goes everything" which means, of course, that all trades benefit from the building trade, that our many day labourers, carpenters and plumbers will find work in that industry. Our workers are no beggars, certainly not in my constituency. Let us give them work at a reasonable salary and they will be happy. Mr. Speaker, they remain with the farmers, the very pillars of society.

(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being 5.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put the question on the amendment now before the house.


J.-Eugène Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, in the field of public works and projects, our Liberal predecessors left us a wide field in which to carry out some achievements.
Great politicians whose names have illustrated our race, have left no monument, no important works in our city of Quebec. It was left for our present Prime Minister when he came to our city, to discover, run-
The Address-Mr. Bissonnette ning through it, the St. Charles river on the shore of which a cross is to be found precisely on the spot where Jacques Cartier, the great discoverer of our country, landed.
This cross, standing on the desolate and neglected grounds which surround this historic site, is situated in the constituency of our former great prime ministers, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This cross deserved a better fate.
Our distinguished Prime Minister, impressed and concerned with the preservation of historic landmarks, decided then and there to have the place made into a park dedicated to the memory of the great discoverer and to draw the attention of all Canadians to that site as a place of pilgrimage and reverence. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to mention to the Prime Minister that the St. Charles river which runs through our city has a very historical character and could become the pride of Quebec. London is proud of the Thames and Paris sings the glories of the Seine; the banks of the St. Charles river would therefore deserve to be improved, so as not to mar the beauty of that national park.
I therefore urge the government to carry out those projects as soon as possible. It would mean jobs for our workers, who need them very badly.
Plans for a post office, whose construction was proposed so long ago, are still buried in drawers. I am confident that this government will soon rescue them from dusty files, as a new post office is urgently required, because of lack of space in the present building. Our workers would be glad to find work there.
Quebec has the privilege of being the most beautiful natural seaport of Canada. It must be developed. Winter navigation, a project whose implementation seems possible, and the construction of piers and deep water wharves all along the reefs of Beauport, would make possible the handling of much traffic all year long. There is room on the magnificent plateaux overlooking those reefs for industrial plants. The Quebec north shore area up to Labrador contains abundant metals and the richest iron ore in the world. Once again I urge the government to encourage the development of our port and the establishment of industries to process our base metals here in Canada. The unemployment program would be solved for a long time and our foreign trade would by this very fact be better balanced. Let us not forget
606	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bissonnette that our minerals which go to the United States and elsewhere come back in the form of automobiles, machines, knives and spoons, instruments of all kinds, to the prejudice of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the medical profession as well as a member of parliament,
I cannot help being interested in our federal hospitalization insurance act. Under this act, six provinces are prepared to enter or have actually entered into agreements permitting them to get millions of dollars to care for the sick and to pursue medical education in our universities.
We know that the health problem, as the educational one, is one of provincial jurisdiction. But in Quebec, the problem is somewhat different from that of the other provinces. In our province, most hospitals belong to the religious congregations which administer them, although most of those institutions were built with the assistance of provincial government subsidies. Our hospital standards are certainly not lower than those of lay hospitals and their administration, generally speaking, is less subject to deficit financing for we know that the work of our underpaid nuns is a charitable contribution to the care of the sick.
Our nursing sisters deserve our trust and our admiration.
Our hospitals should not be denied federal aid, particularly if, following special agreements, we were able to pay these grants under the same conditions as our provincial government.
I refuse to pose as an expert on the solution of this problem, but as the only member from Quebec in this house who is a doctor, I offer my full co-operation to the Minister of Public Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), in seeking a formula acceptable to our governments, and thus have our hospitals and institutions benefit from the amounts available to the other provinces which entered into agreements to that effect.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, when for the first time I had the honour to meet the Prime Minister in Quebec city at our great assembly in Quebec East I told him that as a physician I was going to prescribe. But today I consider that I am no more than an ordinary assistant physician. I consider that our great diagnostician and physician to whom we look for the solution of our problems is our Prime Minister himself, and that all his prescriptions are contained in the speech from the throne. Consequently my prescription will be rather in the nature of suggestions. I therefore wish to conclude my speech by making these suggestions to our Prime Minister.

When in Quebec city on the occasion of its 350th anniversary celebration, in recognition of the great contribution of its four elected candidates on March 31 I suggest to him today, first, that he give to my constituents a message of hope and encouragement with respect to the serious problems of unemployment in my constituency where the unemployed are particularly numerous. A project of housing development giving them employment would fill their hearts with happiness.
Second, I suggest that he tell the labouring citizens of my city that there will be a commencement of our great harbour development; that would be an announcement for Quebec of an era of great prosperity. Quebec is the oldest city of Canada, so my third suggestion will be a project to beautify old cape Diamond of Champlain, its surroundings and the shores of the historical St. Charles river and to consecrate the old city of Champlain as a national site of pilgrimage where all Canadians might be brought to a realization of national unity in that atmosphere of historical remembrance.
Mr. Speaker, before taking my seat I am happy to express my feelings of admiration for the important contribution offered by hon. members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition with respect to the settlement of our problems. They performed their task with a high degree of distinction and authority. Let me congratulate them, even though on many occasions we shall not be in accord with them on certain aspects of our problems and decisions.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall conclude this debate. Then on Friday we are planning to take first the motion to amend standing order 65 by adding a standing committee on estimates and a standing committee on veterans affairs; then the resolution preceding a bill to amend the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act; then second reading of an act to amend the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act which appears in Votes and Proceedings today; fourth, the resolution preceding a measure to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act which also appears in Votes and Proceedings today; and finally, the resolution preceding a measure to amend the Department of Transport Act having to do with the appointment of a transport controller. On Monday we are calling a supply motion which would normally take Monday and Tuesday.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	What is the purchase cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of a radio relay transmitter such as is used at Nakina, Ontario?
2.	What is the installation cost of each transmitter?
3.	What is the annual service charge paid the Canadian National Telegraphs and the Canadian Pacific Telegraphs for each transmitter?
4.	How many such transmitters were in action on May 1, 1958?
5.	How many carried trans-Canada network programs?
6.	How many new transmitters have been opened since May, 1957?
7.	How many communities have been established by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as potential possessors of such radio relay services?
8.	What are the communities?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister
of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises:
Question
1.	Costs of such low power relay transmitters range from $800 to $1,300. '
2.	Installation costs of such transmitters vary considerably, depending on location, from about $3,500 to about $6,500.
3.	The amount paid to the railway telegraph companies depends on additional air line miles of remeasured networks and any construction costs involved to the companies. Charges for existing stations have varied from approximately $1,200 per annum to about $10,000 per annum.
4.	54.
5.	52.
6.	None.
7 and 8. In the view of the corporation any community not receiving any Canadian radio service is a potential location for such stations. In making any decisions on any installations within the financial resources which may be available to it, the corporation has to consider a number of factors including the cost per home served, the availability of frequencies since there are not enough for all communities, distance to nearest wire line network repeater point, need for new wire line constructions, and level of annual charges to be incurred.

Thursday, May 29, 1958