1959-01-16

ROYAL VISIT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a statement concerning plans for the visit this coming summer of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Since parliament last met plans have been progressing for a tour which will take Her Majesty to all ten provinces of Canada as well as to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It has already been announced that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness will arrive at Torbay airport near St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 18, and that they will be here in Ottawa to celebrate our national birthday on July 1.
Next week a more complete outline of the Queen's itinerary will be made public. Suffice it to say at this time that there were certain principles that guided those in charge of the tour in making their plans. One of these is that elaborate state functions be kept to a minimum. It is hoped that Her Majesty and the Prince Philip will be able to see something more of Canada's newer industries, some of the mining areas and some of the parts of this country that are coming into prominence as national development and expansion plans mature. Visits to some of the outlying areas of the country will form a prominent part of the program.
The Queen of Canada will be in her Canadian realm for some six weeks, but, of course, the vast areas of Canada will make it impossible for her to visit as many places as she would like. However, there will be other visits in the future. The facilities of air transport will make it possible then for Her Majesty to see other parts of the country which cannot be included in this tour because of the limitations of time as well as transportation facilities. She will travel some 15,000 miles. The royal yacht Britannia will carry the royal party through the great lakes system, during the course of which Her Majesty will participate in the ceremonies marking the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Next week, when the complete itinerary is available, it will be presented to the house
so that hon. members generally will know the nature and scope of the journey she will take, as well as why particular areas are included on this occasion which did not, in the past form part of any of the royal tours.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members of the house will have heard with the greatest possible pleasure, as indeed the country will hear, the announcement the Prime Minister has just made regarding the visit of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh to our country. We will look forward to receiving the details of that visit in due course.
It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that Her Majesty and Her Majesty's consort will receive the warmest possible welcome in this country, especially in those outlying districts which she will now visit and which it had not been possible for members of the royal family to visit in the past. I note the Prime Minister's hope, and the intention of those who are responsible for the visit, to keep formal affairs to the irreducible minimum. This has been a hope and an ideal which has been expressed before every royal visit that has been made to Canada, and I hope perhaps on this occasion there will be more success in realizing it than has been the case in the past.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: On behalf of the C.C.F., Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the announcement that has been made and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, by saying we are exceedingly pleased that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness Prince Philip will be visiting our country this summer and will be present at the ceremonies opening the St. Lawrence seaway. We know that Canadians from coast to coast will welcome this announcement. We are pleased that, so far as may be possible, Her Majesty's subjects will be given every opportunity to participate in the celebrations that are contemplated. We hope that the health and convenience of Her Majesty may be kept in mind so that the functions will not be too tiring for her.
We are pleased that she is coming to Canada once again; and while no one in the House of Commons can set the date for prorogation of this session, I would express the

Public Service
hope that it might be possible for the Queen to prorogue this session of the House of Commons.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I be
permitted to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the statement he has just made. Has the Prime Minister or the committee appointed for the royal visit yet decided where the official opening of the St. Lawrence seaway will take place?


John George Diefenbaker: I think the hon. member's question will receive an answer when the committee reports next week and the itinerary is brought before the house.



PUBLIC SERVICE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in English of the report of the civil service commission of Canada entitled "Personnel Administration of the Public Service". You will recall that Mr. St. Laurent, the former prime minister, suggested that there be this investigation. Mr. Arnold Heeney as chairman of the commission and Miss R. E. Addison and Mr. Paul Pelletier as members undertook a study of the many complex problems in connection with civil service administration. They were also directed to make such recommendations as they deemed fit so that the legislation, which has to all intents and purposes been in effect since 1919 when introduced by Sir Robert Borden, could be brought up to date, removing anomalous sections, if there be such. In general they were asked to make such recommendations as would generally be beneficial in assuring and maintaining the capacity and ability to serve of the civil service. Whatever may be the views with regard to the recommendations made, I am sure that everyone in the house will want to pay tribute to the commission for the work it has done and for the long hours and the devoted attention given by the members of this commission to this very intricate subject.
I am also tabling two copies in mimeographed form of the French translation of the report. This French translation, however, does not contain the appendices shown in the printed copy in English. The printed copies in French containing the report and the appendices will be available from the queen's printer in about two weeks' time and will then be placed before the house. In view of the interest in this subject, however, I thought it well that the recommendations be made available to hon. mem-

bers of this house. The appendices are merely an amplification in general of the principles and recommendations enunciated in the report. I should like to mention that copies of the report will be placed in the members' mail this afternoon.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to table, as promised, the report entitled "Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958"?


John George Diefenbaker: I seem to recall, Mr. Speaker, that an application or a motion was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) at the last session, and through his actions this matter was relegated to a position that denied further discussion. At that time I undertook to make the report available. I find that there is now a motion on the order paper. When that motion comes before the house I hope the consideration asked for will receive the approval of the house.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I rise on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister said that action of mine had prevented consideration. I put on the order paper a motion that was not debatable and I took the only course possible to make it debatable.


John George Diefenbaker: A moment ago the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question respecting the "Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958". I find, sir, that the motions are not far enough in hand to enable my hon. friends to have that economic report for this debate.
I undertook on June 18, 1958 that it would be produced immediately after the year end, and again on August 5, that the report would be produced immediately after the end of the year. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has given instructions that it be tabled today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make any statement or comment on disturbing reports of a

continuing number of executions in Cuba, and whether in view of Canada's recognition of this government an appropriate Canadian note in this connection is being considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as I understand it relates entirely to executions in Cuba, which I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia would not consider to be the responsibility of the minister. Questions should be directed to the public administration under the responsibility of the minister concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest with great deference that since our Department of External Affairs considers Canada's relationships with all nations, when any action in any nation might endanger the cause of freedom as we understand it, I feel it is appropriate for the Canadian Prime Minister to make a statement on behalf of the Canadian government; and I must put forward this precedent, that the Prime Minister in an agreeable fashion during the course of the last session made his opinion and our opinion known about action in regard to Imre Nagy in another country. Therefore I feel that in the field of external affairs this is an appropriate matter for comment, and I might add that in today's newspapers a very high official of the United States state department has made a comment on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the feelings that must be engendered in the hearts of peoples everywhere, but I will go no further than to say this. The government is following very closely the events in Cuba as the picture emerges from the various reports, some confused and others capable of a variety of interpretations. In considering the situation the government will have in mind the same deep concern for the respect of civil liberties and democratic ways that it has demonstrated in the past.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to make a statement to the house on the results of the meeting of the ministers of the Canadian and United States governments?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do that at any time if it is the wish of the house. As my hon. friend is aware, a communique was issued at the completion of the 66968-9-2
Inquiries of the Ministry meeting a week ago last Tuesday. I shall be glad to table that if it is the wish of my hon. friend and the house.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Labour a question. What action has he taken, either on his own or through his department, to settle the current dispute between radio and television producers in Montreal and the C.B.C.?
(Text):


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since I was not prepared with my device for translation and since I did not know the hon. member for Laurier would ask me a question in French, I am going to take his question as notice and give an answer tomorrow.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, now that we have simultaneous translation in the house, and since the hon. minister is listening in at this moment may I be allowed to repeat my question?


Mr. Denis:: Ask the hon. minister if he is ready.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. minister is ready, here is my question. What action has he taken, on his own account or through his department, to settle the current dispute between the radio and television producers in Montreal and the C.B.C.?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I wish to state that I was requested by representatives of the producers to intervene in the dispute after this group of producers had gone out on strike in supporting their demands. On January 8 I received a request by telegram signed by Mr. Fernand Quirion, president of the producers association of Montreal, and by Mr. Jean Marchand, general secretary of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, stating that the C.B.C. had refused to recognize the producers association or to sign an agreement with it dealing with working conditions of producers, stating that the corporation had refused to bargain officially with the association and requesting my immediate intervention in this dispute.

Inquiries of the Ministry
On January 9 I wired in reply pointing out that there is a provision and a specific procedure established under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act whereby disputes relating to representation and bargaining rights may be disposed of by application to the Canada labour relations board. I pointed out in this telegram that it has not been customary nor is it contemplated by the act that the Minister of Labour should intervene in representational disputes in view of the provisions of the act.
I received a further wire from Mr. Marchand regretting my unwillingness to intervene in this dispute and suggesting that my refusal to intervene was tantamount to supporting the position of the C.B.C., and again urging my intervention. I wired Mr. Marchand in reply under date of January 12 as follows:
Reference your telegram January tenth the Department of Labour has taken no position nor given any advice to either the C.B.C. or the producers as to the status of the producers as employees under the act as this is a matter which in event of dispute can only be determined by reference to the Canada labour relations board. The department has however advised the producers and those interested on their behalf that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act provides a specific procedure whereby a union claiming to represent a majority of employees for collective bargaining purposes may make application to the Canada labour relations board to establish the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and its authority to bargain for employees in such unit. The decision of the board is final. You are fully aware of the provisions of the act and I would assume that you have advised accordingly. I am always prepared to intervene in a dispute where I can be of service to the parties to assist in settlement but I am not in a position to intervene in representation disputes to resolve representation rights for collective bargaining purposes under the act.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this reply fully explains the status and gives the reasons why it would not be proper for me to intervene in this dispute. There is very little I can add at this time, except to say that the producers association and the producers have resorted to strike action to resolve a dispute on employee status and bargaining rights in place of taking action to resolve these issues in the manner provided for in the act, namely by application and reference to the Canada labour relations board. In other words, these parties are seeking to short-cut or ignore the provisions of the legislation designed for the final disposition of disputes dealing with representation.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for the answer he just gave me. I listened carefully to what he had to say, particularly when he quoted the telegram to which he had referred earlier.

Of course, I am not entitled to make any comments; however I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
In view of the answer he just gave me, why did he not take action under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act which authorizes him to do so on his own account, or on the request of the union, in order to settle this industrial dispute?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed
to say that I have listened to the translations passing back and forth as a result of the introduction of this simultaneous translation system, and I must say it is operating exceptionally well. I did not rise to say that but I thought I should say it, in view of the fact that this is the first opportunity I have had to listen to the translation. The degree to which the translation follows the uttered word is really remarkable.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the
supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), may I point out that section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act provides for the appointment of a commissioner of inquiry into labour disputes and that means, sir, where there is a dispute between the employees and the employer on the basis of a collective agreement which deals with wages and other similar matters, upon which a decision has not been arrived at. This is not a dispute of that kind at all. It is a matter of representation that is in dispute. There is no working agreement. All those producers have been on individual contracts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Nowlan, who is responsible to the house for the C.B.C.
Has the minister authorized the recall to work of C.B.C. producers and other employees, over the network of the corporation, at the very moment when the parties concerned were still negotiating in the C.B.C. building in Montreal?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken no action whatsoever with respect to this strike. It is a matter of administration. All the negotiations are in the hands of the responsible officers of the corporation and the executive committee of the board of

directors. I might say that, as the house well knows from the press, negotiations have been going on yesterday and today with some prospect of success.
As the Minister of Labour pointed out, this is a strike which is extremely hard to deal with because it is entirely illegal. There is nothing one can very well do about it. I think the corporation officers deserve a tremendous amount of credit-I refer to the president and the vice president-for having worked for two or three weeks, largely without sleep for the first ten days, in trying to bring the parties together on some reasonable basis. However, rationality apparently is one thing that has been somewhat lacking in the situation. I am hopeful that the negotiations now going on will be successful when they are concluded. I will certainly be bringing a full statement to the house. I think nothing more should be said at the moment. (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for his little speech, but that was not my question. I was simply asking whether the minister had, in the circumstances just mentioned, authorized the recall to work of the producers, while at that time the parties concerned were still negotiating.
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: All I can say is that if I did not give the right answer, the hon. member is talking too fast for the little instruments we have in our hands. Perhaps he should learn to speak more slowly, as should I. As I said before, the minister has given no instructions and has done nothing in connection with this matter except to get occasional reports from the president as to the conduct of negotiations.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the pleasure of directing a question to the Prime Minister. Before doing so, I wish to say that I am glad his translation device is working well. Mine is not working at all, because I have not one.
In view of Air Marshal Slemon's statement at Colorado Springs last November concerning defence force requirements, with respect to manned interceptors, being considered in some quarters as a challenge to government policy on the CF-105 Arrow, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether he considers it fit and proper for defence chiefs to make public statements concerning defence 66968-9-2J
Inquiries of the Ministry requirements, particularly, in view of the controversy surrounding the decision with respect to the CF-105?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the preliminary words of the hon. gentleman's question are concerned they, I suggest, do not come within the ambit of the kind of questions to be dealt with on the orders of the day.
Without in any way anticipating any views on an examination of any statements allegedly made, I would say that in my opinion it is not fit and proper for defence chiefs to make public statements concerning policy.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF NOTES RESPECTING CHANGES IN CUSTOMS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter that I proposed raising as a question of privilege but perhaps, in view of the fact that this is the first regular sitting of the session and of the apparent good humour of the house, I can raise the matter by way of a question to the minister of external affairs.
Will the minister of external affairs table the note from the United States government to Canada of June 26 last, concerning the proposed amendment of the Customs Act, the further note from the United States dated September 3 last concerning the amendment of the Customs Act, which was then before the house and under discussion, and the Canadian government's reply of October 24, and any other notes that may have been exchanged between the two governments on that subject?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual practice relating to diplomatic exchanges, namely the consent of the two or more parties, I shall do that.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. My question is based on a news dispatch in today's Montreal Gazette announcing the intended closing on February 1 of five collieries affecting 4,000 men in the Glace Bay and Waterford areas of Nova Scotia. What steps does the minister propose to take to avert this mass unemployment in a region that is at the present moment experiencing grave and serious unemployment?
12	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) I too shall speak in my mother tongue. I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) will not have to use his earphone for I know he speaks French very well. I did not receive any notice from the Dosco company with regard to a cut down in production or a staff reduction. I saw this article in a paper-the Gazette-this morning, and this was the first news I had of it, through the press. However, we shall look into the matter and as soon as I have been officially informed by the company that there has been a reduction of staff and production, or of its plans in the matter, I shall notify my colleagues and we shall make a decision about it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, were representations made to the minister, either directly or through the officials of the local union of the United Mine Workers of America, in protest against this decreased production?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, certain representations along that line, and on other matters, were indeed made to us by the Dosco company. Their representatives came and met with us some time ago. They did make representations, and I must add that the matter is now under consideration and that we propose to come to a decision with regard to this in the near future.
(Text):



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the action taken at the last session of parliament setting up a national capital commission, is it the intention of the government to act soon in the matter of appointing the members of the new capital commission?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that it is, and that within two or three days events may take place which will give some explanation as to why the appointments have not been made. The appointments will be made within the next week.



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question I should like to pose to the Minister of Labour. I sent him notice of it, and I hope the notification reached him in sufficient time. Can the minister indicate to the house what have been the results of the negotiations between Canadian Pacific Steamships, British Columbia coast service, and the unions affected by the British Columbia Coast Steamship Service Act of 1958? If no agreement has been reached between the parties, what action is contemplated by the government?


Michael Starr: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As most hon. members are aware, legislation was passed by parliament during the last session which provided for resumption of the services of the British Columbia coastal steamship lines.
An administrator was appointed under the act to administer the operation of this line. Following that a commission of inquiry was appointed which brought the parties together in a number of meetings. The result was that the items of disagreement were narrowed down considerably. The points remaining at issue involve rates of pay including overtime, the term of the new agreement and the employees' welfare plan.
In the interim period we have endeavoured to bring both parties together by conferring with the seafarers international union and the Canadian Pacific Railway individually. As a result of this the parties met as recently as last Friday in Montreal, and the result of this meeting is now being studied to ascertain what further steps can be taken to bring the parties together and effect a satisfactory solution to the problem.


Frank Howard: Is Mr. Taylor of Toronto still the industrial inquiry commissioner, and will he be acting in that capacity until negotiations are completed?


Michael Starr: His services may be requisitioned again.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) a question about Victoria bridge, which is partly in my constituency.

Is it true that the Canadian National is planning to close up the upstream car lane of that bridge for at least four months and the other and downstream vehicular traffic lanes for a period of twelve months? If so, does the minister intend to lodge a protest with the Canadian National against the disastrous delays which would ensue for those who will have to travel between the southern bank and Montreal?
(Text):


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will get in touch with the management of Canadian National Railways. I am not aware of the matter the hon. member has raised. I have not heard about it. I will ask them to report as soon as possible.
(Translation):


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question? Has not the hon. minister seen press reports stating that there has been talk, in the last few days, of closing up the two vehicular lanes on Victoria bridge?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It hardly seems to be a matter of urgent public importance to inquire what the minister has read in the newspapers, particularly as he has taken the original question as notice.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell the house whether there is any truth in the report in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen that the estimates of his department for 1959 have been cut by an amount of $25 million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that that hon. member's question relates to the estimates, and it is a well known principle that such inquiries cannot be made in anticipation of the production of the estimates.



CANADA CAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister on a matter of great concern to my constituency and the lakehead area. Has the Prime Minister any word on the
Inquiries of the Ministry closing of the Canada Car plant in Fort William? Is the government contemplating any action to keep the plant open?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question may I say that discussions have been taking place, but as yet we have no report to make.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. This is the first opportunity I have had to address him since he came back, and I am glad to see him looking so well. My question is, in view of the indication given by the Prime Minister on August 21 last that Dr. Clark's study of social security would be available last fall, I think in October, has the government received a report and recommendations from Dr. Clark and, if so, whether the government is prepared to make them available to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, first I do want to thank my hon. friend for giving me a certification of good health from a medical man. In reply to his question, may I say that on a number of occasions in the last few months the minister concerned and myself have been in touch with Dr. Clark who has been preparing a report. In the latter part of last session he felt that it would be available around the middle or latter part of October. Since that time it has become impossible, by reason of personal family matters, for him to complete it. It is a rather lengthy document. He has about three-fifths of it completed and the balance, which will mean the tabling of the report, should be expected by February 9.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF FINANCIAL TERMS OF UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I should
like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister set any date for a meeting with the premier of Newfoundland in connection with the revision of the financial terms of union? If so, could he inform the house when the meeting will take place.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been certain correspondence between the premier and myself. At the beginning of the week I sent a telegram to the premier, after receipt of a telegram from him proposing a meeting with the federal

Inquiries of the Ministry authorities to discuss the subject. I suggested a meeting in Ottawa on Monday, January 26. I have not yet received word whether that date is satisfactory to him.
(Translation):



CONTROL OF MINING RIGHTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the hon. Mr. Comtois.
Has the minister conferred or exchanged correspondence with the provinces concerned, with regard to the federal government's intention of "controlling" mining rights in areas located below territorial waters?


Paul Comtois: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport on an issue that is causing considerable confusion in my region. Can he tell us whether the lakehead harbour commission, not yet appointed, is to choose the site of the harbour terminal and whether the western provinces are to have a representative on the commission, as recently announced by the government's representative in Port Arthur constituency?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when the new commission is appointed, which I expect will be in about two weeks time, it will confer with the government regarding the site of the new harbour facilities. What was the second part of the question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The second part had to do with the western provinces having a representative on the commission.


George Harris Hees: It is my understanding that representatives who are interested in harbour matters in the two lakehead cities have been in touch with the government of Manitoba discussing the possibility of someone being on the commission who would be in a position to represent the interests of that province, and I believe agreement has been reached as to that person.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, of which I have given him notice. Can the Postmaster General say whether the report in this morning's press is correct that two inspectors in his department removed the post office from the business premises of Nicholas Manfredo in York township because this gentleman had written to a Toronto newspaper criticizing the government?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, that certainly was not the reason.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Was it only a coincidence?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Manfredo had been appointed on September 4, 1958, and on November 27, 1958, the hon. member for York South, the area in which the sub-post office is located, informed me that this sub-postmaster was engaged in partisan political activity and recommended his dismissal.
On December 3 I directed that this subpost office be closed because of the partisan political activity of the sub-postmaster, but that in view of the heavy pressure on the Post Office Department during the Christmas period the closing be delayed until the Christmas rush was over. On December 9 confirmation was received from the postmaster in Toronto that the office would be closed following the Christmas season.
Appointment and dismissal of these subpostmasters is the direct responsibility of the Postmaster General. My action was taken in accord with long-standing practice that where a member of parliament personally certifies to the partisan political activity of a public servant, dismissal may be ordered by the minister concerned. I might say that the limited action which I have taken in this regard has been on a completely non-partisan basis, and has included the dismissal of a postmaster for political activity in support of the present government which was requested by one of the Liberal members of the present house.
The preceding Liberal government, when it took office in 1935, embarked on a wholesale campaign in this regard-


George James McIlraith: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member has given a very complete answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether the government, in keeping with the statement made in the last session, has discontinued the practice of giving to any member of parliament the right by this means to dismiss any person in the government service, or who operates a post office?


An hon. Member:: The bill of rights.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, of this matter I had no knowledge indirectly or at all. I was absent from Canada at the time this event occurred. The hon. member was one of those who referred to that absence on a number of occasions in striking if not spectacular language. There is no necessity for me to establish the fact that I was absent, nor that I had no knowledge whatever of this action. The practice has been outlined and the responsibility is that of the Postmaster General. He has stated that, on his responsibility, as a result of political misconduct or political partisanship-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: -action was taken. I suggest that the hon. member direct his question to the minister who is responsible, who has taken the responsibility, and who has made it very clear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe the Prime Minister misunderstood my question. My question was whether a member of parliament has the right by this means, through any responsible minister, to bring about the dismissal of anybody in the government service or the removal of a postmaster.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member has secured an answer to the specific question, and he is now reaching out into the realm of the hypothetical.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister is reversing his own policy of last session.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether, before a dismissal is made, there is an impartial inquiry into the reported case?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, going back, before answering the member's question specifically, into previous history, I might say-


An hon. Member:: You could go back to Sir John A. Macdonald.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I request the minister to keep his answer specifically to the question, because it seems to me this point is developing into a debate and that
Inquiries of the Ministry should not happen during the question period. I hope this will close this discussion.


William McLean Hamilton: My
only purpose here is to show the hon. member that this action was strictly in accord with procedure during the period from 1935 to 1940-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: -when there were 325 dismissed for partisan political activity.


Mr. Speaker:: The question, as I understood it, related to the method by which a decision was arrived at in this particular case.


William McLean Hamilton: In
this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the procedure adopted was the procedure which had been discussed in the house at the last session and with which members of the opposition, including the hon. member for Laurier, were in agreement. This procedure was followed in this particular case. I might say that this is one of only five dismissals for political activity that have occurred under this government in the Post Office Department, in contrast to the 325 dismissed by the previous regime.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should certainly not want the Postmaster General to put words in my mouth which I at no time uttered. In the last session I did discuss the dismissal, the unfair and unjust dismissal, of an officer in the Laurier constituency, but at no time did I admit that the procedure adopted was the one which should have been followed. On the contrary, I condemned that procedure very strongly.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister table copies of his speech in which he threatened Canadian farmers with reduced floor prices unless the farmers voluntarily restricted production?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not sure to which speech the hon. member is referring. I think probably it is the speech I made at the opening of the dominion-provincial agricultural conference, and I shall be glad to table that speech if he wishes it.

The Address-Mr. Jorgenson FISHERIES



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gatei: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is going to take any action to relieve the distress caused by the failure of the cod fishery in Newfoundland, about which he will recall I wrote him last October, and which he advised me the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries were looking into urgently?
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is still applicable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister realize that half the fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland have been forced on relief because of the failure of the government to act?



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue as the representative of Nova Scotia in the government. Has the government in mind any plans to meet the distressing situation in Springhill, which plans I would assume would be related to the government's general policy for the decentralization of industry.


George Clyde Nowlan: Any decision which is taken by the government in that regard will, of course, be announced in due course and at the proper time. As the house well knows, the Nova Scotia government set up a special corporation with capital of $1 million to assist in the attraction of industries to Springhill, and discussions have been going on between myself as Minister of National Revenue and officers of the different corporations as to what way my department or this government could co-operate in their establishment. I am hopeful that some action will be agreed upon in the near future with respect to some of the industries.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
[Mr. Harkness.l
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I am indeed indebted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for the honour he has given my native province of Manitoba and the recognition he has shown to the constituency of Provencher in allowing me to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne that His Excellency the Governor General so graciously read to us yesterday.
In selecting Provencher for this singular honour the Prime Minister has chosen a constituency that is truly representative of a cross-section of our Canadian population, from the Anglo-Saxon and French pioneers who first settled the district along the banks of the Red river; the Mennonites who began settlement in the Steinbach and Altona districts in 1873; and the Ukrainians who established their first rural area in the Stuartburn district in 1896. The story of their gradual assimilation into the Canadian way of life was embodied in the words of Lord Tweedsmuir to the Ukrainian community of Fraserwood in 1936, when he said:
I do not believe that any people can be strong unless they remember and keep in touch with all their past . . . You will all be better Canadians for being good Ukrainians.
Theirs is a story of incredible hardship and disappointment. The difficulties they encountered in adjusting to machinery, to business life, to democratic processes, even to new clothing, different food and a new language, provide us with our most interesting chapters of history in the development of this part of Manitoba. The Prime Minister has had occasion to visit the thriving district of Steinbach and to see at first hand the results of private initiative and industry. Here is one of the finest examples of what Canadians have done to build their own communities into progressive towns without the aid of government or the benefit of large industries moving in.
Over in Altona the same progressive spirit prevails but the same results have been achieved through co-operation rather than individual enterprise. Following the construction of the co-operative vegetable oil plant in 1946 and investment of $160,000 has grown into an investment of over $1 million. Although only about 50 people are employed here, this industry has had a tremendous effect upon the development of the town and the local agricultural economy. Annual payments to farmers for sunflower seed, soya beans, rapeseed and flax, exceed $1.3 million and half a million dollars annually is funnelled into the town's business enterprises through its operations.
I might add that approximately 70 per cent of Manitoba's sugar beet crop is grown in this area, a fact which is further evidence

of the diversity of production and certainly a reminder to me that the problems of the farmer are not all concentrated among one group of producers.
In greeting you, Mr. Speaker, let me say how pleased we all are to see you again in the chair ready to resume your duties. We know that you will preside over this house with the same tact, courtesy and patience that you have shown in the past.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be remiss in my duty at this time if I did not try to say- however haltingly-a few words to this house in our other official language, especially as Provencher has been to a very large extent enriched by French contributions in the cultural, social or economic fields.
I sincerely hope that soon I will no longer have to resort to the system of interpretation newly set up in the house.
(Text):
May I be permitted to add my voice to that of those who have spoken of the passing of two of our colleagues in this house, Mr. Yacula and Mr. Lockyer. Although I have been a member of this house but a short time, I have experienced the comradeship and good fellowship that is as much a part of our parliamentary tradition as are the debates that take place in this chamber and it was with profound regret that I learned of their passing.
In the short time that I had to become acquainted with Mr. Lockyer, I was impressed with his warm friendliness, and his ability to make anyone feel at ease. Mr. Yacula represented a constituency that adjoins mine and I knew him somewhat more intimately. This quiet person caught the imagination of the people of Springfield with his capacity for work and his ability to shrug oft adversity. My sincerest sympathy goes out to the members of their families, their relatives and friends.
I would be remiss if I did not at this time comment on our Prime Minister's most successful around-the-world trip. In this atomic age our world becomes ever smaller and nations which were once thought of as far-off foreign lands are today our close neighbours. Journalists throughout the world tour heralded our Prime Minister's visit to their lands as outstanding good neighbour policy. We can only express our heartfelt thanks for a job well done, for from the mother of parliaments even to the gates of India the Prime Minister made the maple leaf shine ever brighter among the nations of the world.
No one can view with passive interest the efforts of the government to increase total
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson trade. Those of us from the west, and particularly those members representing agricultural constituencies, have a vital interest in the expansion of our trading frontiers, not only to dispose of existing productive capacity but to develop markets for the increase in production that will follow as a result of improved technology and science.
It was with great pleasure, therefore, that we watched the significant developments that took place during the commonwealth conference held last fall in Montreal. Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that if trade is to be limited to nations which have comparable standards of living there can be no hope for those countries which have been deprived of the bounties of providence. In the interest of world peace, to say nothing of social justice, we have a responsibility to the underdeveloped areas of the world to give aid, both economic and technical, to narrow the gulf that exists between their living standards and ours. To achieve this goal the Prime Minister has taken a leading role, not only through his efforts in convening the conference itself, but by increasing aid to those countries through the Colombo plan, and now by extending the purpose and facilities of the Exports Credit Insurance Corporation.
Fundamental to the problem of the western farmer has been the wheat surplus. We are indeed gratified by the 15 per cent increase in wheat sales abroad during the past crop year and are encouraged by the prospect that these levels can be maintained during the present crop year. I am sure hon. members will agree that hard work and determination on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) are in no small measure responsible for the success of our sales abroad.
Since the house last met the grain growers of western Canada have harvested a relatively good crop. In July it was anticipated that feed supplies for livestock might be in extremely short supply and persons who should have been in a good position to judge went so far as to suggest that the west was likely to harvest only half a crop. The fact that the crop came through is, of course, vitally important because of the income that will flow to our farmers and the provision of essential feed. Scarcely less important, however, is the light it throws on the trends in agriculture. It seems to me that we can expect less variability of yield in western grain production because the crop can now withstand drought to a degree that was not considered possible in the pre-war period.
I do recall the many statements that were made at that time with respect to the expected
18	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson crop failure. As a matter of fact this government, on the basis of those reports and requests from the provinces, undertook to bear half the costs of the provincial governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan which were attempting to meet the situation. The fact that does emerge as a result of this experience is that the western crop showed an unexpected ability to withstand drought. Many crops thought to be dead did, in fact, recover.
Hon. members may perhaps wonder what has changed. It is, in fact, a mark of credit to science and to the farmer himself. Our plant breeders have provided us with better crop varieties; farms are better equipped, and the timeliness of operation is improved. Selective weed killers have provided control of certain varieties of weeds and so reduced weed competition for moisture in the growing crop. Crop experience in 1958 does imply that we are not likely to go back to the yield experience of past years. I do not suggest that we shall maintain the phenomenal production of the early 1950's, but given the same conditions we can now raise more grain on a given number of acres than we could even a decade ago.
Our ability to raise more grain on the same number of acres spreads the production costs over more bushels and reduces the variability of yield. It does not, however, justify the contention by many that it compensates for the rise in costs. I am sure most hon. members will agree that running faster just to stay in the same place can be pretty frustrating. What it does mean, in effect, is this: reducing the variability of yield gives rise to the belief that a national crop insurance program, long thought to be out of reach of the farmer financially, is now well within the realm of possibility.
But let me be clear on this point: the belief that we should offset rising costs by increased productivity alone will result in far greater surpluses than we have at present. The hard fact is that in western Canada we depend largely on export markets for the sale of our grain. In those markets we must be competitive. If we are priced out of them by rising costs, the western economy, and, as a result, the Canadian economy will suffer. Experience has shown that Canada still depends in a large measure on western agriculture for her economic well-being. Up until now, farmers have borne the brunt of increased wages and higher profits of labour and industry. This situation can no longer be tolerated. My appeal to the Canadian people as a whole is not to place the farmers in this country in an impossible position.


This does not mean, however, that all farmers are operating on a sound economic basis. The economic division of the Department of Agriculture separated out the commercial farms in Canada on the basis of the 1956 census, dividing the commercial farms from the others on the basis of the ability of a farm to produce $1,200 for its operator in the course of a typical year. Few of us would feel $1,200 to be a large annual income, and I would point out that this figure represents total production-the cost of production must be found within the $1,200. But the department found that only 21.6 per cent of the farms in Newfoundland qualified as commercial farms in 1956 under this definition; 38.5 per cent in Nova Scotia; 40.8 per cent in New Brunswick; 53.4 per cent in British Columbia; 72 per cent in Quebec; and up to 95.6 per cent in Saskatchewan.
I would be very interested in knowing the ranges of gross income of the farmers in my riding. I do know that many of them require the further consideration of this government to become classed as commercial farms. Certainly these figures reveal very clearly that Canada has many farmers who gravely require credit which will enable them to convert their present operations to a really economic basis. In all parts of Canada this is the real and pressing need. I am satisfied that it will be a source of great gratification to all farmers and farm organizations that this government has moved promptly and adequately in this direction through the provision of a comprehensive farm credit policy.
The same must be said of crop insurance. This is a technique for permitting a farmer to spread his risks over a long period of years so that he should not be prostrated by one bad crop but can replace periodic grave losses by regular premiums. It will allow farm income to be more predictable and will make possible the elimination of the periodic production crises that, particularly in the west, have plagued our farming industry.
These are policies, furthermore, which have the great merit of bearing some relationship to the trends in Canadian farm production and food consumption. We cannot worsen the position of the livestock producer in the west relative to that of the grain producer, and it is unrealistic to fly in the face of the food preferences of Canada and of our customers. The per capita consumption of cereal grains in Canada in 1957 was only three quarters- 75.6 per cent-of the 1935-39 average consumption. The comparable figure for fruit was 159.4 per cent; for vegetables, 122.8

per cent; for eggs, 124.1 per cent; meats, 120.7 per cent; poultry 145.5 per cent; and of milk and cheese, 123.1 per cent.
There is often a tendency within urban and industrial communities to regard the farmers' position within our economy as similar to that of industry or labour in that prices and wages can be adjusted in relation to costs of production and costs of living. We often hear that if the farmer cannot adjust prices in relation to costs, he can adjust costs in relation to prices by adopting more efficient methods of production. This, in effect, can only be done over a long period of time and to do so requires capital, credit and managerial assistance. These requirements seem to be lacking when they are most needed. In effect he adjusts to low prices through reduced income and lower standards of living. Many people seem to think that this state of affairs will force farmers to reduce production or leave agriculture but here again this does not work out in practice for two reasons. The character of the family farm unit is one, but the main reason lies in the nature of the farmer's costs.
In industry operating costs form a large part of total costs but in agriculture a very large proportion of costs are overhead and these costs must be borne whether or not a crop is produced. Industry reduces production but maintains prices. This gives rise to unused capacity and unemployment which becomes a social responsibility. Farmers, however, cannot vary production in step with market conditions. Indeed they maintain production when market demand falls off and receive lower incomes. This gives rise to excess capacity and low incomes on the farm but unlike industry the farmer bears the full responsibility of under-employment.
To further illustrate this point permit me to quote from an article that appeared in Time magazine, issue of June 2, 1958, entitled "Death of Two Maxims" which says in part that prices do not rise and fall in strict relation to the demand for goods and services and that wages do not drop or climb according to the supply of labour or the amount of unemployment. Further along in the article this statement appears:
Prices are not related significantly to demand, but to costs. The price setting process has been shifted from the competitive market place to the conference table.
In the same way, wages are growing more and more rigid. They are on a ratchet, clicking steadily higher, but locked against any slippage downward.
It can be seen, therefore, that the bargaining position of the farmer is weak. Wage earners, manufacturers and professional
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson people can demand their share of the national product. The farmer has to take what is left. I am sure that once aware of this basic difference every reasonable person would agree that the farmer's problem requires, not only sympathy but effective aid.
This government recognizes the imbalance that exists in the farmer's bargaining position and has taken steps to remove it. Under the western grain producers' acreage payment act, $40 million has been pumped into the western economy. Assistance on grain storage charges during the past year has amounted to $38,800,000. Twenty-five million dollars is the estimated amount of money that will be paid under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act this year, while assistance under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act wiil amount to $17,285,000. Hog premiums have amounted to $6,630,000 and the amount of freight assistance on western grains to eastern feeders has been approximately $21 million this year. In addition to these amounts, and perhaps even more significant, are the amounts that were spent under the stabilization act and the cash advance act.
I do not want to leave the impression, however, that the amount of money spent is the yardstick in measuring the success of a farm policy. There must be a purpose and if the amount spent can achieve that purpose then the expenditure can be justified. Our purpose, as I have stated previously, is to correct the imbalance that exists today by the implementation of policies designed to place the farmer in a bargaining position comparable with other groups in our society and not to make him a ward of the government.
There is one further trend in agriculture that is receiving a great deal of attention these days and I could not allow this opportunity to pass without offering some comment on its impact on the Canadian economy. I refer, of course, to the trend toward vertical integration. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with this term I should perhaps take a moment to explain its meaning. The process involves the letting of contracts to farmers by meat packing firms and feed companies for the production of certain types of livestock. In most cases capital is extended to the farmer for the construction of buildings and the purchase of equipment. The farmer in effect becomes the employee of the company. The products that have come under this type of farming today have been hogs, turkeys and chicken broilers. Farmers are concerned over this move toward integration. The dangers of a food monopoly are readily apparent and I need not enlarge upon them here. In addition, and perhaps equally as important, would be the loss of independence
20	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Jorgenson that is characteristic of farming today. It would, as one veteran Canadian farm writer has written, set agriculture back a thousand years.
The proponents of this move toward integration say that its advantages are a continuous supply to the packing companies and greater security for the farmer. In point of fact, however, farmers themselves are assuring us of a continuous supply of food throughout the year through a greater knowledge of production methods and greater security for the farmer has been provided under the terms of the agricultural prices stabilization act. As I have stated previously, the real need that exists today is in the field of capital for expansion, diversification and consolidation of the farming community. There is a danger at present that under the terms of the agricultural prices stabilization act the trend toward vertical integration could be encouraged. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), to examine the situation very carefully with a view to removing this possibility.
We are hearing a great deal of talk in western Canada at this time with respect to a march on Ottawa for the purpose of pressing this government to give deficiency payments on the last three western crops, the assistance for the 1955-56 and 1956-57 sales to total some $228 million. Perhaps I should comment briefly on this proposed march.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was a director of the Manitoba farmers' union for four years. I have travelled throughout the greater part of that province to make speeches on farm policy questions during that time. I have talked to hundreds of farmers on their farms with respect to the problems they face. And finally I decided it was my clear duty on behalf of these farmers for whom I was working to contest the Conservative nomination in Provencher. I did so because of my concern for the farmers of Manitoba, and indeed of Canada, and because of my conviction that we would not get a realistic and helpful farm policy in Canada without a change in government.
When I take my place in this house I am representing those farmers as surely as I was when I took my place at a table for a meeting of the officers of a farm organization or travelled with a delegation to Ottawa, or addressed a farm meeting in a one room country school house. And I have no hesitation in saying that if consideration had been given to the proposals of the farm organizations for an adequate national farm policy years ago, and indeed if the Saskatchewan pool, the sponsors of this march, had joined with them in pressing the government of that day, there would have been no talk of a march today. The stage was set and the course


was charted as early as 1946. If we are going to continue to deal with the problems of western agriculture on a crisis to crisis basis, there will be no end to them. Furthermore, future generations of farmers will roundly condemn us for failing to provide them with policies that remove the inherent weaknesses within the price system.
The contention on the part of the Saskatchewan pool is that farmers cannot wait for the results of a long-term policy. That statement has been made on numerous occasions in the past, and perhaps explains why a national policy has never been implemented.
The stated policies of this government are known and generally have the support of the farm organizations. They are intended to remove the root causes of instability in agriculture. True, some of these difficulties will yield only to long term measures. But any effort to jeopardize or prolong the early implementation of a truly national farm policy will be performing a disservice to the farmer.
In agriculture, as in other lines of endeavour, it is essential that we live and operate and plan policies in the real world of today. We would all be delighted to see millions of dollars ploughed into the general improvement of our farming industry. But we must all be very conscious of the grave responsibility of seeing that the industry is not hurt by the policies we implement. Rather we must ensure that the benefits are lasting.
With these remarks and expressing once again the pleasure that the occasion has given me, I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Montma-gny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), that the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander-inChief of Canada:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
(Translation):


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monlmagny-L'Islel):: Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my remarks I want to tender you the tribute of the members of this house. Long before the vote: s of Montmagny-L'Islet honoured me by sending me to parliament as their representative I had come to know of you. By regularly reading the official report of parliamentary debates, I have, in the past, been able to appreciate your brilliant abilities as a parliamentarian and, above all, your impartiality.

I know that all members of this house share my feelings in this regard and that they join me in wishing you much satisfaction in the discharge of your responsibilities. 1 also want to assure you of my entire devotion and unfailing loyalty.
Allow me to express my gratitude to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who entrusted me with the task-both delicate and difficult-of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. This token of esteem I accept on behalf of my voters and on my own behalf, but I consider it mainly as a token of esteem for my fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec. He has sought to show me his confidence and his friendship, and I feel greatly honoured.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I am something of a Johnny-come-lately. However, I have had occasion to meet almost all members of this house and, having had the advantage of being elected at a by-election, I have by some strange coincidence been able to meet a goodly number of hon. members who were holidaying in my riding last September.
I would indeed be remiss in my duty, Mr. Speaker, if I did not pay a particular tribute to the electors of Montmagny-L'Islet, whom I am deeply proud to represent here. I am not overlooking the fact that, ever since its establishment twenty-five years ago, the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet has been represented by a Liberal member. Nor am I unaware of the fact that the vote given to me is extremely significant, since I had asked my constituents to say with their votes whether they approved or not, as of last September, the policies of the government. The vote was also significant because my constituency is both urban and rural. It has been possible, therefore, for people of all classes of that community to express their point of view on the policies of this government.
My constituency is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, 30 miles east of Quebec city. It is bounded on the north by the St. Lawrence, on the east by the constituency of Kamouraska, on the south by the U.S. border and on the west by the constituency of Bellechasse. As I said, my constituency is both urban and rural. However, nearly all parishes in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet are farming communities. I am therefore, as it were, a spokesman here of a deserving agricultural class and, at the same time, of a working class earning its daily livelihood with much satisfaction.
May I point out, incidentally, how pleased I was to read in the speech from the throne,
The Address-Mr. Fortin that the government was going to introduce during the year, a bill concerning crop insurance. This answers a request that has been made to me many times in my constituency; it is indeed with pleasure that I shall support that measure.
Mr. Speaker, there is one consideration, of a personal nature perhaps, which I cannot leave unmentioned. I cannot adequately express the emotion I felt yesterday when, for the first time, I entered this house. I remembered at that moment that I represent here the third generation of my family. In 1920, my grandfather sat in this house. In 1930, my father did likewise. I am resolved, Mr. Speaker, to follow in their footsteps and to devote the best of my abilities to my country.
While I shall be representing a constituency of the immediate district of Quebec, I think it is proper to point out that I am the only one here with veteran status.
I have always been active in veterans' organizations in my area, and I know they will be counting on my earnest support. It gives me pleasure, therefore, to assure them of my full co-operation.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) who, a moment ago, moved the address in a masterful and thoughtful manner. I followed his speech with close attention, and I do feel that the problems of the western part of this country are much the same as those we face in our province and farther eastward.
I am the first French-speaking member to benefit from the simultaneous translation system installed here after the last session. This is something which is closely connected with the matter of bilingualism in the country.
(Text):
I believe it would be quite in order to make these few remarks in English. I wish to extend my most sincere congratulations to all those members who at the last session voted unanimously in favour of the establishment of a simultaneous translation system in this chamber. I read with very great interest the speech delivered here on August 11 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). He said at that time everything that needed to be said on the subject, but he mentioned in particular that from now on members in general will be able to make a better contribution to the debates in this house. I am sure that this new facility will not reduce the enthusiasm shown by so many members to learn a second language.
(Translation):
Last September, in the dying days of the session, Bill C-60 was put forward for the
22	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fortin adoption of a declaration of human rights. This piece of legislation was, so to speak, an extension of the universal declaration of human rights proposed by the United Nations ten years ago. It would, of course, be inappropriate at this time to discuss the bill at length. I should like to stress, however, that it is of particular interest in view of its future effects. I would even go so far as to suggest that this piece of legislation is one of the most important ever brought before this parliament. As an illustration of the importance, in the minds of the people, of a bill of this nature, it would be sufficient to mention that last December, seminars were held in many towns of Canada to mark the tenth anniversary of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. Since then, the question has often been raised as to whether the bill as drafted is adequate to ensure effective protection of individual freedoms. Many consider that it is. Others argue that it would be preferable if this legislation were embodied in our constitution. I will only say at this time that the bill, as it now reads, is a step in the right direction, and may I emphasize that the principle of the bill has received unanimous approval.
Canada, admittedly, is still a young country. We are still developing and I think I can safely say that we are still a long way from full economic, political and cultural development.
Therefore, since we now enjoy these freedoms, since they are ours without our realizing it, we have assimilated them, so to speak, in our minds and in our hearts, and it is time that we take adequate steps to protect them.
If in many countries, steps had been taken to protect the individual freedoms, these countries would not find themselves under the totalitarian yoke of a government which subordinates mind to matter, spiritual values to materialism and, finally, the will of the people to coercion.
The members of the house will be called upon to declare that human freedoms have always existed in Canada and will always exist in the future.
I do not wish to discuss the bill in full detail, but I would like to point out a section which, in my opinion, is important, in view of its potential repercussions. I refer to freedom of the press.


The press plays an extremely important part in our way of life, a part that involves great responsibilities. These responsibilities stem from the fact that it behooves the press to shape national consciousness and the life of our people. It is most important that the press enjoy the greatest degree of freedom, that it always be at its best, that it constantly strive towards a noble goal and that it always seek to safeguard the fine traditions of our Canadian journalism.
Mr. Speaker, the financial situation of this country, in my opinion, gives no cause for worry. Quite happily, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who had been particularly well trained for the position he now holds, took adequate measures to prevent the particularly difficult situation which was looming. Already, the mere fact of removing credit restrictions has favoured a substantial strengthening of business, has brought renewed optimism to the people of Canada and given confidence to our businessmen. Incidentally, may I be allowed to offer him my sincere congratulations for the spectacular success of the conversion campaign of 1958. In fact, five victory loans totalled $6 billion and, after only a few days of campaigning, $5 billion 800 million were converted. In my opinion, this success is altogether amazing.
The present government, even after being challenged to do so, was successful in reducing taxes in the amount of $200 million, and in record time. However, we can now look forward to a more optimistic stabilization in national affairs.
When considering, for instance, the field of home building, it is noted that all contractors concurred in the belief that the year 1958 would be a bad year; it was, nevertheless, the best that we have known and I think that the increase amounts to about $110 million. Moreover, the year 1959 already gives indications that prosperity is coming back, and coming back to stay.
In the international field, it is interesting to note the extraordinary progress made by Canada in particular. Since the end of the war, we had always expected a situation which sometimes proved difficult and sometimes more comforting. The unity which, at one time, was more particularly reached amongst the members of NATO was such that a new power rose in the world in order to offset, in some measure, communist influence.

It gives me pleasure to stress the increasingly important part the commonwealth is called upon to play in the world. We must admit, Mr. Speaker, that not so long ago, the commonwealth was something known only to our more cultured citizens. But in the last few years, and especially in the last few months, it seems that the whole Canadian people have had their eyes opened with regard to the British commonwealth and realized that this was a true force, a group of nations whose one ambition was peace in this world.
May I also stress in passing that, to my mind, the greatest factor contributing to better knowledge of the commonwealth, and to placing our country at the summit of those commonwealth nations has undoubtedly been the recent trip of the right hon. Prime Minister throughout those countries.
After the war, we have often found ourselves facing a more or less fearsome crisis. Sometimes it was veiled or open invasion of some corner of the world. I believe the government which in our particularly dangerous times manoeuvre wisely in favour of world peace, is to be commended. As we are neighbours of the United States, and closely linked to Great Britain, our situation is extremely delicate. As a member of the United Nations and geographically situated in the front line in case of war, Canada could nevertheless not remain coolly neutral; Canada had to take a definite position and advocated moderation. For moderation has to be advocated. We are happy to note that, while preaching moderation, our government stood firm and strong against the dangerous propaganda which had broken out all over the world.
Allow me also to stress how glad we are to note that the government will do more to help under-developed countries. All over the world, hunger is being felt. There are under-developed countries which, at one time, were in distress, or had always been so. But the difference now is that formerly those countries did not know that they were in distress, because they had no point of comparison. Thanks to modem means of communications the peoples of the underdeveloped countries are now in a position to realize what goes on in other countries. Therefore, they envy those countries, and being under-developed, they beg help from the first one at hand. Now bread when one wants it, is readily accepted, from whatever
The Address-Mr. Fortin quarter it may come. That is why I believe that the first duty of the Canadian nation is to accept generously the sacrifices which may be asked of her, sacrifices which will allow us to help those under-developed nations, so that at last they may turn away from communist propaganda, and may once and for all see the light that is being held out to them by the free nations.
(Text):
The coming year, Mr. Speaker, will bring back to our memory an historical event that should be the object of a special observance. In my home town of Quebec city, we are about to celebrate this year the 200th anniversary of the battle of the Plains of Abraham. Although it is an observance that involves my home town in a most intimate way, I wish to invite the whole population to join in that celebration and to remember that 1759 marks a particular event in Canadian history. It marks the beginning of an experiment that has been very successful. This experiment subsequently required two nationalities to live together and to work together toward the creation of a new nation.
(Translation):
We have now reached an extremely important crossroads in our national history. It must be remembered that 200 years ago, on the heights of Quebec, soldiers were meeting in battle. From enemies that they were then, they have become compatriots, fellow-citizens, friends, and brothers, and both groups have worked, each in its own field of human endeavour, each in its own environment, to build the Canadian nation. After 200 years of efforts and of association, the Canadian nation today feels compelled to analyse and to define itself. Canadians, as a writer has said, are somewhat like youths in search of their own soul and of an ideal.
In the past, and even to this day, there has often been talk of national unity and of Canadianism. These terms, however, are always given too abstract a meaning. They are important so to speak, to the extent where they are translated into practice. Is Canadianism something real, or is it fiction? It is a fact. Indeed, to be a Canadian is to think and act as a Canadian. In order that such Canadianism may become the heritage of all Canadians, of whatever origin, Canadians must remain deeply aware of their origin and must make every effort to understand themselves. A third of the Canadian nation

The Address-Mr. Fortin today is of other than French or English origin. In other words, the Canadian family has been enlarged in recent years. In other provinces of Canada, people have entered our country and have given us the benefit of their skills. In addition, they have allowed us to benefit from their wealth, for the economic development of our country.
I am convinced that with the co-operation of all men of goodwill, this national unity about which there is so much talk is so attainable a goal that it is on the verge of becoming a total and complete fact. If we, Canadians of all origins, examine the means at our disposal, that is the means we all share in common, we realize that there is but one race, the Canadian race.
It will be remembered that, in former times, Canadian history was taught in a certain way in some places, and in another elsewhere. Nowadays, our history, relating the facts as they happened, has resulted in our being more united. It will be recalled that, in 1867, great Canadians such as Macdonald, Cartier and Brown understood one another and put in common their goodwill, talents and energy, in order to set up the Canadian confederation of which we are so proud today.
Neither Canadians of English origin, nor those of French origin, could have alone achieved confederation. The contribution of both was required. This was the beginning: the beginning of the unity for which we must always toil and toward which we must always strive.
We also have another thing in common, the effort that each Canadian makes for the cultural, political and economic development of this country. In the field of economy, we notice, in our province, the great developments that are achieved in the western part of the country. We are also close enough to the maritimes to see the gigantic expansion that is taking place there. We, in the province of Quebec, have witnessed a complete transformation of our economy, often due to the new Canadians who have come in our midst.
In the political field, a mere glance around this house reveals that all Canadians, of whatever origin, have sent here members of different origins, who are a new asset to this parliament.
We also have another thing in common: our common effort during the last war. When we hear today of the Royal Canadian Regiment, one name is always mentioned in the same breath, that of the Royal 22nd Regiment.

Mr. Speaker, what I will say now may be a little less important, but it is worth mentioning. There are also these things that are contributing to the emergence of a truly Canadian type. For instance, when a stranger sees the picture of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or a maple leaf, or a beaver, what else than Canada can he think of? He does not think of a certain part of Canada, of Canadians of certain origins, but of the whole country. However, it remains that inside this Canadian picture, there is a province which seems to us a little different from the others, because it has special laws and a somewhat different educational system. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I express quite frankly and quite sincerely the true feeling of the province of Quebec.
The province of Quebec is like any other province, it wishes that complete unity be achieved in the country; it is her most ardent wish, and Quebec will work without respite to this end. Obviously, today, the means of communication enable us to have more frequent and immediate contact with Canadians of other origins. We are glad of this and I am convinced that on leaving this house, if all members of this parliament believe that Canada is only one country, that Canadians, whether they speak one language or the other, are all Canadians, this belief will grow and all Canada will share it.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I should like to quote from a book I read not so long ago, a creed that was submitted by the author to our Canadian youth. It reads:
X believe in Canada, proud of her past, happy over her present and confident in her future.
I believe in the British commonwealth of nations, among which we have always found freedom, and outside of which our national life would not enjoy so much independence.
I believe that our future will be even brighter than we can possibly imagine.
Let us make this creed ours. It expresses the pride of our people and its ardent wish to see Canada take first place among free nations, where it is so good to live.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Pearson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the house adjourned at 4.34 p.m.

Monday, January 19, 1959