1959-01-30

TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURES TO THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS

Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act to provide that the aggregate of all expenditures under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act may be increased to a maximum of three hundred and fifty million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act by providing for the court martial appeal board to be reconstituted as a superior court of record, to authorize the payment of travelling allowances to its members and to provide also for the appointment of, and the payment of fees to and the travelling expenses of military advisers to the court; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he would comment on the press report today that Canada has sent a note to its western allies favouring a thorough re-examination of western policy on the questions of Berlin, Germany and European security, with a view to revising the current accepted policy of German reunification through free elections?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me notice of this question, Mr. Speaker. I may say I am indeed grateful to him for the question. The report in today's Globe and Mail on the Canadian attitude toward the Berlin situation is both inaccurate and misleading.
Obviously a question of such magnitude is under constant study within the NATO alliance. Hon. members will recall that at the NATO ministerial meeting last December, which I attended, there was a discussion of the Berlin situation, and at the conclusion of the meeting a statement was issued part of which reads as follows:
The demands expressed by the Soviet government have created a serious situation which must be faced with determination . . . The member state* of NATO could not approve a solution of the Berlin question which jeopardized the right of the three western powers to remain in Berlin as long as their responsibilities require it, and did not assure freedom of communication between that city and the free world. The council considers that the Berlin question can only be settled in the framework of an agreement with the U.S.S.R. on Germany as a whole. It recalls that the western powers have repeatedly declared themselves ready to examine this problem, as well as those of European security and disarmament. They are still ready to discuss a)l these problems.
It would not be useful or fitting, Mr. Speaker, if any member of the alliance were to make public the details of our current discussions. I can say, however, that the Canadian government has not yet taken any position on new proposals for Berlin or endorsed any modification of the well-defined western position on the German problem. Specifically, we have sent no note on this subject to any western capital. Canada is among those who favour a continuous and searching examination of the western position to ensure that the realities of the present situation are taken into account, and we are participating in that examination.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the minister's answer. Can he inform the house whether it is proposed to make arrangements for a debate on external affairs in the near future?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at a date which is convenient to hon. members, after other major matters have been disposed of, the subject will be brought before the house as soon as possible. Naturally the committee

Inquiries of the Ministry on external affairs will be set up, and this will provide the opportunity for such a discussion as the hon. gentleman suggests.


UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether or not the government has received a request from Washington that the United States be given permission to fire a rocket from the White Sands proving ground that would take a course over Canada toward Alaska? I might say this arises out of a news report from Washington.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I did see that press report. I have no knowledge of any such request having been received.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister advise the house what special provision, if any, has been made by the Sydney office of the unemployment insurance commission in order to avoid any delay in providing unemployment insurance benefits to the 4,100 coal miners being laid off today at Glace Bay and New Waterford, Nova Scotia.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The processing of these applications will be handled very efficiently and as rapidly as possible.



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the government aware of the alarming increase in the volume of textile imports from China, which is causing great distress to the Cornwall cotton mills and to other places in this country; and has the government any proposal to deal with this situation?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I had no notice of this question, but I can answer affirmatively and say that the government is aware of the problem raised by the

importation of textiles from China. As a matter of fact, during the last couple of weeks very substantial importations have been proposed or have actually entered- quantities running into several millions of yards-and those importations have been made subject to the usual warning that they could be revalued. In fact this week, as Minister of National Revenue, I have taken appropriate action to see that a revaluation of these textiles will be made so they will enter on the basis of similar goods from the United States rather than on the basis of the valuation which the exporters have placed on them, which of course it is impossible to determine because the goods come from a state-controlled country.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ofiawa West):: May I
ask a supplementary question arising from that answer. The question was directed to imports from China, and in his reply the minister referred to millions of yards which had been actually imported, or in connection with which arrangements had been made, during the last two weeks. Was that reference to millions of yards of imports from China, or generally from all countries?


George Clyde Nowlan: That reference was to importations from mainland China, and has no reference to importations from Hong Kong.



STATEMENT ON IMPOSITION OF DUMPING DUTIES ON DEFECTIVE GOODS AND REMNANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question with respect to the valuation for duty purposes of other than prime goods, sometimes referred to as seconds, and under what section that was done. The answer is that it was done pursuant to section 38 (b) (iii).



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister comment on a dispatch from Washington to the effect that the proponents of the diversion of more water from the great lakes at Chicago consider that any objection lodged by Canada was just a memo and would not be construed as an official objection? Also, would Canada make a strong protest against further diversion of water from the great lakes system?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. My previous statements on this matter have, I believe, made our position clear. I cannot comment on any individual's interpretation of a given document. The aide-memoire has been made public and speaks for itself.
With regard to the second part of the question, as I have already indicated to the house, this matter in all its aspects is under careful study by officials. It would be premature for me to anticipate what further action may be taken on the basis of their reports and recommendations, and on the basis of the other representations that are being received and considered.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West asked if I could advise the house as to when the report of the Borden commission might be expected. I replied that I would take up the question so as to provide an answer after consultation with members of the commission. I am now advised that the second report on oil marketing will probably not be ready and available until April or May.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of a newspaper report containing some comments by Dr. Gordon Fryer to the effect that within the next six months or so it might be possible to use animal blood where it is needed for human transfusions.
I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that report.


Mr. Speaker:: I think if this is a matter for the next six months the question might go on the order paper.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: We will use the blood of the tabby cats on the other side of the house.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



STATEMENT RESPECTING SASKATOON MEETINGS OF CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in my absence yesterday the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asked if I were attending the meetings of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presently taking place in Saskatoon. The answer is no. I might just comment that the federation invited me to speak to their annual convention yesterday, but as it happened I had a longstanding commitment made several months ago to speak to the Ontario soil crop improvement association, which commitment I did fulfil yesterday.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance make an early announcement concerning the method of raising further money, alleviating if possible the present uncertainty over the government's early requirements in this respect which has resulted in further recent weakening of Canadian bond prices, and thereby making money more difficult to obtain for municipalities and all other long-term borrowers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has completed his question. I do not want him to go on and make a speech on it.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is certainly no. The practice in this matter is that announcements in reference to financing operations by the government are made only when offerings are made to the public. I can imagine that a good many people following the market would be very glad to obtain advance information of the kind sought in this question. We take steps to see that advance information does not go out in these matters, thereby safeguarding the interest of the public in keeping with the responsibility of the Department of Finance under any government.



REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT OF ROYAL BANK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance if he feels disposed this morning to comment on the statement

Inquiries of the Ministry made yesterday by the president of the Royal Bank of Canada that Canadian prices, inflated to a point of explosive danger, are forcing the country out of world markets?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if my friend is inviting comment on as large a question as that I am afraid it is not going to be brief enough to be encompassed within the scope of answers normally given in reply to questions on the orders of the day. This is a very large subject. While the government has consistently taken a serious view of inflationary pressures in the economy, I wish to make it very clear that in the opinion of the government there is nothing in the present situation that gives justification to anyone for saying that there is a crisis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
Minister of Finance whether, in view of the fact that he feels that this is a question requiring detailed comment, he does not think he owes it to the country at the earliest moment, and possibly today before the end of the present debate, to give an accounting as Minister of Finance on this and other allied questions of equal importance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you will understand why I feel so deeply touched and flattered by the open invitation extended to me by my dear and hon. friend that I should make a speech in the house today or any other day. Of course, Mr. Speaker, whatever doubts I may have had with regard to speaking will be further confused by the question of my hon. friend. Certainly under any circumstances a request of this kind from him would have to be given the most searching consideration. It has such inventive possibilities in it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The house is very dissatisfied that the Minister of Finance is not taking advantage of this opportunity.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS BRITISH COLUMBIA    INQUIRY AS TO MEETINGS WITH PREMIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister care to comment upon the results of his discussions this morning with the premier of British Columbia?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as usual when I meet with the premiers of the various provinces discussions are interesting and informative.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether any other meetings with the same gentleman are scheduled for the next day or two?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not really know what the interest of the hon. gentleman would be. Naturally if the opportunity comes for further meetings with the premier of British Columbia, those meetings will take place.


Frank Howard: It just happens that I live there.



STATEMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS TO PREVENT LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask
the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he is now prepared to answer the second question which I asked him on Wednesday, January 28.
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: In reply to the last part of the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), I should say that around November 19, 1958, the dominion coal board received representations from Dosco and from the miners' union. That meeting dealt solely with the coal marketing situation in Nova Scotia. It was only later that the dominion coal board met several times, between December 8 and December 11, with the parties concerned, to go into this matter. There was no question at the time of cuts in either the payroll or the production. It was only on December 19 that we had a meeting, as I have already said, with Dosco representatives and Premier Stanfield. At that time, the matter of increased assistance to coal producers was discussed and we were told, as we had been in any case in a letter dated December 17-which was produced on the 19th at that meeting-that even if the government decided to boost subsidies there would probably be a cut in personnel for 40 days, that is to say there would be 40 days' unemployment in the next few months. No decision has yet been taken about the proposals submitted in connection with coal production or its shipping, and even if a decision had been taken, it would concern only the opening of the forthcoming season of navigation.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
(Text):



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position after inquiries, to say whether he has determined if the governor in council has received a petition asking for the stay of a deportation order affecting Mr. and Mrs. Raoul Rolling?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I am not able to give the hon. gentleman an answer. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is absent from the house through temporary illness. I was unable to secure the information yesterday, and I hope the hon. member will allow the matter to stand.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell me if his department has concluded its studies of a plan to include the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in the national hospital scheme? If so, will the plan be presented to the Northwest Territories council which is now meeting in Ottawa?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: These studies have not been completed yet. They are still going on.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: After two years?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister advise the house whether or not it is his intention to have prepared and tabled in the house a white paper on defence policy for the use of members?


George Randolph Pearkes: As stated last year, it is the intention of the department to prepare a white paper which will be distributed to members.
66968-9-34J



BOARD OF DIRECTORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister tell the house if any member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is at present engaged in the business of broadcasting or has any pecuniary or proprietary interest as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise in a broadcasting station, or is engaged in the manufacture or distribution of radio apparatus?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question might well be placed on the order paper, unless the minister is prepared to answer it today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, this question is one of immediate importance and has a direct bearing on certain developments in connection with the strike in Montreal. All the hon. member is asking for is information on the point, and I think it is of some importance.


John George Diefenbaker: On the point of order, it is this type of question that should not be asked on the orders of the day. It can be asked by simply placing it on the order paper.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. The question may appear to be long but the answer could be short. It is either yes or no. If the minister does not know he can take the question as notice and tell us tomorrow.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is neither yes nor no, Mr. Speaker. The minister does not know. I do not anticipate conducting an inquiry that would delve into the business activities of the various persons concerned. At least I have no information with which to answer that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been dealt with now. Of course all questions can be replied to immediately, but without necessarily being answered. However, this is the sort of question which would involve some sort of inquiry. I think it is one which should more properly go on the order paper so there is an opportunity to get the information that is asked for.
524	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. Jorgenson for an address to His Excellency The Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. W. B. Nesbiil (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, last evening, I congratulated the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) of the present motion. I wish now to take the opportunity of congratulating the seconder (Mr. Fortin). I should also like to extend my congratulations to all four of the new members who have taken their seats in the house.
We have all heard in this debate a great deal from the opposition about the terrible economic conditions existing everywhere in Canada. We have heard that nothing but black chaos and misery exist and that there does not seem to be much hope for the future. All of this has come as somewhat of a surprise to me, because during the last few months I have visited all parts of my riding; I have been in daily contact with my constituents, and I did not see any such conditions as those which have been painted by the opposition. From what I was able to hear from other government members about these black conditions painted by the Liberals and the C.C.F. members, I cannot help but wonder whether perhaps those conditions exist only in Liberal and C.C.F. ridings.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to speak in a more serious vein. We all know that in many parts of Canada unsatisfactory economic conditions in fact exist, and they exist for a multiplicity of reasons. However, the economic policies of the present government have been and are continuing to be successful in remedying the recession conditions which were created partially by the policies of the former administration and partially by general worldwide economic conditions. Everyone knows that the recession we have experienced during the last two years has occurred everywhere in the world including the Soviet union.
In my own city of Woodstock, which includes an area for national employment service purposes in which there are about 45,000 persons, as of this morning those who were seeking work numbered 849, or about 5.3 per cent of the labour force of about 16,000. One year ago on this date those seeking work numbered 1,248. It is the opinion of the local national employment office that even under the most favourable economic conditions the number of those seeking work in such an area as Woodstock would never fall much below 450.


This great decrease in the number of those seeking work as compared with the number in the previous year commenced last July 18, and a steady rate of improvement has continued from last July 18 until the present day. What is particularly interesting, Mr. Speaker, about these employment figures is that Woodstock has a widely diversified group of manufacturing industries, the largest single employer being the textile industry.
Generally speaking I found those in my constituency who are engaged in farming to be not only satisfied but pleased with the present government's agricultural policy. Certain individual problems exist such as those in connection with those who are unable to obtain the increased compensation under the brucellosis control program, those who have lost animals because of rabies and those who raise broilers and turkeys, the latter having been faced lately with falling prices and rising feed costs. These particularized matters I should like to deal with on another occasion.
As I have already mentioned, during the last few months I have had the opportunity of visiting various parts of my riding and many of my constituents, and I have had a great many constructive suggestions made to me. Again, Mr. Speaker, I will deal with these suggestions on future occasions, but there are three that I should like to mention briefly at this time for consideration by the appropriate cabinet ministers.
First, it has been suggested by a number of persons that a special decoration be awarded to those veterans who took part in the Dieppe raid. This operation has such a special place in the hearts of Canadians that I do not feel I need say more on this subject.
Another suggestion is that anyone having an income of less than $4,000 whose wife or husband is totally disabled should be allowed an exemption of up to $4,000 for income tax purposes. This provision would cost the treasury little money, as there are few such cases in Canada, and it would bring great financial relief to those people who really require it.
For the benefit of the Minister of National Revenue I should like to say that I have found widespread interest and pleasure in connection with the television program called "Press Conference" on which approximately four members of the press gallery belabour a minister of the crown with questions for about half an hour. The impression created is, of course, that the gentlemen of the press concerned have obviously been lying awake nights for weeks in advance thinking up the most disagreeable questions imaginable with

which to confront the hapless member of the treasury benches. While this Roman carnival in miniature is much enjoyed by the public, a number of persons have suggested that a similar program be produced occasionally and that it might appropriately be called "The Hunter Hunted". Such a program might feature an eminent member of the press gallery such as Mr. Blair Fraser who for a similar period of time would undergo a cross-examination by well prepared questions on his views concerning Canadian affairs. Such examination would, of course, be made by four members of the treasury benches. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I doubt if this suggestion will be taken up by the C.B.C. If it were, I think the results would be extremly interesting indeed.
As I have already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, opposition members who have spoken in this debate have done nothing but offer destructive criticism of the government's policies, and in particular the government's economic policies. Having served for four years in the opposition I am quite familiar with the duties of a member of the official opposition. It was always my view, and my opinion has not changed, that the duty of the official opposition is to point out the weaknesses, if any, in the government's policies and to offer constructive suggestions as to how government policies may be improved. Pure destructive criticism, which is all we have heard to date, with no suggestions for improvement, has in my opinion no place either inside this house or outside it.
The excuse has been offered by the opposition that it is not their duty to offer any constructive suggestions, but that it is their duty only to point out alleged weaknesses in government policy. If this is the view point of the present members of the opposition may I say this. They are, of course, entitled to hold it, but I think such a viewpoint is illogical nonsense. I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, that the real reason the opposition have not offered any constructive suggestions is that they have none to offer, and that this weak excuse is made only to conceal a bankruptcy of thoughts and ideas.
During this debate the Liberals have criticized the government for not spending enough on public works and winter employment programs, and at the same time have said that the present spending by the government is too great, thus creating inflation. The Liberals do not seem to know whether they are coming or going; they seem to want to go both ways at the same time.
While the official opposition may be bankrupt of ideas respecting conditions in the world, distinguished economists and representatives of other governments in the
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt world have made many suggestions. Last summer I had the honour of acting as chairman of the Canadian delegation to the economic and social council of the United Nations, and the world economic situation was discussed at great length. The delegates from the 18 countries represented offered many suggestions as to how this world-wide problem could be dealt with on both a national and international basis. It was quite clear from hearing the report of the secretary-general on the world economic situation that not only was the present recession world-wide but that nearly every country, including the United States, was much more severely affected than Canada. Indeed, some countries such as Chile and Brazil have been so seriously affected that the leader of the Chilean delegation suggested that unless something were done to relieve the situation the Chilean government would not be able to afford to send representatives to the next meeting.
It is interesting also to note in this connection that in the secretary-general's report it was made clear that the Soviet union, like other countries in the world, was having a severe case of economic indigestion. 1 have always been told by my socialist friends that such a thing cannot happen in a planned economy. Despite the theories of the socialist planners, these things apparently do happen. I trust that the members of the C.C.F. group in this house will take note of this fact.
I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your attention some of the suggestions that were made at the economic and social council meeting last summer, and which were made by some of the world's leading economic experts, on how a government should attempt to deal with the internal economic problems created by the present world-wide recession. You realize of course, Mr. Speaker, that it would take many hours to go into these suggestions in detail, so I am going to mention just a few of the most important.
First of all Mr. Luns, the distinguished foreign minister of The Netherlands, urged governments to encourage co-operation among all various social groups in the country, particularly labour and management, with a view to keeping down cost inflation, that is a continuous round of price and wage increases. Our Prime Minister has repeatedly urged all groups in this country to do just this. Mr. Luns also pointed out that it is the task of governments to take the lead and expand internal demand by appropriate financial and fiscal policies. He

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt referred to government spending and expansion of credit to strengthen consumer spending. Again, Mr. Speaker, this government has done just that.
Mr. Phillips, the distinguished representative of the United States, pointed out what was being done in his country, and I quote:
The availability of credit has been eased and its cost to borrowers reduced. A series of actions has been taken to stimulate the construction of residential housing and to step up activity in such fields as urban rehabilitation. Measures have been taken to accelerate public construction in many categories, including water resources projects, hospitals and highways. Congress has been asked to authorize a speed-up in the purchase of equipment and supplies used in the normal functioning of government. Provision has been made for payment of unemployment compensation for periods longer than those currently provided for under the laws of various states.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this government has done just that, only to a greater extent. In this regard I should like to point out that Canada has felt the effects of this world recession less severely than the United States. Dr. Wahlbeck, the distinguished representative of Finland, pointed out as follows:
Expenditure on unemployment has heavily taxed our budget, too. According to the law on employment of 1956, "if unemployment exists or is imminent for seasonal or structural reasons, or because of business fluctuations or other factors . . . the state and communal authorities must take necessary steps to ensure employment." If it proves impossible to ensure employment "special relief work for the prevention of unemployment shall be provided."
During the last two years it has been necessary to arrange relief work for a considerable number of unemployed.
Again, Mr. Speaker, that is the type of thing that has been done by this government. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out certain things in the report of Mr. Dag Hammarsk j old, secretary general of the United Nations:
Experience during this recession has demonstrated once again the effectiveness of the built-in economic stabilizers in moderating the rate of decline of economic activity. The buoyancy of government demand for goods and services, the more rapid decline in government revenue than in national output that is a by-product of a progressive tax system, the bolstering of private income by unemployment compensation and by farm support programs-all these protective features of highly developed economies have acted powerfully to brake the rate of decline in national income and expenditure ... Up to the present the major emphasis has been placed upon monetary policy; thus monetary restrictions have been considerably relaxed and some encouragement has been given to housing. Fiscal action, on the other hand, has thus far been more limited, although some government expenditure has been significantly accelerated.
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the secretary general has pointed out that while it is most desirable to give aid to housing

projects and government spending on public works, very few countries have done anything significant in this respect. The record of this government, particularly in the field of housing and public works, need take second place to no other country in the world.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, for the remainder of the time available to me to turn briefly to a subject which I know is becoming of increasing importance to every member in this house. I refer to the problem of the older worker and the difficulty he or she has in obtaining employment if out of a job. In many cases he or she is not permitted to work after attaining the age of 65. I would doubt if there is a single member in this house who has not had many personal requests for assistance in this regard. I for one have had far more requests with respect to this problem than any other matter. I am sure many other members would agree.
It is quite impossible, Mr. Speaker, to even begin to properly present this problem to this house in the time at my disposal. A proper presentation of the subject would indeed take many hours, so today I shall only attempt to bring to the attention of this house the fact that the problem exists, outline in broad terms the nature of the problem, and make one or two suggestions for dealing with it. I hope the appropriate ministers concerned will take these suggestions, which are personal, into consideration.
The fact that the Canadian population is growing older, coupled with trends which result in the reduction or withdrawal from employment of important proportions of our older workers, constitutes a very grave national problem that requires the closest scrutiny, not only from all levels of government but from labour, industry and private individuals as well. In 1881 the number of Canadians over 40 comprised about 20 per cent of the population. By 1951 they had increased to about 33 per cent. When we consider this trend in relation to the fact that one of the chief difficulties facing the national employment service in matching unplaced applicants with unfilled jobs is the tendency on the part of employers to reject applicants over 40 years of age, one major aspect of this increasingly grave problem is illustrated.
Again, if I may refer briefly to the population figures in 1881, we see that there were 15 adults under 65 years of age to every 1 over 65, whereas today there are only 7 adults under 65 to every 1 over 65. By 1970 it is estimated the proportion will be over 5 to 1. When we consider the effect of the trend toward more pension plans with the compulsory retirement age now normally set at 65, another major aspect of this problem is seen.

We are thus confronted with the problem of whether or not it is economically possible to maintain a high standard of living here in Canada in the face of trends which show an increasing number of older people retired or withdrawn from the productive section of our economy. At the same time the effect of this trend is to reduce their ability to consume goods, and to place the burden of production and taxation upon a decreasing percentage of the population. This trend is not likely to change. I am not including in these remarks those older workers who through ill health or personal desire wish to withdraw from the labour force. I am dealing solely with those older workers who wish to work and who either cannot obtain employment or are forced to retire.
Apart from the economic factors involved in this matter, severe social problems are also created. When older persons cannot obtain employment or are forced to retire, many feel that society has no further use for them and they become depressed and dejected. Older persons in this group who have not developed hobbies and other interests during their lives are often left completely alone; their families grow up and their friends either move away or pass away. If such people could work their time would be occupied and they would feel they were doing something useful. Without the work which they desire there is often very little left but the feeling that they are a burden on society.
What is more, the present old age security payments do not begin until the age of 70 except in cases of severe need, and under most compulsory retirement plans in industry persons are compelled to retire at the age of 65. This type of regulation also applies in the civil service. As a result, many persons between the ages of 65 and 70 have great difficulty in making ends meet until they reach the age of 70.
What are the reasons which prevent older workers from obtaining employment? Since age as a barrier to employment varies widely from occupation to occupation and from individual to individual it is difficult to make a summary of the obstacles usually presented, but the following seem to be the most common specific obstacles as recorded during a recent survey in the United States:
1.	Cannot maintain normal production standards-slow reaction; reaction too slow for production; too slow on jobs involving speed. This accounts for 22.4 per cent of the reasons given against hiring older workers.
2.	Cannot meet company physical requirements-diminished strength, stamina, endurance, health and so on. Percentage of reasons given, 20.9.
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt
3.	Are inflexible-set in their ways, resist change or criticism, lack versatility or acceptance of new ideas. 13.2 per cent.
4.	Pension and insurance costs. It is felt by a number of firms that pension or group insurance rates would increase. 10.1 per cent.
5.	Are too close to compulsory retirement age. They would not be eligible for pensions.
7.1	per cent.
6.	Prefer younger workers. Some employers just prefer younger people and do not wish to mix age groups. 5.2 per cent.
7.	Older people more difficult to train.
3.2	per cent.
8.	Are excessively absent from work. 3.1 per cent.
9.	Do not fit in with company's policy of promotion from within-the company's own workers cannot be moved up to better positions within the seniority policy. 2.7 per cent.
There are many other reasons given involving less than 2.5 per cent of all the reasons advanced for not employing older workers, and I will not take the time of the house in detailing them now; but I think it is interesting to note that pension and insurance costs accounted for only 10.1 per cent of the reasons given. This I think is most interesting, because in casual conversation this is normally the reason which the layman assumes prevents the hiring of older workers.
On careful examination not one of these reasons is found to be completely valid. For instance, the United States public health service points out that no differences in efficiency in the performance of "moderate" work were observed between the ages of 17 and 71. This finding is of great importance, since most work of an industrial nature falls within the classification of "moderate". Again, it might be noted that the public frequently prefer older people, particularly in sales or service jobs, because they are often more polite and have a greater understanding of what the sale or service involves. In addition it has been shown that older workers can learn new techniques just as fast and often more efficiently than younger workers.
Unfortunately there is not sufficient time available for me to deal with each of the objections in detail, though I hope to do so on another occasion. I repeat that there is not one of these alleged obstacles to the hiring of older workers which is not invalid to a considerable degree and in some cases, as I have already pointed out, completely invalid.
What should be done about this problem? I realize that the national employment service has a special counselling service to help older workers obtain employment. This is a step in the right direction, and I understand it has

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt been very helpful indeed. In addition, I believe the public is becoming increasingly aware of this problem, and the pressure of public opinion is no doubt helping older persons to find employment. I understand also that the national employment service has done a great deal to encourage industry to hire older workers. However, I do not believe these measures even begin to answer the problem. Sentiment is not enough, and some more practical inducement must be undertaken.
In some states in the United States laws have been passed making it an offence for an employer to ask the age of a prospective employee, but frankly I think this sort of remedy is plain silly. Anyone can easily estimate an employee's approximate age, and all sorts of other excuses can be invented for not giving employment.
It is my feeling that the civil service commission should carefully reconsider whether or not 65 should be the compulsory age of retirement. We are all aware that each individual ages at a different rate, and that many persons at 65 are just as keen and active as they were at 40. Oh, I know the reason given is that if people are not retired at 65 this creates discontent as it prevents or delays expected promotions. However, this argument becomes invalid if the compulsory retirement age is raised to some other figure and applied to everyone concerned. The fact that in certain particular cases a civil servant is permitted to continue working past the age of 65, usually, it is true, in a position of less authority and for less money, is of course a help, though hardly an answer to the problem.
Since the great majority of persons who have difficulty in obtaining employment because of age are industrial workers of one kind or another, I think a good partial answer to the problem would lie in extending a premium to firms and businesses through the corporation tax act in the form of a tax credit where a stated percentage of persons age 65 and over are retained, engaged or rehired for work. It has been suggested that such a tax credit might be made available to any corporation employing persons aged 65 and over in excess of 4 per cent of its normal monthly pay roll. This operation would mean that the taxpayer would deduct a specific amount from the tax assessed, or he would get "credit" for this particular amount. Such a system of tax credits operating on a sliding scale would, I believe, act as an inducement to industry to employ older workers and would also make up for any alleged losses in pension plan payments due to the hiring of older workers. Government revenues could not possibly decline when reviewed in the light of an increase in the gross national product, 

increased purchasing power and increased revenues by way of sales and income taxes.
Mr. Speaker, there may be aspects of this problem which I have not taken into consideration, but I respectfully submit this suggestion to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour in particular, and I do hope they will have this proposal examined. As I have pointed out, this is a problem which has many aspects-economic, sociological, psychological and so on-and I do not think for one minute that any one remedy, or even five or six of them, would supply all the answers to these questions concerning the older workers. For this reason I respectfully suggest that consideration might be given at some time in the future to setting up a special committee of the Senate and of this house to examine all facets of this problem and recommend appropriate measures for dealing with it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it has been a tradition of this house for anyone taking part in this debate to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To me that is a very happy practice and tradition, because among other things it helps to illustrate more clearly than anything we could say the right of a new private member who has not yet had an opportunity of establishing his ability in the House of Commons to take his full part and express himself in this major debate, criticizing or approving government policy as he sees fit and explaining his attitude with respect to national affairs and local matters which may be of particular interest to him.
For this among other reasons I am very happy at this time to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as I have done in respect of others in past sessions. The parliamentary system we have works in many unusual and strange ways, but I regard this gesture which so clearly establishes the equality of a private member with all other hon. members in the house as a fine working piece of machinery in our parliamentary system.
The speeches made by private members in this debate are extremely interesting because they reflect different views on matters of national concern, and also provide an opportunity for private members to raise matters that may be primarily of local concern while at the same time of some interest to all the country. I believe the right of hon. members to raise matters of local concern and to express grievances on matters of national or local interest is an important right and a practice that we should cherish. And so,

while I differ in my viewpoint from the substance of the arguments and speeches presented by many hon. members, I value their right to make their speeches and I appreciate the practice very much. However, with respect to the participation of members of the government in this present throne speech debate I take a somewhat different view.


Mr. Churchill:: You started off nicely, anyway. Now we are all set.


George James McIlraith: It seems to me that the ministers in participating in this debate have done less than a service to our parliamentary system, and I suggest they cannot be very proud of their record. They have not developed the policies which as a government they are putting forward, and for which they are responsible, in the manner parliament had a right to expect. Instead they launched into personal attacks concerning individual members of the opposition. While I am going to have a good deal to say later on concerning government policy, I want at this stage to point out as an illustration the rather interesting line taken by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) last evening. I found it interesting that he should have referred to another person in this House of Commons occupying a very high position as a tabby cat-


Mr. Walker:: Well, aren't you?


George James McIlraith: We have just had an interjection which serves to illustrate the sort of thing to which I am referring, but I shall let it pass. I am going to invite hon. members who are interested to refer to the remarks made last evening by the Minister of Public Works as they appear in Hansard at page 510. I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) will give this matter some thought, and if he will look at his own speech he will observe the personal remarks he made about persons in the official opposition. He did not address himself to the policies they advocated, nor did he attempt to destroy the arguments they advanced.	He spoke about them instead as
persons, and I invite him to re-examine his remarks as they appear at page 160 of Hansard. He will notice that when he talked about the persons comprising the opposition he accused them of lacking Canadianism. He did not accuse them of policies that were wrong because the policies did not properly express Canadian ideals, or anything like that. Then he went on to accuse members of the opposition, in a personal way, of being small-minded. I cite these points as illustrations of the type of conduct of which the minister has been guilty.
For my part I have no resentment about any personal remarks anyone in the house
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith wishes to make, and if the ministers wish to make personal comments it is a matter of indifference to me; but the tradition of this house is that members of the government should deal with the policies for which they are responsible. Under our system the ministry must assume the responsibility for the government of the country and must be answerable when they are questioned on the subject.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the hon. member recall the occasions in the past when I was a member of the opposition ranks sitting in the back benches and personal attacks were made on me by cabinet ministers on this side of the house, to which the hon. member made no objection in his day? Let me point out to the hon. gentleman that I am the only person in this house who was called a louse by a member of the cabinet when the Liberals were in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does that make it right?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does the Leader of the Opposition condone that kind of accusation?


George James McIlraith: All I can say to that, if it transpired, is that two wrongs do not make a right. Before leaving this subject I wish to further illustrate the tactics of the ministry in their speeches 4n this debate, and I will proceed with the illustration offered by the remarks made last evening by the Minister of Public Works.
Last evening the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) was speaking about a problem of real concern in this country, the difficulty the plywood industry is in because of the competition of wood from the Philippines area manufactured in Japan and shipped to Canada. The hon. gentleman was dealing ably with the subject. He represents a constituency in which the woods industry is highly important, as indeed it is in a great many constituencies across this country. What he got from the ministry was a question from the Minister of Public Works which the minister repeated several times: "What is your policy?" The hon. member for Nipissing finally answered that question by inviting the minister to look at the Japanese trade treaty provisions on the subject.
When the hon. member for Nipissing resumed his seat he was immediately followed in the debate by the Minister of Public Works, and when the identical question was put to him the minister did not answer it at all. He did not say that the government had not yet evolved a policy, which I assume it has

The Address-Mr. Mcllraith not, nor did he say it was receiving consideration. Instead, he brushed it aside. The difference in this respect is that it is the responsibility of the ministry to develop policy and announce it in the house. I believe that is another good illustration of the point I am seeking to make.
Before dealing with the general economic situation of the country there are two matters to which I would like to address myself. One has to do with the appointments to the national capital commission and the omission of any representation on that body from the corporations of the cities of Ottawa and Hull. It will be recalled that the new national capital commission legislation does not require that the mayors of those two cities be on the commission, nor does it provide for them to make appointments. The old legislation did have a statutory provision for the corporations to have representatives on the old federal district commission.
My point is that in the development of the national capital plan a great deal has been done in the last few years, since the end of the last war. It has been necessary to develop co-operation among the three levels of government, namely the federal, provincial and municipal governments, and by the very nature of things that is not always the easiest thing to do. It will be understood that exclusive jurisdiction over real estate rests in the provinces, and through them the regulation of certain matters is given to the municipal corporations. Therefore it is necessary, by the nature of the development of the national capital plan, that the municipalities be full participants in any development that takes place here.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does my hon. friend's argument in this respect apply as well to the other municipalities within the national capital area?


George James McIlraith: Let me develop my argument and the hon. member will see my point. If there is any question outstanding at the end of my remarks I shall be glad to answer it if I can, and if I cannot I will say so. The point is, these are the two largest municipalities directly concerned in the development of the area. We have had difficulties, and I am frank to admit there have been many of them. Over the years a good degree of co-operation has been built up. Under provincial legislation in Ontario we have what is called the Ottawa area planning board, which has to do with the physical planning and approval of subdivision plans and all that sort of thing. The members of that board are appointed by the corporation of the city and approved by the provincial authorities. By its very nature that board


has to work in conjunction with the national capital commission, and work very closely in conjunction with it. The city has always taken care, and properly so, to have either the chairman and general manager or other appropriate officers of the federal district commission on the Ottawa area planning board.
But what happened here with the appointment of the national capital commission? The Prime Minister did not come into the house and announce the appointment of this commission; he let it out through a newspaper that those were the names. When they were given out it was noticeable that there was no representative of either corporation on the commission. The mayors, who had been sitting on the commission, were not reappointed. Well, that is his privilege if he wishes to use it; but that is not the only thing.
Here is what I want to draw particularly to the attention of the hon. member for Carleton; I think he will understand this. When those two men having the major interest were left off, an alderman, an elected representative of one of the small communities in the area, was put on. The reeves of the two larger townships concerned in the area-I refer to the green belt townships -were left off, as were other representatives of their elected bodies.


Thomas Miller Bell: And other reeves have been put on.


George James McIlraith: Let me continue my argument; the hon. member may ask his question in a moment. No explanation was made in the house. We were just confronted with newspaper items which indicated that those two gentlemen were not on the commission. No explanation was given as to why they were left off or why no one was appointed to represent those corporations or the other major corporations concerned with the problems.
I point out that this is not the way to get co-operation from those municipal bodies, including the townships which the hon. member for Carleton seems so concerned about. It is not the way to get co-operation. I am going to content myself with not giving further criticism on the point at this time. I hope I do not ever have to go further with it, because this great national capital development is something that must not be given second grade treatment or handling by the government.
I am going to leave the matter there with an invitation that the Prime Minister consider my remarks in the light of the way in which they are intended and in the hope that in the future he will seek to bear in mind, if

he has occasion to deal with other appointments or other matters, the tradition of the great men who have served on that commission in the past. I can think of the great work done in the earlier days by men like hon. Thomas Ahearn and in more recent times by Mr. Fred Bronson and the late Dr. Valin and Colonel Fraser and Mr. A. J. Major, and more recently Mr. Lawrence Freiman. I suggest that he might consider this matter, and I would hope that he will be able to handle it a little more carefully in the future and if he sees fit not to appoint the two reeves or representatives of the township corporations or the mayors of the two cities, while at the same time he appoints an aider-man from a smaller municipality and the mayor of one of the towns in the province of Quebec quite a distance from here and the mayor of another city in the country, at least make the announcement in a more careful way than this one was handled.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


George James McIlraith: Yes, if X can have it taken off my time.


Richard Albert Bell: Is it not true that the situation of which the hon. gentleman complains is exactly that which was contemplated in the legislation as originally drafted by Mr. St. Laurent?


George James McIlraith: No, not at all.


Richard Albert Bell: Of course it is.


George James McIlraith: The answer to that is a categorical no. What was contemplated then was that the mandatory provision that the outside corporate bodies should designate an official would be taken away, and that the federal authority which provides the money would choose the personnel.


Richard Albert Bell: Why was it taken away?


George James McIlraith: That is a very important right, and quite different from the point raised by the hon. member for Carleton.
There is one other matter I want to raise. Last year a great many members and a great many people outside this house were shocked to discover that the loudspeaker system in this house had been tapped and taken outside this chamber.


David James Walker: That is old stuff.


George James McIlraith: That was regarded-


Mr. Lambert:: Nonsense.


George James McIlraith: -as a breach of some significance, I think, by most members of the House of Commons. Before hon. members interject too prematurely I would ask
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith them to restrain themselves. On January 27, as appears at page 362 of Hansard, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) inquired as to whether the simultaneous translation system was taken out of the House of Commons in the same way and Mr. Speaker replied:
That is not a question for the Prime Minister but for the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister replied:
I can simply say very definitely no. I tried that last year as an experiment. I found out, however, that there were always certain voices on the machine.
I have always regarded that right to take the proceedings of this house outside without the permission of the house a wrong act. No doubt the house would have given permission.


Mr. Brooks:: You were the only one interested.


George James McIlraith: Just listen to my argument.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have heard nothing.


George James McIlraith: I am not the only one.
You did not hear the people of the country.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Take this speech outside; it will not do you any good here.


George James McIlraith: The point I want to make is that this answer is not clear as to whether or not the wiring has been disconnected. I believe it has. I believe the newspaper accounts so interpreted the answer, although the answer itself does not say so. What I want to say is that I hope the Prime Minister will take an opportunity to clarify definitely whether or not it has been disconnected. If it has, I want to say that I wholeheartedly approve of his conduct in having it taken out unless he intended to submit it to the house for consideration. I think the house would have given approval.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That should relieve his mind a whole lot.


George James McIlraith: I cannot follow the muttered interjection of the minister.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I say it should relieve his mind a lot that you approve.


George James McIlraith: This is a very important matter affecting the rights of the House of Commons. At this time in world history when our system of parliamentary democracy is being attacked, as members of the government should very well know, by another system through a trade offensive and otherwise, it is very important that we protect the rights of this institution. I do not think the interjections of the Postmaster General

The Address-Mr. Mcllraith (Mr. Hamilton) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) show any appreciation of the real problem confronting democracy today.
I want to deal for a moment with Canadian economic conditions. Because of an interjection made last night by a government supporter, who obviously has no appreciation of what the situation is, I think I should place the unemployment figures on record, although I wish to deal mainly with other aspects contributing to unemployment in the remainder of the time allocated to me. Starting with 1953 and taking the date December 12 or the closest applicable date, the number of persons without jobs and seeking work was as follows:
1953	 192,000
1854		 248,000
1855		 200,000
1"6	 186,000
1857	 386,000
1958	 440,000
The only point I want to make from those figures is to indicate that here is a problem that surely must concern all hon. members of the house and surely is a proper subject for discussion by members of the house. I must say that the attempts of the government to dismiss it are not worthy of the government. This problem is confronting the government, and while it is a problem that is not exclusively within their control because, of course, there are external factors that contribute very heavily to it, there are also government actions that can and should be taken and some government actions that have been taken which have contributed to the problem.


David James Walker: What would you suggest?


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member will listen for ten minutes he will find out.


David James Walker: May I ask my friend by what right does he stand on Mount Olympus and lecture the house like a schoolmaster? We have not had a constructive suggestion yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How dare he lecture you.


George James McIlraith: I know that with its vast majority the government and its supporters seem to have lost their sense of proportion altogether. They do not want the policies of the government discussed. For the past ten days I have watched the government seek by every device possible to prevent a discussion of their policies. I am not seeking to lecture the house, but I am seeking to exercise the right which is undoubtedly mine to raise questions that may trouble me about the economy of the country and the actions of the government.


David James Walker: Let us have it.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Rose-dale (Mr. Walker) has the right to differ with any views I put forward, but he has no right to question whether or not an hon. member can speak in the house on a subject so important as unemployment.


David James Walker: There is no question about that.


George James McIlraith: I want to put some statistical figures on the record having to do with inflation and the rapidly mounting debt of the country, or in other words dealing with what one might call the reckless deficit procedure of the present government. I do not know whether the hon. member for Rosedale thinks I should ask his permission to put these on record.


David James Walker: Permission granted.


George James McIlraith: I will put them on the record in any event. Incidentally, the figures I am using are taken from the Bank of Canada statistical summary either for December, 1957 or December, 1958. For 1957 they will be found at page 393 and following and for 1958 at page 442 and following. On the matter of the deficit the Minister of Finance has made so many statements about there being no deficit and so on that one can argue about what the true deficit figure is, whether it is X dollars or something else. I am not suggesting that the figures I am going to put on record indicate the precise deficit, but they do indicate that there is a very large deficit, of a magnitude with which I think the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) would agree.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Is the hon. member going to use the figure which has been positively given by the Minister of Finance, or is he going to put forward some other figure?


George James McIlraith: I am coming right to that very point. It would be helpful if the ministers would be a little more patient and defer their questions until later. The figure of government of Canada direct funded debt outstanding, including guaranteed funded debt, as at June, 1957, when the present government first took office, was $14,902 million. As at December, 1958 it was $16,411 million. Therefore the increase was something more than $1,500 million. The increase in the deficit over that period of time is something less than that figure, but I think it serves to illustrate my point that it is very large.
I want to say something about the method of financing, and deal with total currency and chartered bank deposits. As at June, 1957, the same date, the figure was $11,499

million, and for December, 1958 was $13,271 million. That is an increase of $1,772 million. In other words, these figures indicate that here is a matter that should be discussed, a matter that must cause concern because without explanation the figures tend to indicate a sharp degree of inflation possibly contributed to directly by the government's financing methods.
The other figures I want to put on the record have to do with the distribution of government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities. Taking the same dates again, the increase in government securities held by the chartered banks and Bank of Canada is $1,244 million, and the total increase is $1,509 million. I can break down the figures but perhaps that will illustrate my point. These figures show that of all this vast increase in government financing plus new funded debt issues, a very abnormal proportion has gone into the hands of the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada, thereby causing the currency to be inflated unduly, while a very small proportion has gone into the hands of the public. In other words it becomes clear-
Mr. Pallet!: That statement is not accurate.


George James McIlraith: It becomes clear-
Mr. Pallet!: That statement is in no way accurate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


George James McIlraith: It becomes very clear that the investing public of Canada have lost confidence in the government's method of financing and in its policies. Lest some hon. members still argue that this is not a real problem, and as we have no right to raise questions with the minister, I just want to mention a couple of matters in connection with the subject. One is the statement of the president of the Bank of Montreal, which was very strong on this subject. It is:
Canadian prices, inflated to a point of explosive danger, are forcing the country out of world markets.
A question was raised by the hon. member for Essex East early today about this statement by the president of the Royal bank. The minister, in a belligerent way, tried to dismiss the whole question and the whole subject. The minister then was asked whether he would speak in this debate and deal with this subject, because it is vital to our economy and at the very core of some of the present difficulties. Again he gave an answer that was a flat refusal to treat the subject as being one of real importance, and he attempted to belittle it.
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith
There is something I wish to refer to in addition to what the Royal bank president said, and I recognize that the minister is not directly answerable to him; I quite appreciate that fact. Nevertheless this is a person of some significance in the economy of this country, and he heads a great bank. Let me point out what the president of the Bank of Montreal says on the subject. It appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of December 2, 1958. He goes on to deal with the government's obligation to protect the integrity of the dollar and the government action in relation thereto. I should like to quote at some length, but I will not do so, though the article is worthy of great attention. He goes on to say this:
Further, the government's policy of monetary expansion-both to encourage a revival of business and to facilitate governmental financing-
I would ask you to note those words, Mr. Speaker-"facilitate government financing".
-has led to expansion of Canada's money supply by more than S14 billion in the past 12 months-
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett), who interjected a moment ago that my remarks were wrong, will also have to say the same thing about that statement.
Then there is the same thing from the president of the Canada Life Assurance Company. His address is printed in pamphlet form and is dated January 29, 1959. He has some strong language to use about inflation. The minister is, I charge, contributing to this problem. I want to seek to show in what way I consider he is contributing to it, because I do not want to make any charge without seeking to substantiate it. I could go on. There are a great many things, such as his failure to deliver a budget in the 1957 parliament. While that was a smart action from the point of view of gathering votes in the 1958 election, by failing to reveal the true financial state of his accounts, it has caused a great deal of uneasiness in this country and a loss of confidence by business people in the administration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George James McIlraith: I would ask the hon. member to hold his question until later. I have just about three minutes left. Then I shall be glad to answer it.
The minister has not spoken in this house about what is described by many as the most important question facing the government at the present time, and what certainly by any test is an extremely serious one. He has refused to do that. Hon. members heard his attitude revealed earlier this morning on that matter. Let me quote what he said in a speech

The Address-Mr. Mcllraith he delivered in the Royal York hotel on January 5, 1959. I quote from the text delivered by his own office. This is what the Minister of Finance said:
X have said that the conversion operation was an overwhelming success. It has earned the outspoken admiration of the governments of other countries.
Let me add my own opinion. It also has done much to contribute to the problems today and to add to the inflationary tendencies. I want to quote from an article in a newspaper, namely the New York Herald-Tribune of the same date, January 5, 1959, in order to see whether the statement is correct with regard to the admiration of the governments of other countries. I want to take the government of one other country which might be dealing with Canadian business quite a bit because they have a good deal of trade with this country. This is by Mr. Joseph R. Slevin, national economics editor of the New York Herald-Tribune. Dealing with this matter he says:
Canada touched off a flurry of interest in advanced refunding last summer when it offered new securities in exchange for outstanding bonds. The Canadian experiment looked a good deal more successful than it proved to be. It was expensive and it gravely weakened the Bank of Canada's power to curb an inflationary expansion of credit.
Then he goes on in the whole article to develop that point, and he says:
The more that treasury debt management experts have looked at advance refunding, the less appealing the idea has become. As far as the treasury is concerned, the Canadians can have it.
There we have the two statements made on the same date in flat contradiction to each other, one purporting to explain that this program had the outspoken admiration of other countries and the other quoting the views of the government of the country with which we have the largest volume of trade and with which, by reason of being on the dollar system, we are more closely linked in these matters than we are with most others.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to take a little bit of the time of this house to explain what governments he was referring to, to explain his reasons for inflating the currency in the way he has done, and to deal with the whole matter in a thorough way.
I see that my time is just about gone.
I should like to develop this subject much more fully. I know it is distasteful to some hon. members, but I can honestly say that I consider this subject to be of the utmost importance and urgency. I should like to develop it at considerable length, and I hope that in the near future I shall have an opportunity to do so. But let me point out 
that the Minister of Finance, in creating this big deficit, is rapidly getting himself into the position where the expenditures are fixed annual expenditures and not expenditures of a year, as something that might be done in any one year to meet the other problem of unemployment.
There is great difficulty in meeting the two problems that superficially appear to conflict. I recognize his difficulties in that matter. However, I wish he would deal with them instead of doing as the government has done since it took office, namely acting on an ad hoc basis as they handled all their campaign, and incurring expenditures in such a way that the government which succeeds it will have no opportunity of quickly remedying the situation.
As to the conversion loan, the Minister of Finance has not yet come into the house and given us the final figures on this whole big operation. It is extremely important that he do so. He does not consider it important enough to do so in the debate on the speech from the throne. He could not do so last session because the figures were not available. I quite appreciate that fact. But he should explain to us exactly what the cost of this operation was to the Canadian taxpayers. Then if he made that explanation he would undoubtedly argue that it was a well-taken expenditure, but he should tell the House of Commons what it is. It will be seen that part of it was for last year, an annual expenditure only. I refer to commissions and like charges through the various bond dealers and the banks in transferring bonds. Their participation is very well reflected in the statements of all those houses. That bonanza is well appreciated by those institutions. But it should be discussed-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, for his offer to answer questions. Would he be good enough to tell the house, to what does he give priority, the bankers' concern about inflation or the workers' concern about unemployment? In our opinion-


George James McIlraith: I will answer the quesion.


David James Walker: -the most important is unemployment, and most of our deficit has been incurred as the result of unemployment measures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. The question is rather a large one, but if he can answer it briefly at least I might give him the chance to do so.


George James McIlraith: It is a very large one, but it is a question which I am happy to answer. It is a question which the government has not faced at all. There are, as I have said, these twin problems, and I am not going to minimize them. We have had expenditures on housing about which the Minister of Public Works took the time to say something. The expenditure on housing, while it is true it is inflationary, does provide, so far as I can think on the spur of the moment, the largest amount of work per dollar of any expenditure. In addition, it is an annual charge, a one-year charge, and the hon. member for Rosedale will notice that I have never criticized that expenditure.


Mr, Walker:: That is to your credit.


George James McIlraith: Let me answer the question; you asked it. In so far as inflation and unemployment are concerned, you cannot wholly separate the two. I have given an example of one expenditure which does involve the two things. The important point, however, is that the government has not examined expenditures carefully and decided which are purely inflationary and which are purely directed toward relieving unemployment. As an example of a purely inflationary one-it is rather difficult to answer this briefly-I want to give back to the hon. member for Rosedale the added interest charges on the conversion loan, the many millions which that will put on the backs of succeeding governments for the next 25 years.


Thomas Miller Bell: A loan that received the approval of the Leader of the Opposition.


George James McIlraith: I wish hon. members would be courteous. Since the question was asked I am trying to answer it in my own inadequate way. These added charges are purely inflationary; they are fixed for a period of years, depending on the maturity of the bonds-I think it is 25 years-and they are a perfect example of an inflationary move. In addition, they have had the inflationary effect of making the money of all borrowers in Canada, private borrowers, municipal borrowers and provincial borrowers, more expensive. This was inflationary, pure and simple. Other inflationary measures-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has had some latitude now. He will have other opportunities to discuss this matter.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member did not ask for latitude. It was the supporters of the government.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: This may be a convenient moment, Mr. Speaker, to raise a question that has concerned me and others.
The Address-Mr. Mcllraith It relates to the procedure since this particular discussion began. I think many hon. members have been under the impression that when a question is put to them, the time taken in putting the question and in making the reply is deducted from the time allowed a member under the rules to make his speech. However, the fact is that there is no such deduction made.
Now, in the interests of good debate I think it is desirable that members on both sides should be able to put questions to one another. A good example of this occurred the other day when the hon. member for Greenwood was speaking-


George Randolph Pearkes: Order.


Murdo William Martin: This is a point of order.


George Randolph Pearkes: What is the point of order?


Murdo William Martin: I am asking Your Honour to consider this matter. I am not asking for enlightenment now, but the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) will recognize that it is one that applies to all members in the house and it is not a partisan question at all.


George Randolph Pearkes: You are making another speech, not asking a question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him, I would say that a point of order can properly be taken at any time if it relates to something that is before the house. The hon. member is dealing with a general question of practice, and not something that has occurred just now in the debate. I do not think we can debate that issue now because it is not a matter that is really before the house.
The hon. member has in fact made his point. For the information of hon. members I may say that if questions are asked, time is not added to the time allotted to the member who does yield the floor. The time used up just comes out of his time. The only adjustment of time is made when there is a long interruption on a point of order or a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under what
authority is that particular decision taken, namely that time is not deducted? I am sure my observations at this time are in order, but I am not going to press the point. I was simply putting it forward for the benefit of all members in this house, and I would ask Your Honour to give consideration to the question raised as a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Just the opposite of what the hon. member mentioned has taken place. The
536	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Grills hon. member who had the floor has had an extra two or three minutes.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I think I should make it clear that you will find several interruptions during the course of my speech. At the end of 40 minutes exactly I stopped my speech. This question was put to me after I resumed my seat, and I sought to answer it as briefly as I could. It was a large question, and the answer was really shorter than I would have wished.


Mr. Lee E. Grills (Hastings South):: Now
that the air has cleared somewhat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Much has been said about these two deserving gentlemen, and I simply concur in all that has been said already. At this time I should like to congratulate Mr. Speaker, who as a result of his unbiased attitude has won the admiration of every hon. member in this house. In addition to conducting the business of the house in an orderly and dignified manner, he has been able also to inject a little good humour and clever wit into his remarks, thus pouring oil on the sometimes troubled waters.
It is inspiring, Mr. Speaker, to be part of this truly national government sometimes, and not too often in my opinion, referred to as the Diefenbaker team. It is a complete representation of all Canadians, regardless of their origins or geographical locations. It must be an inspiration to Canadian women, who make up at least one-half of our population, to see that there are three lady members of this government party. It has been said that the reason there are not more women in public life is that they have no wives to help them. These women have proven their ability in this house, and I consider they also add charm and dignity. The ladies, as you will notice, have been placed directly across from the opposition. This is just one more indication of our unselfish desire to share our good fortune with our less fortunate members across the way.
While referring to the opposition members,
I may say that I have appreciated making the acquaintance of many of them since coming to this house and have enjoyed their friendship. When I say that I am reminded of a little poem which says:
There is a destiny that makes us brothers,
None walks his way alone,
All that we put in the lives of others Comes back into our own.
I should like briefly, Mr. Speaker, to tell you something about the riding which I am proud to represent in this house. The historic riding of Hastings South, which contributed 

one of Canada's former prime ministers in the person of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, is located approximately 100 miles east of Toronto on the north shore of the beautiful bay of Quinte.
After listening with interest to other members of this house, I should like to refer to my constituency as an example of a well balanced economy. Hastings county has been known for many years as the hub of the cheese industry in Ontario. Belleville, where the British Empire cheese show is held each year, is the home of such famous names as Cookes and Black Diamond cheese and others, known not only across Canada but in many countries of the world as the finest Canadian Cheddar cheese. As an example, the vice president of the United States, Richard Nixon, on an informal visit to our area and Belleville in recent months, mentioned that he came to get some of Belleville's famous Cheddar cheese.
Our agriculture consists of mixed farming operations including milk production for all purposes, hog raising and canning crops. I would say at this point that the present government's stabilization program has brought a sense of security to the farmers of my riding. I am one who believes our over-all economy depends to a large extent on our farm people getting their fair share of the nation's wealth. I should like also to mention with pride our many junior farm and 4-H club members, who will be future leaders in our community and public life.
I would make worthy mention of some of our industries. In the progressive town of Trenton, known to many as the "air force town", where one of our largest R.C.A.F. stations is located, we have a variety of industries including textiles, paper products, silverware, steel fabrication, electronics and many others, and the town is rapidly growing. Along the Trent canal, north of Trenton, we have an industry and a community worthy of special mention. It exemplifies the opportunities this land of ours has to offer. I refer to the village of Batawa and the Bata shoe company of Canada. In 1939 a small group of men, headed by a young man of 25 years, Thomas J. Bata, surveyed and measured land on the river Trent above Trenton, Ontario. On a 1,500 acre site they hoped to build a new business as well as a new life in a new community. Over the last decade or so, founding a new business in Canada has become a common occurrence but a new community is not being born every day.
As a result of the dreams and efforts of the young man and his associates an entirely new community has grown up in my riding, the Bata Shoe Company of Canada Limited. Both are now as much an integrated part of

the growing and expanding life of Canada as any of the varied industrial projects which are elevating this great country into the ranks of the leading industrial powers. This plant not only manufactures shoes but also shoemaking machinery and products used in national defence. I also know, from personal observation, of the loyal, public-spirited citizens who take their place and responsibility in our community, truly an example of confidence in Canada's future.
The village of Frankford on the Trent river, Stirling, with another shoe factory, and the progressive village of Tweed in the land of the lakes area in our county, are examples of up to date and live communities of which we are proud. The historic town of Desoronto adjoins the Tyendinaga Indian reserve. I would add here that in the near future I trust we will have a necessary causeway constructed above Desoronto joining the ridings of Prince Edward and Hastings, for their mutual benefit.
There are many other industries in my riding, including a large distillery at Corby-ville. Some members may have heard of it without knowing the location. Time will not permit me to go into details of many other industries in my riding.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the expanding city of Belleville, known as the "friendly city", the capital of our county. I should like to bring this to the attention of some of the hon. members opposite, particularly those in the front row, sometimes referred to as the brass of the Liberal party, who have been spreading gloom and doom of recent days. The opposition seemed to have confused their own political position with the national outlook. On January 1 of this year the city of Belleville annexed 3,600 acres to its former boundaries to make available the required space and services for new industries and new homes.
The last report from our local employment office, January 1, states that the number receiving unemployment assistance is down as compared with last year. Also, the winter program is helping. I realize fully that the unemployment of any one person wanting to work is regrettable, and I am grateful that our position is improving. I might add here that in June, 1957 there were 17 vacant stores on the main street of Belleville. I have been told that on January 1 of this year there were only five. I refer to the encouraging outlook in my own riding as an example to prove that our people have every confidence in the government and in this ever-expanding Canada of ours.
I would mention, too, that we had an active divisional point of the C.N.R. in Belleville,
The Address-Mr. J. A. Richard and of the C.P.R. in Trenton, including repair shops, which are being seriously affected by dieselization and the speeding up of train schedules. We all realize that we cannot stand in the way of progress, but I have requested and will continue to request that every possible consideration be given to the welfare of our railway employees who have made railroading a life's work.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of all hockey-minded Canadians to our famous Belleville McFarlands hockey team of which we are so proud. The 1958 winners of the Allan cup, Canada's highest award in hockey competition, they have been selected to represent Canada in the world hockey tournament in Prague, Czechoslovakia, this year. The Belleville Macs comprise a group of clean-cut young sportsmen typical of the best in Canadian manhood. They will not only be in Europe to capture the world hockey championship, but will also be ambassadors of good will, and are worthy of carrying Canada's colours to many countries in Europe.
Later this session I trust we will have an opportunity to discuss the financing of Canadian entries in international sports competitions. I might say it has taken a great deal of effort on the part of civic-minded citizens of Belleville, as well as Mayor McFarland of Picton, Ontario, to make this Canadian entry in the world hockey tournament possible. I know they would want me to express appreciation to all who have contributed, and I add my personal thanks to members of this house for their help and encouragement.
I am sure the best wishes of every Canadian will go with our worthy representatives of our most popular national sport, who will be leaving Canada Sunday next, February 1. I have confidence that our team will bring back the world hockey championship, and assure the noble captain and his team that we will be proud of their effort and happy to welcome them back to our Canadian shores.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. J. A. Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, may I associate myself with previous speakers in this debate in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin). I have no hesitation in saying that both

The Address-Mr. J. A. Richard acquitted themselves of their task with much competence and dignity. May I point out also a significant event which took place at the opening of the session. Already on a previous occasion a prime minister of Canada had introduced his son to the speaker, as a new member of the house. This year we had the honour and pleasure to see a member, accompanied by the Prime Minister, similarly introduce his daughter, newly elected member for the constituency of Grenville-Dundas. I should like to congratulate both of them and offer them my best wishes.
I must also congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet for acquainting us with the fact that the province of Quebec had suddenly become a province like other provinces. I do not believe it is good policy for a province to pout at the nine other provinces and to lag behind the others all the time. We are all Canadians and to develop normally all of us need the co-operation of our fellow citizens.
Last year, I tried to get hon. members to know more about the St. Maurice area, especially the constituency of St. Maurice-Lafleche, which I have had the honour to represent here for some years. When I spoke on the address last year, I told my hon. colleagues of the various natural beauties of my riding, but added that just now those natural beauties are unfortunately offset by unfavourable circumstances which have been growing worse ever since: I mean unemployment. I endeavoured at the time to offer constructive suggestions to the government, in the hope of improving the working conditions which had become alarming. But the conditions have worsened since, and the government, which is always looking for practical suggestions, has done absolutely nothing about those I had made. I should like, however, to pay tribute to my constituents for the way they tried to improve the situation. In fact, we have winter employment committees, which have been set up in an effort to find solutions to the serious unemployment problem. I should like also to congratulate my fellow citizens and compatriots for their devotion to the welfare of their people, but I must unfortunately add that there is still a great deal of unemployment in St. Maurice-Lafleche.
Mr. Speaker, I could tell you of cases of real hardship and misery that I have seen with my own eyes. After visiting those places, I had some assistance and food sent to those people and in this way they were able to

enjoy some measure of comfort. How is it, Mr. Speaker, that those periods of unemployment recur periodically whenever the Conservatives come back to power? Are they an ill omen? I am inclined to think so, as our good old folks at home often say.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the time when Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power in 1896. I was then 9 years old and there was not much prosperity in our part of the country. In those days many Quebec farmers lived through the winter on a diet of buckwheat pancakes. May I say too that they were days that the younger members of this house have never known. Maybe that is why they let out brash outcries whenever reference is made to conditions as they were under a Conservative regime.
In those days, Mr. Speaker, only one boy in many families remained on the farm to help out his father; the others had to go out and find jobs across the border. As a matter of fact, older hon. members remember the time when farmers had to find jobs in the United States, to earn the price of their farm. However, soon after the Liberal party headed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, this yearly exodus kept growing less and less and finally stopped almost completely. Markets were opened and the lumber industry, and other industries in general, enabled us to keep in the country our most valuable capital, the human capital. I do not have to describe the amazing development which took place in our country subsequently; only those who refuse to recognize it will deny it.
In 1911, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was defeated by Mr. Borden, a Conservative. Everybody remembers the few years which followed that difficult period, but I will say no more on the matter. From 1921 to 1930, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, a Liberal, took over. I need not add that an era of wonderful prosperity characterized those few years of Liberal administration. In 1930, the Hon. R. B. Bennett defeated Mr. Mackenzie King and the Liberal party, and took over from him. There followed a record economic depression, as everyone will remember; I, personally remember it particularly well for, at the time I was sitting on the city council as alderman. We spent whole days visiting people across the city, to bolster their courage. They were pathetic times indeed. At the time we had only so called "tokens" for the distribution of food and to keep up the people's courage. At that time, there was no welfare legislation to help the needy; there were no family allowances, no old age pensions, no unemployment insurance

either, no pension for the blind, etc., etc. In fact, we had really nothing but these "tokens" to help people keep body and soul together.
How is it, Mr. Speaker, that in 1935, when Mr. Mackenzie King again assumed power at the head of a Liberal government, that the business and the economy of the country took a fresh upswing after the election of a Liberal prime minister? The answer is easy: it is because he surrounded himself with wise people because there were qualified men to help him in his task. Then, our country was prosperous until 1957, when the people of Canada, believing in the statements of a man whose only goal was to assume power, put their trust in a Conservative government. For more than a year now, we have been going through one of the worst unemployment situations we have ever seen, a situation which is day by day growing worse. As an illustration of what I just said, I should mention that in December 1957 there were, in the Shawinigan area, 5,300 unemployed; and in December 1958, a little over 6,500. This shows that the situation always deteriorates under the Conservative governments. Is this the result of chance? If so, I think we have had enough examples of what Conservatives can do, for Canadians to place their trust forever in the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the prosperity of a country is a matter of chance. As proof of this, one needs only look at the men who are managing the country's business at the present time. Since the Conservatives took office, their younger members have been very critical of such men as St. Laurent, Howe, Pearson, Gardiner, Chevrier, Martin and others. If my hon. friends opposite would only give the matter serious thought for just a moment, they would realize that this country was built by just such men, of which there is a lack in the present Canadian cabinet. Many of those young turks who have criticized, and still brashly criticize the Right Hon. C. D. Howe are not even fit to hold a candle to him. I felt great pride after I had read recently Mr. Wilfrid Eggleston's book entitled "Canada at Work", published in 1953. The book has a stirring dedication, and I need only quote it to give striking support to my assertion. It reads as follows:
Dedicated to the Rt. Hon. Clarence Decatur Howe, engineer and statesman. His vision saw the industrial and technical possibilities of Canada; his skill and courage and drive helped to realize them."
Similar comments could be made with respect to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who carried on, with a devotion equal only to
The Address-Mr. J. A. Richard his ability, the great work of Laurier and King. If the atmosphere we find in Canada today is so favourable to national unity between the various racial groups, I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is largely due to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who, wherever he went, never missed a single occasion to stress this matter of national unity.
I now wish to say a word, Mr. Speaker, on the offer made by the Prime Minister to the municipalities of the country, a short time before he left on his long world tour last October. I am referring to this federal offer to the municipalities, whereby the federal government offered to pay 50 per cent of the cost of labour for certain types of jobs to be carried out between the 1st of December and the end of April. The city of Shawinigan, like many other cities in my constituency, could have taken advantage of this offer had it been made early enough. There is no need to be an engineer, I think, to know that works of that type require planning and all kinds of preparation. I am convinced that a great many cities across Canada were unable to avail themselves of this offer because it was made too late. Moreover, in many parts of Canada it is very difficult to lay asphalt in the streets, and to build cement sidewalks, at the present time.
The Conservative government, after promising to settle the problem of provinces and municipalities, has done nothing, in fact, to keep its promises. If the Prime Minister had really wished to help the municipalities, he would have made low-rate interest loans available to them. Thus, he would have really helped them and he would, by the same token, have honoured a solemn promise of his. Indeed, the Conservative government has done mighty little for Canadians, if we consider the very few promises it has but partially fulfilled. The cabinet wants to manage the country's business with the help of suggestions from the opposition. The cabinet could very well put into practice the one I have just made and make it possible for municipalities to borrow money at low rates. This would be doing them a service and, at the same time contribute to remedy, to some extent, the unemployment problem facing the whole country.
I was really amused, Mr. Speaker, when I heard several ministers, and many young inexperienced members, criticize the opposition because it did not offer enough concrete suggestions to the government. I was amused,

The Address-Mr. Tasse first of all, because it is the man at the wheel who is supposed to do the driving; and I was amused also because the ministers do not seem to remember their behaviour when they were sitting on this side of the house. As far as the younger members who criticized us are concerned, their statements can only come out of sheer ignorance of what has gone on.
The management of a country's business is a serious thing. Too many politicians in this government have not yet realized the seriousness of their task. If they did less talking and a little more thinking they certainly would not have to wait around for suggestions from the opposition, to solve Canada's problems. It is certainly not the old Conservative opposition which governed this country for 22 years by means of suggestions. Liberal ministers were conscious of their duty and responsibilities and, when they were running the country, they were looking after the welfare of the country as a whole rather than the fortunes of a political party. We have already made several concrete suggestions to the government in the course of this debate. The opposition is under no obligation to do the ministers' job. Let the government tell us what it intends to do to solve its problems, and it will soon find out that we have definite ideas on adequate steps to do so. Now is the time for action. The ministers should consider placing the administration of this country on a sound basis and discarding politics. This would no doubt pave the way for a revival of the prosperity which was a permanent feature of the Liberal administration.


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that, traditionally, it is expected of every new member, whatever his training, his experience or the extent of his knowledge, that he address the house soon after his election and express some of his views. It is therefore in keeping with this tradition and with the many other customs that give so much value to our system of government that I rise today to take part in this debate.
It is not without considerable tremor that I rise for the first time in this house, where the future of our country is being fashioned, conscious as I am of the heavy responsibilities that weigh upon us at this time when the world is holding in its hands the awesome possibility of self-destruction. While it is a great responsibility to have an opportunity to take part in the management of the country's affairs it is also a mark of confidence and an


honour that, personally, I owe to the people of the constituency of Quebec East.
And if you consider, Mr. Speaker, that this constituency has had as representatives in this house the only two French-Canadian prime ministers, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent; if you consider the stature of those men; if you consider that for over 84 years this constituency has been loyal to the party of which those great Canadians were the cornerstones, and that the constituency has now changed its political allegiance; if you consider that it is the constituency which contains this choice historic site, the place where Jacques Cartier spent his first winter in Canada, you will understand why I must borrow the words that you yourself used, Mr. Speaker, at the time you were elected to the highest function of this house, and deplore my lack of competence and experience to fulfil such heavy responsibilities. But I find inspiration and hope in the example you have set and the admirable manner in which you discharge your duties. I also should like to include in those congratulatory remarks, the deputy speaker of the house, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny), and the chairman of committees of the whole, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea).
The constituency of Quebec East is famous for the quality of its people, for their respect of civil and religious authorities, for their loyalty, their stability, and their devotion to work. This is hardly surprising for many are the Quebec East families whose ancestors lived in Canada 200 years ago and many of them have ancestors who lived here even more than 300 years ago. Many of those families too are proud to number among their ancestors Louis Hebert, the first Canadian settler, who came to Canada in 1618; I trust you will excuse me for mentioning that my own family is among them.
You would be filled with admiration, Mr. Speaker, if you could visit each of the fifteen parishes of my constituency, particularly on Sunday, when you could witness the faith and the seriousness of the people in Quebec East. You could also realize what valuable assets to our country are these people's stability of heart and mind, their attachment to their institutions, their faith and the devotion that characterize them.
We all know that there are differences of opinions on certain matters between people of different regions of our country, but I

think that many of those differences will no longer exist when we all will have, as in Quebec East, many centuries of Canadian ancestors to admire.
The year just started, Mr. Speaker, marks the two hundredth anniversary of the battle of the Plains of Abraham, and I mention this to the house so as to emphasize-the better to appreciate the fact-the more intelligent way we go about settling our differences now.
The population of Quebec East appreciates the form of government it owes to the great British traditions; this appreciation was shown on several occasions and I will only mention as evidence the fact that a monument was erected in Quebec East in memory of the great Queen Victoria.
Because of those remarkable qualities of the population of Quebec East, I am proud to be its representative in this house and I promised to work for its progress and that of all the area of the province and of the whole country to the best of my ability, confident that the fact of being an engineer would perhaps help.
Before dealing with the subject of the debate itself, may I mention, Mr. Speaker, how touched I was, on my arrival in the capital, to see the coat of arms of my city of Quebec in the place of honour to the right of the parliament entrance hall. But I was even more pleased to note the great esteem and interest shown by my English colleagues for the French fact and culture in Canada. I must admit that never before had I encountered a greater desire of mutual understanding than among the Conservative members of the house.
(Text):
Just to make doubly sure, Mr. Speaker, that I have been well understood by my English speaking companions, may I repeat that I have never encountered before a greater desire and effort to understand the French fact and culture in Canada than among the English speaking members of the Conservative delegation to this house.
(Translation):
Much of the credit for this is due no doubt to the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and to his ministers. To a large extent it accounts for his overwhelming success in the last election, but this attitude is one which also springs from a deep-seated conviction widespread in the party under his leadership. You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the people in Quebec East do welcome those marks of esteem and their most ardent wish is to
The Address-Mr. Tasse achieve good understanding with all their fellow Canadians, with due regard for the rights of every individual.
The subject matter of this debate is whether we should submit to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada an address of thanks for the gracious speech he delivered at the opening of this session. My opinion is that it is proper to do so.
The program outlined in this speech is an obvious indication that His Excellency the Governor General is advised by enlightened and forward-looking ministers who are eager to see the development of each and every area of this country; in other words, the government of this country is in capable hands. As a further proof, Mr. Speaker, you can recall many events which have a particular interest for the Quebec East riding and which took place since His Excellency has been receiving the advice of his present ministers. One of the steps Quebec East appreciated the most, Mr. Speaker, was taken when the federal government bought the park where the first pioneers of this country, Jacques Cartier and his companions, spent their first winter and when it became a national historical park.
This site, one of the most revered of our history, had been awaiting official recognition for over 350 years, and it is thanks to the present Prime Minister and to his appreciation of spiritual values that this event has taken place, and that we can hope to see this most beloved spot made beautiful and worthy of its past. Our Prime Minister has left, in Quebec East, the characteristic imprint of his great personality, and we shall remember it.
In the economic field, one of the vital activities of Quebec city is its port. Until 1850, it was bustling with activity, and unequalled in the country. Things changed when progress, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, prompted man to dig a channel allowing sea-going ships to reach Montreal, and to construct railways connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. Quebec was hard hit by these events, but found solace in the thought that it had, in a way, been the mother of various cities that grew up as a result of these works and which, today, have grown larger than their parent. But with a turn of the tide, which, it is hoped, will cause no envy, Quebec may recover to a certain extent. Owing to the extension of the St. Lawrence seaway to the

The Address-Mr. Tasse great lakes, and also to technical developments that now allow ships to travel in winter through the gulf of St. Lawrence and the lower section of St. Lawrence river, Quebec may, up to a point, recover its function as a terminal port which Providence had originally meant it to be and which she held until the middle of the last century. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the staff of his department deserve to be congratulated for the boldness and progressiveness which they have shown in the highly important field of seaway transportation, which is so particularly important for the Quebec area.
In a similar vein, Mr. Speaker, the St. Charles river, which is now a liability, may well become a great asset for our city, by the building of locks and walls. It is rather unusual to see that the works which were undertaken about 1911 as a result of an agreement between the city of Quebec and the federal government and for which close to $2 million were spent, and which were put aside because of the war, were never resumed by later administrations. But the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) was quick in realizing the importance of those facilities for the development of Quebec and he hastened, as soon as he was requested to, to order a survey of the situation to see what could be done about it. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that his able departmental engineers will find a suitable solution to the difficulties that have accumulated as a result of the discontinuation of these works, in order to give Quebec city what she should have benefited from for almost 40 years.
Another proof of the spirit of initiative and enterprise of this government, Mr. Speaker, is its recent decision to acquire the St. Charles home that has been vacant for many years in a quite valuable site, and to replace it by a building worthy of the federal government activities in the Quebec region. The constituents of Quebec East could hardly understand that the great men who represented them in the federal government for close to a century should not have considered or could not find a way of contributing to its expansion through projects of that kind. We are very grateful now to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and to his colleagues for putting this project through. It is a great asset and contributes to the expansion of the most important business section of Quebec city.
Many other measures of the present government prove very clearly its sense of enterprise, and among the national measures which 
are most beneficial to the economy of my constituency, are the amounts of money made available to the building industry in the form of housing grants, increased grants for the elimination of level crossings and recently, the inquiry on discriminatory freight rates. But the best proof of this sense of enterprise, Mr. Speaker, which also reflects that desire for mutual understanding to which I referred a moment ago, lies right there in this fine simultaneous interpretation system. Canada has been officially bilingual for a long time now, and we have also heard much about unity and good will, but we owe credit to the present government for taking this concrete and important step through which we can understand one another more easily.
Mr. Speaker, the past is an excellent guarantee of the future and after hearing of the legislative program described in the gracious speech read by His Excellency the Governor General, there is no doubt in my mind about the value of His Excellency's ministers and about their ability to carry out the program outlined there. That is why I think it is desirable to thank His Excellency for his gracious speech and I will vote in favour of the proposal so well expressed by the hon. member for Provencher and so eloquently seconded by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a growing body of evidence that in many important instances the government talks one way and acts another. I think it is one of the cardinal principles of a democratic government that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) or responsible members of the cabinet enunciate policy and principle in the House of Commons and outside of it the people of Canada should be certain that they mean exactly what they say. One of the things I refer to is the action of the government on a proposed bill of rights.
No one over the years in parliament has been more active than has the Prime Minister himself in championing the rights of minorities and the rights of free speech and freedom of the press. He has been so greatly concerned with this whole field that he promised to bring in a bill of rights, and a tentative bill of rights was presented to the house for discussion last session. We contended there were many omissions in the bill; but nevertheless the declaration was made therein that

civil rights and civil liberties in this country were to be protected.
Are they being protected? Do the persons who operate government services of one kind and another have basic civil liberties and civil rights in this country or must they stand in fear that some member on the government side of the house and, perhaps even on the opposition side of the house-although as far as we are concerned, no one in this group-may write a letter to a cabinet minister saying that this particular person is playing an active role in politics, as a result of which he may be dismissed from his position? I think that prerogative of members of parliament, no matter how long it has been used, is unfair, unjust and undemocratic and that it should be abolished. I for one will never use that prerogative myself.


Mr. Pallett:: You will never get the chance to use it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I could write a letter to a cabinet minister. I am not barred from doing that.


An hon. Member:: That would make it worse.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I had reason to believe that somebody was doing something wrong I would not take it upon myself to fire that person by that means. I would ask that an investigation be made. But that is not what is happening. We have the case that has already been raised in this house-I raised it myself at the opening of the session-of a man who had a sub-post office in the city of Toronto. I refer to Mr. Nicholas Manfredo who had his sub-post office taken away because he had the audacity to write a letter to a Toronto newspaper complaining about the Prime Minister.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course it is true. This man says, in a public report in the press, that two inspectors of the post office department walked into his sub-post office in Toronto. What did they carry as evidence of his political activities? They carried the letter or a copy of the letter which he had written and which had been printed in the newspapers.


An hon. Member:: What about the election?


Hazen Robert Argue: If some of these things are not precisely accurate-though I suggest they are -there is in Hansard incontrovertible evidence of what is going on. The Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) was clear and definite. He did not beat about the bush. He said
The Address-Mr. Argue that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Beech) had complained that this gentleman was taking part in politics and that he had him dismissed because of that complaint.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Was he not an official of the Liberal party?


Hazen Robert Argue: What is that?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Did it not say that he was an official of the Liberal party?


Hazen Robert Argue: Since when is it a crime or a sin to be an official of any political party in a country like ours which is democratic and which the Prime Minister says is free?


An hon. Member:: It is a contravention of one of the civil service regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has a right to make his speech without interruptions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind them at all. As reported at page 14 of Hansard, the Postmaster General said:
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 think that practice is abominable. I think it should be stopped. I think that any government that professes to believe in a bill of rights should halt this action which is the very opposite of the action and the principles contained in any bill of rights. But the Prime Minister, when he commented on the matter did not, I notice, come forthwith to the defence of the Postmaster General. What was the Prime Minister's answer? His answer was, I was out of the country; it is not my responsibility. This was what we got from the Prime Minister. He said it was the responsibility of the Postmaster General. Surely, it is a very elementary fact that in a British democracy the Prime Minister is responsible for the actions of the members of his cabinet. The Prime Minister himself must bear the responsibility for this man having been persecuted because of his political beliefs.
If the Prime Minister wishes to prove to the people of this country that he believes not only in the principles of the bill of rights but that his government is prepared to follow those principles in every way, he would have this man's sub-post office returned to him or restitution made in some other form. Then the people of Canada would say, this is positive proof that the Prime Minister does not believe that people should be persecuted because of their political beliefs. The Prime Minister was able, and we agreed with it, to stand up in parliament last session and
544	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue attack communist practices in foreign countries very severely. We had an illustration of this in the case of Imre Nagy. However, I notice that when other instances of wrongdoing in other countries are brought to his attention, he does not take action forthwith.
My point at this time is that wrong doing, acts of murder and so forth in any country in the world, particularly on a wholesale scale, are things about which the Prime Minister of this country should be prepared to protest in the strongest possible terms. I express the hope now that when the bill of rights is presented to this parliament it will be drawn in such terms as to protect the Nicholas Man-fredos and the thousands like them all across this country from members of parliament who wish to persecute them because their political beliefs interfere with the members' ideas of what should be done.
I believe this government has demonstrated in recent days another very undemocratic attitude. I refer to the attitude of the government in so far as the C.B.C. producers' strike in Montreal is concerned. I have read everything I could on this question, and I am convinced that the producers who are out on strike have one issue in mind mainly, and one issue only, and that is that they want their association to be recognized as their bargaining agency in dealing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Since when has that been considered an unfair request? Since when has it been considered wrong for an organization, be they producers or any other body of workers, to say to the corporation for whom they work; this is our association; this is the association of our choice and this is the association that we wish recognized?
What have we asked the government to do? We have not asked the government to go in and settle the strike, to lay down the law and force the men back to work. We have said that the officers of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and the Prime Minister should be available for the calling together of the parties in this dispute to see whether or not, when they are brought together, an amicable settlement can be arranged. What answer did we get from the government? I think we got three answers. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), to whom the C.B.C. reports, says that the strike is illegal. The Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) says the strike is legal, and the Minister of Labour says, I don't know. I thought there were only two sides to most questions, but apparently there are three to this one. It is legal; it is illegal; and I don't know. This is scarcely the attitude of a government that is responsible to the Canadian public.


We feel that action should be taken. The government should use its good offices to bring about an amicable settlement. There is no doubt in my own mind but that in good time the people who wish to see these facilities maintained and continued, people of good will, will see that this strike is settled. How long is it going to continue? How much ill will will be generated? How much of these services will be lost? Is the corporation management sincere? Are they adamant in saying that they are prepared to build the organization from the bottom up? I think the producers, the artists and all the other people who are involved in this strike have made a very great contribution to the culture of Canada. They have made a real contribution towards the development of French Canadian culture for the French speaking sections of Canada. They have accomplished great things over the years, and those accomplishments should not be endangered because the government refuses to bring the parties together to talk over the situation in order to bring about a settlement. I feel that in asking for a certain organization to be recognized as their collective bargaining agent these people who are on strike are very much in order and very much within their rights.
The next question to which I wish to refer concerns another matter in which the government has said to parliament, this is being done and this is being accomplished, whereas we And that as events take place there is little evidence that it has been accomplished. I refer to the whole question of United States policy and United States law as it affects the subsidiaries of United States corporations operating in Canada. We had a great deal of discussion about this matter last year. We had a long discussion concerning the loss of the sale of 1,000 automobiles to China. The Prime Minister had this matter discussed with the President of the United States when he was in Ottawa, and we thought an arrangement had been worked out. We felt that this kind of difficulty would not happen again.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Globe and Mail of July 10, 1958, which has this to say in part:
Mr. Fleming asserted Canadian independence in such matters.
"The intention", he said, in a note read to a press briefing by James Nelson, Mr. Diefenbaker's press secretary, "is that Canadian law and Canadian law alone is to prevail over persons or corporations carrying on business in Canada."
That should have been clear enough. The Prime Minister, in reporting to parliament

on July 11, 1958, at page 2142 of Hansard, had this to say:
The President expressed the view that the United States regulations should not be applied in any way to the disadvantage of the Canadian economy. If eases arose in the future where the refusal of orders by companies operating in Canada might have any effect on Canadian economic activity, the United States government would consider favourably exempting the parent company in the United States from the application of the foreign assets control regulations with respect to such orders.
It was made perfectly clear, and I want to underline this fact, that there was no question at any time that, with respect to the operations of Canadian companies, Canadian law shall govern and Canadian wishes shall be respected.
That was the assurance, and that was what parliament had expected was the situation. That is what, with a unanimous voice, parliament said it wished. There is a growing body of evidence that United States law is being used to curtail or to control the activities of corporations in Canada, subsidiaries of United States corporations. We are aware of the letter that was placed on the record the other day by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in which it was shown that a possible sale, perhaps even a likely sale of rubber belting to China was made impossible because of the actions of the parent corporation, International B. F. Goodrich Corporation of Akron, Ohio. We have the case of the aluminum company which said it did not want to accept a certain order because of fear of loss of markets-


Mr. Graffiey:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is, no. Then we had the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) make a pilgrimage to the United States and place before his counterpart there the position of the Canadian government and the position with regard to this matter which I believe Canadians support. I am glad the Minister of Justice made that trip. I hope it meets with more success than was encountered the last time members of this cabinet talked with the President of the United States and others. I think it is embarrassing to our nation, and I think it is degrading, that after we have received an assurance from the Prime Minister in this house that only Canadian law would affect Canadian companies it should be necessary for the Minister of Justice to make this trip to the United States.
I say to the government here: it is time parliament was taken into the government's confidence in a full way; time the government gave us a clear and accurate picture of what the facts really are. Let us not have this all-embracing assurance that all is well, 66968-9-35
The Address-Mr. Argue and that Canadian law will be respected in every way, and then have this series of infringements one after another until the Minister of Justice himself must make the journey to the United States.
There is one further question to which I wish to make reference at this time, namely some of the statements made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) and by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). I have listened to members of the cabinet speaking in the course of this debate, and I can agree with those who have said that cabinet ministers of this government have, in general, taken an entirely different attitude from that usually adopted by cabinet ministers in the former government. When cabinet ministers of this government rise to take part in debate they make very spirited attacks on the opposition-which we all enjoy even when we are the subject of the attack-and they make highly charged political speeches, which, incidentally I also enjoy. But they seem to keep as far away as possible from discussing in a comprehensive way the activities of the department for which they are responsible. Why do cabinet ministers so frequently fail almost entirely to tell us what is going on in their department, what their program is, and what the Canadian people can look forward to being accomplished? Instead of doing these things they spend all their time in political tirades.
I which to say, in fairness to the Minister of Agriculture, that he did not make that kind of speech. I think that if one were to examine the speeches of all the cabinet ministers who have spoken so far in this debate one would find that the Minister of Agriculture has given us more facts and more figures-perhaps, being a farmer, I could say more meat-than any other cabinet minister did. This does not mean to say that I agree with the main contention of the Minister of Agriculture. He seemed to have two general attitudes. One is that he understands all the dangers involved in growing surpluses in this country, and he tells the people: if you are not careful you are going to lower prices and things will get worse. Then, in another type of speech, he goes over the amount of income received, the change in the price level and the experience the farmers have had in 1958-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Very good, wasn't it?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not agree with that. I will have a little more to say about it in a few moments.
As far as I am concerned, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources
546	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue made the most enjoyable speech of this session. He spent three-quarters of his time talking about the hon. member for Assiniboia and, as I said at the time, I have not had so much attention in years. The minister of northern affairs took exception to a great many things I have said. There was one statement I made which he said was not correct or, rather, one report which I had quoted from the newspapers which he said was not correct. That was the report in which he said that future plans of the Conservative party included a revolutionary farm credit program, crop insurance, deficiency payments on western grain, tax reductions and other important reforms. He denied he had made that statement, but in order to show that he had not made the statement, which was reported from Wolseley at the end of March he quoted from the prepared text of a speech he made in February, a month before.
I am wondering why he took so long to correct this speech. In the session last year, on July 15, I quoted from the press report exactly what the minister said and exactly the words to which he took objection the other day. Six months went by, during which time he did not deny that he had made the statement that farmers in western Canada would receive deficiency payments from this government. That was not the only occasion last session on which I referred to his statement. I referred to it again on August 31, as reported on page 4352 of Hansard. But the minister let all this time go by before correcting the statement which he said was not accurate.
Reference was made to remarks I am supposed to have made regarding the purpose of the Colombo plan. I wish to clear up now any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the remarks I made. I was asked to comment on whether I felt that the central purpose of the Colombo plan should be for the disposal of wheat. I said I did not think that was the central purpose of the Colombo plan as it has been in existence. I went on to say, however, that I welcomed any and all measures which would help to sell Canadian wheat on the export market. And I will say to the Prime Minister that we in this group will support measures to increase the export of Canadian wheat, though we do feel that the central purpose of the Colombo plan was to provide capital and technical assistance, and that the provision of wheat was something brought in at a later date. Laudable though this is, it is not the central purpose.
The Minister of Agriculture in his speech attempted to show that farmers are better off now than in previous times-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the hon. gentleman continues, would he say what proportion, if any, of the $50 million a year that will be devoted to Colombo plan expenditure under the expanded program should be in the form of wheat and flour assistance?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would say that there should be a substantial proportion, and I would go on to tell the Prime Minister that the record is very clear and that we in the C.C.F. group say that one per cent of the gross national product of this country should be used in a program to help the underprivileged countries of the world. The Prime Minister can ask any cute questions he likes, but he will not have me trapped on our stand for the disposal of this important commodity is concerned. Our record is clear and we stand by that record.


John George Diefenbaker: You have changed very much.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was about to quote what I thought was the central conclusion of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture who on January 23 as reported, at page 255 of Hansard, had this to say:
Therefore I feel it is quite apparent that the cost-price squeeze which was a cause of hardship to the farmer under the Liberal administration ever since 1951-1952 has been finally halted and reversed.
Coupled with that one must take into consideration the threats of the Minister of Agriculture that these prices may be reduced.


Douglas Scott Harkness: To what threats are you referring? I have made no threats.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have placed them on the record before and the minister knows what they are. Also coupled with that one must bear in mind that the actual increase in farm net income, improved as it was in 1958, was very small. One must also bear in mind that the farmer's position is still relatively bad at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. The hon. member made a statement to the effect that the increase in the farm net income was very small in 1958. I should like to know what figures he used as the basis of his statement because as far as I know the figures are not yet available.


Hazen Robert Argue: These are estimated figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can say whether or not he thinks the figure is correct but I estimate it is just under $1,200 million. I will leave it at that.
I go on now to venture another prediction. The minister can prove me wrong in a few

months if he finds he is able to but I suggest he will not be in a position to do so. I believe the purchasing power of farm net income for the years 1957 and 1958 will be more than 30 per cent below real purchasing power in constant dollars of the period 1946 to 1956. I tell the Minister of Agriculture that problems of the farmers are a long way from being solved.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nobody has said anything else.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not what the minister said before. Keeping in mind that the costs of production are going up constantly agriculture is looking to this government at this time for action. I have in my hand a statement as to the general position of agriculture in this country and I believe the minister would agree it comes from an eminent authority. The following statement is attributed to Dr. Andrew Stewart, chairman of the royal commission on price spreads, who is reported to have said on November 12 last:
When the farmer said he was selling his food below the cost of production, he was telling the truth. That was one thing the royal commission on price spreads learned during hearings throughout the country.
If some prices for agricultural products have improved I am very pleased. But the Minister of Agriculture perhaps more than any other person in this country is aware that the good price of beef, for example, results to a very large degree from the amount of exports we have had in recent months to the United States.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have said that repeatedly.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am underlining what the minister said. He has pointed out very accurately that if the United States market for some reason or other should be lost, on the basis of recent marketings over the past few months we would have a difficult situation in Canada as far as beef is concerned. We can only hope that the market will be maintained at a good level and that these prices will be maintained.
Agriculture in Canada today is not satisfied with what has been done. Prairie farmers are organizing a mass delegation to come to Ottawa. The meetings they have held have been large and well attended. I am certain that when they come to Ottawa they will present an excellent brief and put their case in a quiet, efficient manner. I believe they will impress on the government the seriousness of the situation in the west. Let us see what the Prime Minister said about delegations. On January 19 at page 57, referring to delegations in general-
66968-9-35J
The Address-Mr. Argue


Douglas Scott Harkness: Page 57 of what?


Hazen Robert Argue: Hansard. This is what he said:
That statement applies generally. While the government will at all times welcome suggestions, ideas and arguments, I think the experience generally has been that the stronger the lobby, the weaker the argument.
I do not believe the delegation that will come to Ottawa, strong as it will be, will have a weak argument. I am hoping that when the delegation comes here the Prime Minister will give them a good hearing, a cordial reception and sympathetic consideration.
The Prime Minister has denied that he said he would give sympathetic consideration to deficiency payments. I take that statement as he said it. But he did say "sincere" consideration and "careful" consideration before. If he is not giving sympathetic consideration, is it unsympathetic? What is wrong with saying he is giving sympathetic consideration?
What did prime minister Mackenzie King say when the last big delegation came to Ottawa in February of 1942? In part these are his words as they are reproduced in the Western Producer of January 29, 1959:
Prime Minister King expressed appreciation of the decision of Saskatchewan residents to send such a large delegation to Ottawa, stating that it had focussed the attention of the rest of Canada upon the problems of the west-
That is what a mass delegation can do. I continue:
The prime minister complimented the delegation upon its petition, which he described as ''convincing in many respects."
The prime minister declared that the government knew all about the problems of the west; they had been discussed many times at Ottawa. The council did not need to be reminded of these problems. The people of Canada did-
That delegation was a success. Because of it the price of wheat was increased by 20 cents a bushel. I believe that when this farm delegation comes to Ottawa this time their case for assistance will be stronger than it was in 1942 because the purchasing power represented by a bushel of wheat in relation to the cost of living and production is less today than it was in that year. I hope there will be no further suggestions from anyone to the effect that if a delegation is large or strong it has a weak argument.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman does not want to deceive. May I point out that I was referring to a question respecting the CF-105 and the lobby that was being carried on. The hon. gentleman is endeavouring to leave the impression that I was dealing with something else.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister said that
548	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue he was making a general statement. I do not now have the exact quotation immediately at hand but it has already been placed on the record where it will stand. It will indicate that the Prime Minister was speaking in general terms.
There was no indication that the government was anxious to hear from the large delegation that was in this building the other day. That was the largest delegation I have ever seen. You know, this is becoming a government of delegations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: You had it pretty well
organized.


Mr. Anderson:: I notice that the C.C.F.
delegation in this house is pretty small.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appear to have misplaced
my notes for the moment, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have found them now. Hon. gentlemen may laugh but I notice that the Prime Minister always comes in with his arms laden with books, papers and files. He always has more notes and papers around him than any other individual in this chamber.


George Randolph Pearkes: But at least he can find his
references.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this has become
a government of delegations. This government promised action in the interests of the Canadian people but none has been forthcoming. It is undemocratic and anti-labour and for that reason we had the recent spectacle of 1,500 people who came to Ottawa to impress on the government their need to have democratic rights. The farmers of western Canada are going to come to Ottawa, too. What for? To try to persuade the government to keep its pledge.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How many farmers are
coming from Alberta?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, before my time
expires I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
In view of the imperative necessity of protecting the legitimate interests of Canada in the fields of trade and industry, we respectfully urge that Your Excellency's advisers should give consideration to the advisability of introducing a motion to establish a special committee of the House of Commons to investigate the extent to which, directly and indirectly, Canadian companies are made subject to United States law and business policy and the damage this has caused to the Canadian economy through loss of export markets.
We feel that this should be done at this session not only to deal with the specific cases we have before us but also to deal with other instances that from time to time


are brought to our attention of orders coming to this country to Canadian companies and orders being stopped by the parent companies in the United States, companies coming from the United States buying up Canadian companies then closing them down in order to corral the market and other practices. I believe that in such a committee members of all parties could unite in their determination that Canadian companies shall act only in the interests of Canada.


William Anderson: Mr. Speaker, first I would like personally to congratulate the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) on their speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Like all other hon. members, I would like to congratulate them very highly on their excellent and eloquent presentations.
I would like to compliment, you, Mr. Speaker, on the excellent way in which you are carrying out your duties in this house, and I would also like to compliment the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.
Like other hon. members, I should now like to inform the house of some of the very interesting facts about my constituency of Waterloo South, situated as it is approximately 60 miles southwest of the city of Toronto. Galt is the largest municipality in my riding and is just under 26,000 in population. Preston is slightly over 10,000 followed by Hespeler, New Hamburg, Baden, Ayr, Breslau and several other municipalities.
Waterloo county is often referred to as the banner county of Ontario and is known as a very rich agricultural area, the home of a very large number of thrifty and successful farmers. Most of them are engaged in mixed and dairy farming. There are feed cattle producers, hog producers, sheep farmers as well as several large turkey and broiler farms. The farmers in my constituency are generally speaking a very successful and happy group and cause me very little worry or concern.
Waterloo South is a very highly industrialized area, containing approximately 250 diversified industries, large and small. Therefore, you, Mr. Speaker, will readily agree that there are many problems which come to me as a result of the various plants in my riding. At this time I wish to thank the various ministers, their deputies and staffs for the courteous co-operation they have given me in handling some of those problems. I wish especially personally to thank our great leader, the Prime Minister

(Mr. Diefenbaker), for his interest in my riding and also the Minister of Finance, Public Works, Trade and Commerce and the Postmaster General.
The main source of trouble that I have experienced since coming to Ottawa has been that of the textile situation. Textiles have been very prominent in this area along the Grand river since this section of the country was first settled. The whole area has been hit very hard in recent years by the closing out of many old-time firms. Possibly, the change in dumping duties which was announced yesterday will help some of those industries to some extent.
At the present time our government is being blamed for the condition in this particular industry. This is entirely false. To a great degree this is just another of the inheritances of the present administration. For years back some of the older firms in my riding had no end of trouble. In some cases this might have been due to management; but several of the large mills have closed, the chief of which was the very large Dominion Woollens and Worsteds plant at Hespeler. This firm, I am told, manufactured about 70 per cent of all the uniform cloth required by the three branches of the services during the second world war. The plant and buildings have now been acquired by Silk-knit Limited of Toronto, who plan to reopen the mill this year and manufacture another line of textiles. But one point I would like to mention here which disturbs me very much is my understanding that all the equipment which was used for the manufacture of those defence materials is now being scrapped and sold for salvage. My personal feeling is that the government should acquire this equipment, put it in mothballs, as the saying goes, and have it available for any emergency which might arise because there is no other equipment coming into Canada which would replace those machines now slated for the junk pile.
It is my sincere hope that defence department officials will check into this at once because some of the finest materials available during world wars I and II were manufactured on these very looms and other machinery in this plant. In the event of an emergency it would seem utter foolishness to have to depend on importations of materials for war purposes or civilian use as well.
Importations of woollen cloth goods and finished garments from the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany have also had serious effect on the woollen industry in my constituency, to say nothing of the Japanese imports such as textiles, steel and iron pipe,
The Address-Mr. Anderson brass and brass fittings, plastics, toys, finished clothing, rain wear, woven gloves, and so forth.
One of the leading industrialists in my riding, Mr. Gordon Chaplin, the president of the Canadian General-Tower Company, whose father made quite a name for himself in this house, the Hon. J. D. Chaplin, who was a minister from Lincoln, in speaking in St. Catharines on Friday, January 16, had this to say when speaking on "Buy Canadian":
Buy more Canadian goods or face increased unemployment and depression of secondary industries in the country.
These were the alternatives offered in effect by Gordon Chaplin, a Galt manufacturer and a native of St. Catharines, in an address Thursday to the St. Catharines Rotary club.
While recognizing the importance of international trade to the Canadian economy, Mr. Chaplin pointed out that Canadian manufacturing industries are handicapped by high labour costs and relatively small volume, as well as by various types of protective legislation in countries to which Canada might export.
At the same time in the home market Canadian goods must compete with the American imports which can be produced at a lower unit cost because of the volume, and with Japanese and other goods which are produced by cheaper labour.
Mr. Chaplin noted that his own firm, the Canadian General-Tower Limited, which produces some 2,500 plastic items of materials new since the last war, has faced a radical change in the past 20 years. Not only has the firm had to keep up to date on its products, but it has lost its export markets which had been 36 to 40 per cent of production before the war. Loss of this market he blamed on currency restrictions, quotas and protective devices in foreign countries intended to protect their home industries. Canadian production has also been priced out of foreign markets and is in danger of being priced out of home markets-
"We simply cannot go on indefinitely," he said. "The government has recognized this in advocating a 15 per cent trade diversion to the United Kingdom. This may have merit, but why not a 15 per cent diversion to Canada?"
After the war the supreme allied powers and particularly the United States aided in the re-estabishment of the Japanese government and industry. Canada helped too by giving support to Japan's participation in the Colombo plan, Japan's accession to GATT and admission to the United Nations and subsequent election to the security council. In addition, Canada accepted Japan as a member of the most-favoured-nation category for customs and tariff purposes and in 1954 signed a special trade agreement. By 1957 Canada had sold $139 million worth of goods to Japan and imported $61J million. Of the $139 million sold by Canada to Japan, $53.6 million was for wheat, $13.8 million was for barley, $11.4 million for flax seed, $1.3 million for mustard seed and $1 million for wheat flour. This is a total of $81 million in agricultural products.
The emphasis on wheat sales has been the key to the whole question of Japanese and

The Address-Mr. Anderson Canadian trade because that was the main reason former trade minister C. D. Howe gave for the 1954 trade agreement between the two countries. Canada is selling its wheat and agricultural products, as well as wood pulp and metals, and we have a favourable trade balance of $771 million. The catch is, however, that these imports into Canada are based on Japanese values before duties and not on what they are worth in Canada.
With Japanese wages approximately one-eighth of Canadian wages and the whole Japanese economy geared to low-cost operation, it is estimated that the replacement value in Canada of these imports is from two to three times their Japanese value. On the basis of even two and a half times their Japanese value, goods imported from that country would be valued at $153.7 million.
In 1957-58 the largest imports from Japan were textiles and clothing, but also imported in very large quantities were toys, electrical products, rubber goods, plywood and veneers, all of which are manufactured in the county of Waterloo. I should mention at this time for the benefit of some hon. members some of the nationally known products of Waterloo county. Articles which are used in the home, factory or office, institutions and hospitals run from the largest of steam boilers which can be adapted for the use of nuclear power to furnaces, stoves, washers and dryers, sinks, tubs and toilets, refrigerators, deep freeze units, fine furniture, guaranteed metal furniture of all kinds for home, office, hotels, airports, woodworking machinery, saws, precision tools, electrical devices, controls, transistors, switches, felt boots, ladies', men's and children's shoes, woollen, cotton and silk textiles, business machines, factory trucks, cash registers, automobile parts such as mufflers and gas tanks, tacks and nails, taps and dies, plumbing fittings, plastic curtains, kitchenware, toys, rain wear, air conditioning systems and blowers, school furniture, desks and chairs, post office furniture, steel barns and buildings, magnesium products, hockey sticks, steel springs and all kinds of meat and cheese products.
I might mention here that only the day before yesterday I received from one of my constituents a copy of a letter which was addressed to the Department of National Revenue, and it points up a fact that I think should be mentioned, that under the heading of goods of a type or kind not manufactured in Canada I believe there are many imports coming in that should and can be made here. The letter reads as follows:
Thank you for your letter explaining why you have permitted certain fan units to come in under tariff item 409f free of duty. However, I must say

that I do not agree with your line of reasoning in this connection because anyone could build a sheet metal box, equip it with a fan and motor and say that it is made especially for farm use. Even so, that doesn't mean that Canadian manufacturers are not capable of making something similar and Canadian manufacturers should be entitled to tariff protection. I think these things should be judged on whether Canadians are capable of manufacturing the item, not whether being already made in Canada or whether for farm use only. The Canadian manufacturer of our fan units is just as capable of manufacturing something similar and is willing to do so but feels that there should be tariff protection. We agree with him.
A fan with a sheet metal box should be subject to duty just like any other fan. It moves air, that's all it does do and it is not an air conditioner. If you will kindly reconsider this matter our fan manufacturer will proceed at once to provide us with Canadian made units. Thank you for the good attention you have given to this matter and I hope that you will now review it, considering the viewpoint of the Canadian manufacturer.
I am led to believe that a manufacturer must be able to produce at least ten per cent of the nation's requirements before an article is classed as a national product. I am not quite sure of this. I should have checked before I spoke, but that is my assumption. I am sure there are many items coming into the country under this classification that could be made in Canada.
At this time I should like to say a few words about another matter that is very important to my constituency, namely the Waterloo-Wellington airport. I would remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) of his recent visit to the airport and the increasing need of adequate night lighting, radio control, extended runways and other matters. We in Waterloo and Wellington counties would like to see the Waterloo-Wellington airport made an alternate landing field to Malton airport because of its altitude and the atmospheric conditions there.
On many occasions when Malton is fogged in Waterloo-Wellington is clear. But aircraft cannot land due to the lack of proper radio communications and runway lighting. Many firms in our area have their own aircraft and others are subsidiaries of large United States companies whose planes returning from the United States or points in Canada after dark, have to land at Malton and their passengers have to travel to their destination at Galt, Guelph or Kitchener by car or train. It is my sincere hope that amounts will be included in the department's estimates to provide for these necessary installations in the coming year. This airport has wonderful possibilities and will serve a great many industries in this very busy section of Ontario which will become even busier with the advent of the seaway and the new 401 highway.

There are quite a few members of the house who have served for years on municipal councils and some like myself as mayors of their municipalities. This is a very good training for a grass roots approach to the responsibilities of a member of parliament. There is, however, a vast difference in the way a municipal government operates and the way parliament carries out its duties. I believe that a strong, active opposition is very essential and necessary but not to the degree that they should try to block or stall for political reasons all sound and sensible legislation put forward by the government. In my years of municipal experience we often had members with vastly different views but in a democratic and sensible way we settled our differences and then went on to do the job we were elected to do.
This brings up another point, that of the extraordinary co-operation we received from the civil employees and departmental heads. In all cases they were very loyal and cooperative and I personally was shown every co-operation. This is the way it should be. In private business you cannot be successful if your staff are not co-operative and loyal. From my personal observations I feel that a large percentage of the government employees are loyal and co-operative, but I am sorry to say that in my opinion there are some yet who depend on a government cheque for services rendered who do not realize that, as a result of the June 10, 1957, and March 31, 1958, elections, they now work under a Progressive Conservative government. They should and must be loyal to their employers or be replaced by someone who will be loyal. I do not believe in mass firing but I insist on loyalty. This is only a natural expectation regardless of which party is in power. This is a matter which I hope is soon cleared up.
There is a general feeling of optimism in Waterloo South, one which should be encouraged all over the country. I get weekly reports from Mr. Robert Oliver, manager of our national employment office in Galt. Applications at this particular time for benefits are down approximately one-third from the number at the same date last year.
We have several new plants opening up soon. There are opening up this year two large plants which I am told led to believe will employ from 300 to 400 employees for the balance of this year and we are optimistic about that matter. As was mentioned here in this house the other day, it is true that one of our textile firms is moving to Jamaica. I am sorry to see them leave Canada, but the company's decision has already been made. They have not yet moved but the decision has been made and we wish them every success.
The Address-Hon. P. Martin
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that at a time in our history when we should all be pulling together for the nation's welfare there are those who preach doom and disaster with every breath, for political purposes and hope of political gain. This conduct really burns me up. I am sorry that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) is not in his seat. I will try not to be any tougher on him than he was on me when he spoke at a meeting in the riding of Waterloo South when I was not able to be there; I was not invited.
I listened to his speech last Friday night, and it really burned me up to hear the way in which he was spreading this propaganda to the nation. This type of propaganda is damaging to the whole nation. The Gallup polls show that the majority of people in Canada do not believe this type of trashy nonsense. The hon. member will likely live to see the day when he is obliged to swallow his own words. In my opinion, he should stick to his pet subject of codfish. He is more at home on that subject but I guess that owing to the shortage of codfish in Newfoundland waters this year he has had to change to other topics. However, let us be optimistic and hope that the cod will be back in large numbers soon, a situation which would greatly benefit Newfoundland and would make the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate extremely happy. Strangely enough, these two have a great deal in common. They are both all wet. They are slippery and have wary eyes, big mouths and tough skins. Both wiggle and jerk when they are caught and flounder around when they are out of their proper elements.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the benefits to mankind provided by the codfish are much greater than are contributions made orally, over television or radio by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, even though cod liver oil is distasteful to some.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. As this debate on such a wide range of subjects will conclude today, it is my earnest hope that all parties in this house will show a little bit more respect for one another and get on with the heavy agenda of legislation before us in the best interests of the nation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that we in this house can show no greater respect for one another and for this institution than by participating in frank and intelligent debate on the issues that confront the nation. No hon. member should seek to suggest that because we take opposite positions, we have on that account less respect for one another. On more occasions than one in this debate that point of
552	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. P. Martin view has been expressed from the ministerial benches. In reply we have suggested that this represents an impatience which suggests that those who now occupy positions on your right, Mr. Speaker, are not fully appreciative of the obligations which, when they sat on this side of the chamber, they thought it was their privilege and indeed their duty to exercise.
Shortly we shall be voting on two motions, one the latest amendment put forward by the hon. gentlemen who sit immediately to your left, and the other the main motion introduced in this house on January 16 by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin). The concluding paragraph of that motion reads as follows:
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.
We shall, of course, support this motion addressed to the crown and put forward by the hon. member for Provencher and the hon. member for Montmagny-LTslet. We sympathize with the amendment offered by the leader of the C.C.F. group but in the previous session of parliament, we took the position, and we will take it again this session, that we have too many committees, more than are necessary for the efficient conduct of our work. As the amendment calls for the establishment of another committee, it is contrary to our view as to what procedures we should adopt for the fulfillment of our work. But as I say, the general complaint of the amendment arouses our sympathetic interest. If an opportunity had been given him today under our rules, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) would have affirmed that it was his intention as a member of the external affairs committee to raise this particular question as the first item for consideration in the external affairs committee after it is set up during the present session of parliament.
Indeed, when the committee is established, the Leader of the Opposition and others on that committee representing this group will vigorously display an interest in this matter and put searching inquiries to the ministry with regard to this particular matter. As a matter of fact, anticipating the return from Washingon of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) before the orders of the day were called the Leader of the Opposition had intended to put the following question to him if he had returned in time to permit the 

question being submitted under our procedures. That question reads as follows, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that the Minister of Justice may now take it as notice and possibly give a reply at the earliest opportunity, perhaps on Monday or, if time permits, even later this day. That question reads as follows:
In view of the present conflict of jurisdiction between Canada and the United States, caused by the United States anti-trust laws being extended to affect Canadian incorporated companies doing business in Canada, is not the minister of the opinion that self-restraint on the part of the government of the United States in this matter has proven to be insufficient and that, at the very least, a formal bilateral agreement on this specific question is essential to protect our international and domestic legal and business position?
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) may feel therefore that we have the greatest sympathy with him in connection with the question which he has raised in his second amendment. We feel the most effective way of dealing with this matter is to collaborate in the external affairs committee in a general discussion leading to a solution of this important problem for Canada.
In speaking at this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to comment briefly on the observations made by at least two ministers with regard to one subject upon which one would hope there could be the widest measure of agreement, and in respect of which I am sure there is the widest support on all sides of the house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), in a rather vigorous and I think needlessly provocative statement, sought to give the house and the country the impression that the Leader of the Opposition was among those in this house who were not fully in support of the basic concepts underlying the character of the British commonwealth of nations. I regret that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the Minister without Portfolio in the government, in milder and perhaps more understandable terms, likewise took the position that those who sit in this group, by policies in the past and by statements in this house, revealed likewise less enthusiasm for the commonwealth than hon. members sitting opposite.
I wonder whether statements of that kind are capable of furthering the unity of the commonwealth? Does any hon. member in this house seriously believe that there is not the fullest appreciation of the value of the commonwealth on the part of every member in this house? I do not think anyone in this

house has had a greater opportunity of exhibiting his appreciation of the commonwealth, and thereby demonstrating his contributions to it, than the Leader of the Opposition, formerly the secretary of state for external affairs in our country. We will not forget that it was Prime Minister Macmillan, the first minister in Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, who, at the conclusion of the Bermuda prime ministers' conference in March, 1957, speaking of the Leader of the Opposition, said:
I think the service which he gave to us in finding good solutions and helping us at critical moments at the United Nations assembly was one of a most remarkable kind, and will always be remembered by us with gratitude.
If it was possible for the Prime Minister of Great Britain to utter these words in speaking of the Leader of the Opposition, it ought to be impossible for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to speak as he did in this context the other day.
We have growing evidence, of course, that the hon. gentlemen opposite now sitting on the ministerial benches and afforded the opportunity of more intimate collaboration with the leaders of governments all over the commonwealth, are beginning to realize the evolutionary character of the commonwealth, not only in terms of its European, North American and Australasian affiliations but in terms of its affiliations in Asia, of Ceylon, with India, Pakistan and Ghana in Africa. Indeed, the hon. member for Greenwood told us himself how moved he was by the realization that the commonwealth had grown in stature and in national numerical strength, as he observed at the recent commonwealth conference held in Montreal in the month of September.
It should not be forgotten that when our Prime Minister was visiting in India, the prime minister of that country attested to the contribution made by the former Canadian prime minister and leader of the Liberal party, who he said, had contributed to the commonwealth's unity by putting forward a valuable formula for unity at one of the most critical periods in recent history. I have before me a copy of an article which appeared on December 17 in Le Droit, an Ottawa newspaper. Here is what it says:
(Translation):
During the visit to India of Mr. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Nehru let it be known that it was a Canadian prime minister, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, who had found the formula which had enabled India, while becoming a republic, to continue as a member of the commonwealth under the Westminster Statutes. It was the first time, added Mr. Nehru, that he had revealed Mr. St. Laurent's intervention. The secret had been well kept. Canadians are happy to learn of the part Mr. St. Laurent played in the planning of this formula.
The Address-Hon. P. Martin
(Text):
Need I say any more on this subject in the light of these words of the distinguished Indian statesman, the prime minister of India, uttered while our present Prime Minister was visiting that great Asian land last autumn? The prime minister of India took advantage of the opportunity to point out that but for the intervention of the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, certain developments would have taken place which, from the point of view of the unity of the commonwealth, would have indeed been disturbing. I would hope that members of the government at least would be the last to try to give the impression that we are not fully united in this house in our appreciation of the commonwealth of free independent nations under the crown, serving the purposes of that commonwealth and the purposes of peace in the world.
The other day the Minister of Justice referred to certain "so-called gross statistical miscalculations" when he mentioned the effect of the increase in the cost of living on the old age pension which were made by the Leader of the Opposition. He estimated that the miscalculation was 1,000 per cent, and that the effect of the increase in the cost of living on the old age pension was 23 cents, while the Leader of the Opposition had calculated the loss at nearly $2. Let us see where the truth in this matter lies. According to the dominion bureau of statistics figures-
Mr. Pallet!: Are you going to make the truth lie now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the consumer price index stood at 121.9 in 1957 as a whole and for July, 1957. In December, 1958 the official index was estimated at 126.2. This represents an increase of 3.5 per cent. In order to know what has been the effect of the increase in the cost of living on the old age pension under the Conservative government, the increase in the cost of living of 3.5 per cent has to be applied to the total amount of the pension, that is $55 per month, not only to the increase of $9 granted by the Conservative government.
If the Minister of Justice makes the calculation, he will find that old age pensions have declined, in real terms or in terms of purchasing power, by an amount of $1.92, which corresponds to what the Leader of the Opposition stated when he said that the old age pensioners have lost about $2.
Then the Minister of Justice went on to say, as reported at page 386 of Hansard, that the Leader of the Opposition had been quoted by the Toronto Telegram as repeating this assertion about a billion dollar deficit whereas,
554	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. P. Martin in fact, the deficit would be in the neighbourhood of $700 million as previously announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Now it is true that the Minister of Finance did say on January 5 that the current budgetary deficit would be approximately $700 million. However, in order to arrive at this figure, the Minister of Finance, as that hon. gentleman would be the first to admit, resorted to a purely accounting device and reduced current budgetary expenditures by an amount of approximately $200 million from the national defence equipment account which is this year being eliminated. In fact, taking the minister's own figures, the estimate of actual budgetary expenditure for the year 1958-59 is $5.5 billion, which brings the budgetary deficit for the current year, according to the minister's own calculations, to $900 million. Again, I want to emphasize that this is a conservative estimate. But even as such it is much closer to the figure used by the Leader of the Opposition than to the figure mentioned by the Minister of Justice. So, in so far as those two statements by the Minister of Justice are concerned, they are without foundation, as are so many other statements from him and his colleagues.
Now the Minister of Justice made several references to my alleged figures and I should now like to deal with this briefly. In the first place, I readily admit that I made a slight arithmetical error in calculating the average level of the consumer price index for 1958. The figure I gave in the house was 125.9 while the correct figure is 125.1. As a consequence of this so-called gross miscalculation, I said that the increase in the cost of living had been 3.2 per cent in 1958 as compared with 1957, whereas it should have been 2.6 per cent. I want to point out, however, to the Minister of Justice that this slight error does not in any way alter the substance of the point I made. I will come back to this later on.
The Minister of Justice was also agitated by two statements which I made on the basis of D.B.S. figures which appeared in Hansard as if they were direct quotations from a D.B.S. publication. Of course I am not responsible for that. The point is my two statements were made on the basis of D.B.S. figures and these cannot be contradicted by hon. gentlemen opposite. Where there was a direct quotation the page number was given; I commented and then I indicated that my authority was either the D.B.S. daily bulletin or the D.B.S. national accounting report. Thus, the Minister of Justice, though he did engage in some skilful debating, really did not make any serious answer whatsoever to the real point at issue.


What is the real point at issue, Mr. Speaker, because I want to deal with it. The real point at issue concerns the words of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in the course of his speech, in the only statistical or economic account given of the state of the nation in answer to the indictment made by the Leader of the Opposition, that "in the year just ended, Canadians worked more, earned more, spent more and saved more than in any comparable year in the history of this country."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen applaud. I repeat: that statement made by the Prime Minister is wholly inaccurate. I still say so, and the statistics are there to show it. They are now on record in Hansard and I invite any hon. member to controvert them or my conclusions. Those figures did show that Canadians worked less in 1958 than in 1957 and that, in real terms or in terms of purchasing power, Canadians earned less and spent less in 1958 than in 1957. And again I challenge any member opposite to prove that this is not the case.
I had pointed out that the real national income on a per capita basis declined by 2.3 per cent and that Canadians earned less in 1958 than in 1957. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that this statement cannot be challenged, and I repeat again that the gross national expenditure on a per capita basis declined by 2.3 per cent so that in real terms Canadians spent less in 1958 than in 1957. I again challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to prove on the basis of the statistics issued by the department of government officially responsible for them that this is not the situation.
I realize that there could be an endless argument on this matter of statistics, but whether the opposition accepts our statistics or not, the fact remains that we face serious problems in this country which this government is not confronting. As Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated in a speech in this house in 1890, "You do not have to look up figures to find out whether you are prosperous; you will know by feeling in your pockets." That is the situation in Canada. There are thousands of people who by the feel of their pockets know what is the economic situation of this country even though the government is seemingly unwilling to meet the situation.
In looking over Hansard I have only found one hon. member sitting on the Conservative benches who seemed to have acknowledged that there is a serious problem, and that is the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson), who in a very worthy speech in this

house, sitting opposite the Prime Minister as one of his supporters, courageously said:
Equally disturbing is the problem of inflation, recognized as a basic danger to the health of our economy by every responsible leader in business and the trade union movement.
That is an honest statement, and a statement which is being repeated by bank presidents all over the country.
I regret very much that the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) took issue, by implication, with what I have said and with what is being said by everyone in this country, by suggesting that there is no serious problem of inflation and that its dangers have been greatly exaggerated. We have the statement of the president of the Canada Life Assurance Company of January 29, in which he says at page 19:
The inflation with which we are threatened today is unlike any which has been heretofore encountered. Historically, inflation has resulted from "too many dollars chasing too few goods." No such cause exists today. The cause which does exist and which is giving grave concern that inflation may break loose is an even more powerful one-it is entirely psychological. Too many people believe that inflation is inevitable. This false assumption leads in turn to actions by individuals and government which, if continued, will result in inflation and the consequent defeat of our responsible enterprise system.
Yet in the face of such statements as this, ministers opposite and private members supporting the government seem to indicate in their speeches that there is no problem in this particular, or that we have grossly exaggerated the level of unemployment in this country. The real fact is that this government since this debate began has converted itself into an opposition to the opposition. That is what this government has done. It has not addressed itself to the real problems which concern us.
It is to be regretted that the government did not accept the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition that this debate should be interrupted in order that the government might be given the opportunity to demonstrate that it has a legislative program capable of mitigating unemployment and the other situations confronting this country.
That was not an unusual request. There is a good precedent for that and that precedent was given in this house at this very juncture in our proceedings in the last session when the government adjourned the debate to give the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) an opportunity of coming forward with his housing legislation, legislation which he said was designed to correct the serious problem of unemployment which then in 1958 confronted the country. If that was the case, why was that not done this session? It was 66968-9-36J
The Address-Hon. P. Martin not done this session because the legislation was not ready when the request was made.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not true. You know it is not true and therefore you should not make that statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says, "that is not true". If the legislation is ready, then let this government bring it in at the earliest opportunity so that we can see what it is and find out whether or not it is going to correct the severity of existing unemployment in our country. But let no hon. member of this house think that if the legislation the government has in mind is merely in the form of some amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act that that is going to correct the unemployment problem in Canada. If that is all the government has and if that is what the Minister of Finance means when he says that it is ready, then I suggest to hon. gentlemen in this house we are not going to find this government taking any corrective measure that is going to reduce unemployment which now faces so many thousands of Canadian workers and their dependents from one end of Canada to the other as government members promised they would do in the election campaign.


Mr. Charlton:: What do you suggest?


Paul Joseph James Martin: One thing my friend the hon. Minister of Finance might do is carry out the recommendation of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Spencer) eliminating the excise tax on automobiles and thus giving employment to additional thousands of automobile workers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that your only suggestion?


Mr. Pickersgill:: What would you suggest?


Murdo William Martin: All my hon. friends opposite are able to do is ask us for suggestions. They urged the people of Canada to elect them and said they would solve all these problems but the moment they were elected and confronted with challenges to produce their plans and programs they say "What would you do?"
I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that they were elected to tell us and to tell this country what the solutions are which they told the people they had in their hands. This is their opportunity to bring forward these solutions. I said that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would not provide employment. Possibly we shall find that it is worthwhile legislation-we do not know-but if it assists men who are out of work in providing for their dependents, all well and good. However, let it not be thought that that kind of legislation is designed to meet unemployment.

The Address-Hon. P. Martin
I regret that the Minister of Finance, the man who more than any other individual in this country has the responsibility of giving leadership in the matter of inflation and in the face of the great disquietude existing on the part of Canadians at the present time, has not taken advantage of the opportunity in this debate of stating the situation as he sees it in his capacity of Minister of Finance. That is a responsibility which is owed to this house as much as to the Canadian Club in the city of Toronto.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did the hon.
gentleman himself not address the Empire Club in Toronto last week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: But he is not the minister of finance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Everyone, including bank presidents and the officials of large corporations, is complaining about the policies of this government and they are posing challenging questions in relation to unemployment and inflation but the Minister of Finance refuses to answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What questions have I refused to answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We know what the questions are. Let the hon. gentleman rise in his seat after I have spoken and answer the questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition who in speaking in this house on January 19 last as reported at page 41 of Hansard said:
The responsibility of the government, however, is not limited to the presentation of a proper and serious appraisal of present economic conditions. That is only part of its responsibility. We are also entitled to get an authoritative statement on the broad policy principles that the government intends to apply in order to achieve a greater degree of economic stability.
Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to say:
Surely this is the time for him-
-the Prime Minister.
-to put his vision to work. Labour leaders, the financial community, businessmen and the whole Canadian people have the right to expect from him, and now, a formal declaration on employment and prices. What are the major objectives that he and his government are trying to achieve in the field of economic stability? Are they in favour of full employment? Are they determined to preserve the value of our dollar, not only in some distant future but now? How does the Prime Minister intend to achieve those objectives? Is he still in favour of increasing long term government expenditures in order to fight unemployment? What has he in mind to restore the confidence of the public in the value of government bonds? Is he prepared when inflationary pressures are threatening to accept monetary and credit restrictions, higher interest rates, budgetary surpluses and higher taxation?


Those are questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and asked by the great majority of the people of Canada at the present time. What did the Minister of Finance do? He made a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto and told the people of Canada that the responsibility for correcting this situation did not lie with the government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -but it lies with those in all walks of life.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It applies to everybody; you, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say to the
Minister of Finance that he has the responsibility as Minister of Finance and the government of which he is a member has the duty to give to this house and the people of Canada an answer to these questions. If the hon. gentleman refuses to do so, he will warrant the indictment of a government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Br-r-r-r.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that has been and is confused, one that has not given evidence of its capacity to govern this country. That is the judgment of the Canadian people at this time, I am sure.
Hon. gentlemen opposite will be able to count on the great majority that sits behind them, of course. I know what the Prime Minister's answer will be, "My answer to what has been said by the opposition will be reflected in the vote on the various measures that will be put before the house". I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance, in the paraphrased language of the Minister of Justice, that you cannot determine the quality of government policy by the number of men who sit behind a government and who realize that their own fate is involved in the successful outcome of a vote.


Mr. Fulton:: Look at the Gallup poll, for instance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, look at the poll in Trinity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let the government at this very late date face up to its responsibilities in a manner consistent with the brave words it used prior to coming into office in urging the people of Canada to give it the opportunity of governing a nation which regretfully at this time it is not doing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am rising with the greater pleasure now because of the warm invitation extended to me by my friend the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in his closing peroration. I can assure him,

however, that his invitation was not the deciding factor. I had come into the chamber some minutes ago for the purpose of speaking so that while his invitation is accepted, nevertheless it was not the occasion of my intervening in this debate.
I thank the hon. member for the attention he has paid to some remarks I made before the Canadian Club at Toronto earlier this month before the session of parliament began and while that seems to be a subject for condemnation in my case I have not forgotten that this same hon. gentleman delivered an address to the Empire Club at Toronto just a few days ago while parliament was in session. But apparently that is accounted unto him for virtue and righteousness; there is the difference.
Within the matter of a few minutes now we shall be proceeding to the Anal vote on the address that now has been under debate for two weeks. I suppose it is not unnatural that one should turn now in retrospect to what have been the features of this debate in the two weeks that are closing today.
Some things certainly have been brought into sharp focus in this debate.
There was, of course, as the opposition had made it clear to the press beforehand, to be a sharp attack on the government. The government was to be put upon the defensive, a sentence of judgment was to be pronounced on the government. Well, what on earth has happened? The attack has misfired. The opposition has been placed on the defensive. The hon. member for Essex East now tells us that we of the government did not confine ourselves to defence. Mr. Speaker, why should we? There was not any attack here that amounted to anything that was worth defending. Yes, it is very true, the hon. member for Essex East has seized upon this one feature of the debate correctly, for he has missed all the others. It is he and his colleagues who have been placed on the defensive throughout this debate. Now, that it is not altogether the government's fault; it is not a fact entirely attributable to the government. Do members of the opposition stop to realize that to a considerable extent they have been placed upon the defensive by themselves in the way in which they have approached their responsibilities in this house.
So far as a judgment being meted out or imposed on anyone is concerned, the judgment that is about to find its final expression in this house this afternoon in a vote is a judgment imposed upon the opposition for its failures.
Let me make it abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that we welcome criticism as long
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming as it be informed and factually based. Any government ought to be able at all times to meet that kind of criticism and defend its record.
What is the purpose of the throne speech debate? Why, through long-hallowed tradition, do we have a government program laid before parliament at the opening of a session and why then before the house launches into consideration of the measures in detail do we have a general debate? Mr. Speaker, as I understand the purpose of this time-honoured parliamentary institution, it is to give all members of the house, regardless of what party they subscribe to, an opportunity to make comment upon that program. And if the comment is sound, if the criticism is sound, there is still time to shape government legislation in the light of the sound criticism. In that respect, if the throne speech debate is put to that use it can serve a worthy purpose in our parliamentary institution.
But let us examine what has been the record of contributions to that worthy purpose served by this attack on the part of the opposition. We are waiting yet to have one clear, constructive expression of an idea from the opposition. The first one has yet to be put forward by them. We would welcome their ideas. Any constructive proposal that is good for Canada that they think ought to be put into legislative effect at this session we would welcome, we would indeed; but, Mr. Speaker, if we had any hopes of that kind of approach certainly we would have been disappointed long before this.
What has been the guiding view of the opposition of its role in this debate? I suppose the editorial columns of the local Liberal paper, dated January 21, must have given the lead to the opposition in this respect. It concluded an editorial with these words:
It is not the opposition's function to offer suggestions but rather to criticize and oppose and to be ready at the first opportunity to take over the task of governing the country.
I do not wish to speak over-confidently, Mr. Speaker, but I do suggest in all earnestness to hon. members opposite that they are not going to have the opportunity to take over the governing of the country unless they do a little more than they have been doing in this session in merely criticizing and opposing.
Against that conception of the role of the opposition let me put these words of Sir Charles Tupper on the record, words that that great man, one of the fathers of confederation and prime minister of Canada for a time, uttered when he retired from parliament and from public life. In his letter to the party, of which he had been such a distinguished member, on January 17, 1901
558	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming he summed up the role of opposition in these words. And bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the party of which he was then a member and was then addressing was in opposition and had been in opposition for five years. He said:
The duty of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to exercise its vast influence in restraining a tendency to pernicious legislation, and to give a loyal support to proposals of the government which commend themselves as in the interests of the country, while initiating itself such measures for the commonweal as are neglected by the administration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where are these words taken from?


Donald Methuen Fleming: From Sir Charles Tupper in 1901.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that Mr. Knowles' speech?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am reading the words of Sir Charles Tupper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is Knowles' speech to the Empire Club a year ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister suggest where we can find them?


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are the words of Sir Charles Tupper. I have told my hon. friend where the words were taken from. Perhaps he will desist from his silly interruptions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the minister is reading from a document. I think he should identify the document.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I read from the letter written by Sir Charles Tupper to the party in 1901.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There has been in this house throughout this debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I point out that under the rules of the house if an hon. gentleman reads from a document he has to identify that document. The document has not been identified by the Minister of Finance. He has said it comes from a letter, but a letter contained in a book. We saw the book. We know the book, and under the rules of this house the Minister of Finance must identify that authority. He must tell us what he has before him. Is the letter not taken from the speech made by Mr. Stanley Knowles in Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite true that if a member quotes from a document he is obliged


to give the house possession of the document, if it asks for it, or at least identify it. I daresay the minister will identify what he has quoted from.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did. I was reading from a letter written by Sir Charles Tupper in 1901. The hon. member wants to go further and say, "Well, was that letter printed in a secondary document?" Yes, it has been and it has been printed in a good many secondary documents, and I hope the hon. member will acquaint himself with the purport of this letter and profit thereby.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the minister has satisfied the point. The point is, if a member quotes from a document he should describe it sufficiently so that other members can verify the quotation. Now, if the minister can say where it is available-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is available in the library, Mr. Speaker, in a number of places. The copy I have here happens to be a quotation in a speech made by a former member of this house, but it is available to members at any time in the library and in many sources.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; if the minister could identify the speech and where it could be read we would be pleased to have the reference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The document is in the library; it is P.M. 61284,K56,1957, C.T. That is the parliamentary reference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, surely this is an outrageous attack on the ordinary rights of members of parliament. The Minister of Finance has a document in his hand-


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I have not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -which was published by someone and which must have the name of the publisher and the name of the author upon it. Since he has quoted from it, under the rules of this house the rest of us are entitled to know what that document is, and not by a library reference.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood the minister to have identified the document sufficiently now so that it can be found in the library. It seems to me that should satisfy the requirements of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is outrageous here is the type of intervention we are having from hon. members opposite and their utter failure to profit by the words of wisdom of Sir Charles Tupper in times past. I ask the house to have regard to what the opposition has been doing in this debate. They have been gathering together, raking up-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bits of letters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -repeating, restating, multiplying, embellishing, exaggerating everything that they can lay their hands on which by any stretch of the imagination appears to be disadvantageous to the government and-here is the sad part of it, Mr. Speaker-often with scant regard for a balanced approach to the facts of the situation and much less indeed for the effect on Canada's interests at home and abroad of the things that they have been saying in the house. This is the essence of irresponsibility Mr. Speaker.
I believe, as I think practically every member of the house does, in the two-party system, and that two-party system means that we believe that in the house there is a place, and a very important one, for an active and responsible opposition. We hope that we will have in the house and that Canada will have the benefit of something more effective and something much more responsible on the part of the opposition than they have exhibited thus far in the session.
Questions have arisen. They have raised many questions. They have stirred up a good deal of dust. They have muddied many waters. But never with respect to any of the questions on which they have spoken have they deigned to tell the house what is their position on these important public issues. We are left to guess.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is yours?


Donald Methuen Fleming: But they have not expressed any positive opinions. I think the striking example occurred during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) a week ago last Monday. He berated my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) because on a television program he had been asked a question as to which was the more serious problem for Canada this year, inflation or unemployment. I ventured in my innocence to put the same question to the Leader of the Opposition, the man who had berated my colleague in relation to the same matter. Did I receive an answer? Oh, no.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, you did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The very asking of the question was contemptuously rejected, so we do not know-


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Donald Methuen Fleming: -which in the view of the Leader of the Opposition is the more serious danger to Canada this year?
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has brought my name into the discussion in a particular respect. He asked a question, as found on page 42 of Hansard, column one, as to which was the more serious. I gave him an answer. If he would like to read it I would be glad to listen. Otherwise I will be glad to read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not a point of order at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order. I will be glad if he will state it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My point of order is that the minister said that he asked me a question to which I did not reply. I took advantage of the first opportunity to inform the house that the reply will be found on page 42.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, who has just intervened in breach of the rules of the house ran away from the question. He skated miles away from it, and we are still left to wonder at the end of two weeks of debate as to what is the view of the opposition with respect to which is the more serious of these two problems which have been discussed at some length in the house, inflation or unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is your view?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is your view?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will scan the words of the Leader of the Opposition in vain for any indication of his view as to which is the more serious.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister like me to answer that question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have some time allowed for these interruptions which are in breach of the rules of the house. I shall be glad to take questions but I have some ground to cover and I will have to ask for additional time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My question was: Would the minister like me to answer the question he addressed to me?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have stated the terms. If the Leader of the Opposition does not like it-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You will not allow him to answer.

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the member who has the floor yields I do not think that members should press their questions because under the rules I cannot allow additional time if a member does yield and gives some of his time for the purpose of questions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Leader of the Opposition is quoted in a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 26 as having said in a speech in Montreal:
We are tired of being asked by the government side what we would do.
They may be tired, Mr. Speaker, but the Canadian people would like to know-


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the government is going to do.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -what the opposition has to say, what they have to propose.
That is not the only feature of the opposition's participation in this debate. The other feature of their participation has been the gloom that they have sought to spread. The picture that they have painted of Canada in this debate has been unworthy of any political party in Canada. It has been a picture of despair. What would be the effect of this propagandizing effort on those who might be unaware of the facts? They are not going to fool many Canadians by this kind of talk. I suppose it might be taken seriously abroad where the facts are not known. The hon. member for Essex East was harping on the same old subject this afternoon, trying to create the impression that there is a crisis in Canada. The only crisis that exists, Mr. Speaker, is in the ranks of the opposition in this house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What about unemployment? Is it not a crisis?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. vocal member who has just interrupted could be better employed at doing something useful in the house than the way he employs himself here many times.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is there not a crisis with respect to unemployment? Answer that one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have to make an exception to what I said earlier. I have to make an exception to my statement that the opposition had not indicated any position on public issues. The Liberal opposition have indicated that they are believers now in social and economic planning. They have shown that, and in a hair-splitting performance the Leader of the Opposition, in trying to put his party straight on that issue in the house on Monday night, put on an extraordinary demonstration of sleight-of-hand.


Anybody who can follow him on that will, I think, acclaim him to be the logical successor to Blackstone.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Blackstone is a great legal authority.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not the Blackstone I am talking about. In listening to that speech, Mr. Speaker, did you not recall the remarks of the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario about 25 years ago when he said, "I swing well to the left?"


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are swinging.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Now that the Liberal party has been put by its leader and by its unanimous vote in the house the other night among the ranks of the social and economic planners, then indeed they might as well echo those famous words of the late Mitchell F. Hepburn because evidently they have swung well to the left. Social and economic planning to anybody who is not just indulging in hair-splitting and sophistry has a well understood significance. It means socialism. It means planning from the top and that, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, means regimentation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is the C.C.F. ally of the Leader of the Opposition coming to his rescue, and how he needs rescue!
I propose to speak now about one of the problems which has been discussed in the course of this debate. We have heard a good deal about the problem of inflation and here is a place where, if the opposition had done its duty, it could have given a real service in this session. How have they read the difficult signs of the times? No one who is acquainted with the facts will deny that we have in the economy today, not just in Canada but in the economy of North America, not to mention other countries, a co-existence of forces that are certainly in conflict with one another. There are forces at work in the economy that are classed by nature as deflationary. There are others co-existing with them that can only be classed as inflationary. How does the opposition read them? It would have been of interest and assistance to know, but we shall never know.
There have been many diagnoses of this situation. But, I put one before you from an extremely competent source. These are remarks that were uttered in Cincinnati on January 17 by Mr. Lambert, general manager of the Toronto-Dominion bank. I am quoting now from the press release of Mr. Lambert's speech. I have it in my hand as hon. members will see.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I read from the press release as follows:
A Canadian banker has stated to a group of U.S. businessmen that traditional methods of monetary control in dealing with the current trend in rising prices is more likely to result in increased unemployment than end the price rise.
Allen T. Lambert, vice-president and general manager of the Toronto-Dominion bank speaking to the Commercial Club of Cincinnati, said that if today's rising prices were a form of inflation, it was of a nature more subtly based than anything experienced before and as such would require "equally subtle handling".
"It is not very helpful to describe the government deficit in Canada as inflationary at the present time," said Mr. Lambert, "though it is possibly not premature to talk of balancing the budget and it would certainly be a great boost to morale if we could be assured that we would see the budget not only balanced but actually put into surplus at the appropriate state of business recovery."
Tight money now, the speaker continued, would discourage business expansion without bringing any material lessening on the upward pressure on prices.
Then he proceeds to discuss various forms of restraint. It is quite clear that there is no condemnation in that view of the approach of the government to this problem. Indeed, the approach of the government has been based upon a recognition of the co-existence of these two factors in the economy, namely unemployment which is normally associated with a deflationary situation and the inflation to which I have referred.
The government takes and has taken a serious view of the inflationary forces at work in the economy. I have tried to describe them in rather strong terms at times because inflation is a thief and an extremely sly one. I have said that the government welcomes the evidence of concern on the part of the Canadian people over this danger of inflation because when the people become concerned about it the hand of parliament is strengthened in addressing itself to measures to combat it.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are two observations I mean to make. The first is that this danger is not new and the second is that what exists today is not overt inflation. Certainly any conclusion that there is overt inflation is not justified by the facts. What is existent today and what all of us in this chamber must take account of is the fear of inflation and such factors in the situation as have given rise to that fear in so far as it is a legitimate fear.
No one is going to do a service to Canada in the situation by simply playing on that fear. Surely what we require is a calm, realistic, unflinching grasp of the facts. That is the first requirement. The facts of this situation today can only be fairly appreciated and judged in the light of the trends
The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming that have occurred in the past. When our friends opposite have been ringing the changes in this debate and, whether they intended to do so or not, have been following courses that cannot have any other effect than to increase the fear without making any constructive contribution whatever to meeting the problem, I say that they should be the last ones to accuse the government of responsibility for inflation.
Mr. Speaker, time does not permit today a review of the statistics but I cannot forebear from asking the house to consider just several of them in passing. The consumer price index is normally treated as the readiest indicator of price trends as they affect the average citizen. In 1935, when the Liberal government came into office, the adjusted consumer price index at the latest reading 60. When the Liberal government went out of office in June 1957 the consumer price index stood at 121.6. It had doubled in those years of Liberal administration. Today the consumer price index at the latest reading stands at 126.2. We do not take any joy out of the fact that in the past 19 months there has been a rise. But, Mr. Speaker, we ask those who wish to form a fair judgment as to where responsibility lies, to put those two facts side by side and to ask themselves what gave rise to the danger of inflation and where the principal responsibility lies.
We heard a great deal about the deficit. If this deficit is not going to be a billion dollars this year, it will not be for lack of effort on the part of opposition spokesmen, because these expressions have just been rippling off the ends of their tongues ever since last summer, whether in this house or outside of it. They have spoken of the "billion dollar deficit". The Leader of the Opposition has used that expression at various times, holding out the idea that this deficit might be even more than a billion dollars. He was not satisfied to deal with the facts. He was not satisfied to say that the government's best estimate was $700 million and that they would wait and see how the estimate stacks up against the facts when the report is available at the end of the fiscal year. No; he is not satisfied to do that. He goes out and he makes it a billion dollar deficit and in doing so he creates, as far as his voice can be heard, all the bad and harmful effects to Canadian credit and to the Canadian economy that would be done to it if that budget deficit were in fact a billion dollars.
I put the same judgment of irresponsibility on every member of the opposition who has talked in this same vein. The fact is that if I were estimating the budget deficit today I would not have cause to depart very far

The Address-Hon. D. M. Fleming from the estimate I gave this house on June 17 last year. I do not belittle the deficit. I do not belittle its effects. But let us stick to the facts and let us not have the kind of invention that has been practised on this estimated deficit at the hands of members of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, they have talked about this deficit as though it were the only deficit that had ever occurred. I do not suppose anybody will take great joy out of the fact that there have been a great many more deficits than surpluses in Canadian federal history. However, I think it is a fact that we must bear in mind if we would have a fair, just and balanced understanding of the present deficit and its relationship to the economy and to Canadian history.
In the years that have passed since confederation, the 92 years for which we have the full figures, there have been deficits in 68 of those years and surpluses in just 24 of them. If we come down to the most recent times, you will remember that there were deficits in 1955 and in 1956; that there was a surplus in 1957, and that there was a small deficit in 1958.
Hon. members opposite talk as though this budget deficit had no peer in Canadian history. Again, Mr. Speaker, we make no attempt to disguise the fact that this is the largest peacetime budget deficit in Canadian history, being an estimated $700 million. But, Mr. Speaker, let us compare this deficit-and I am comparing it in terms of size-with the deficits that were necessarily incurred in world war II. They were as follows: 1943, $2,138 million; 1944, $2,557 million; 1945, $2,558 million; 1946, $2,123 million.


An hon. Member:: There was a war on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I cite these facts not because it was improper that there should be budget deficits at that time-it was inevitable that there should be-but to restore something of a sense of balance in comparison in the interests of fair, reasoned and balanced judgment.
When we report a monthly surplus, as we did in the month of December, do we receive any credit for that from the opposition? No, we do not. The fact is that in December, on the accounts of the month, we did report a surplus, but what does the local Liberal paper say about it? Is there any mention of that fact? Oh, no, here is how the headline of January 24 in that paper reads: "Federal deficit figures growing". This headline is untrue. The deficit, as it existed on November 30, was reduced by the surplus reported in the month of December. We did not receive any credit for that, but

that does not matter. We are not asking for credit, but we are asking, on the part of hon. members opposite and from the press which is like-minded a little sense of responsibility in relation to the credit and good name of this country.
Then they talked about the surplus that was earned in the fiscal year before they went out of office. Hon. members will remember running into this Liberal question up and down the hustings, what became of the surplus that they amassed in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1957? What became of the surplus? Here is what became of the surplus. A surplus is a matter of accounting. It does not necessarily tally precisely with the cash balance on hand at the end of the year. In this particular case it is interesting to see what became of the surplus. There was, for the fiscal year 1956-57 a surplus of $258 million. This was on March 31 and the old government went out of office on June 21 following, three months later. In those three months the old government disbursed $588 million in non-budgetary transactions. These included payment at the beginning of April of $100 million to the Canada Council; redemption of Canada savings bonds to the amount of $126 million; payment on June 15 at maturity of an issue of bonds totalling $150 million, and disbursements by way of loans, advances, pension accounts and other non-budgetary transactions amounting to $212 million net. So, you see, Mr. Speaker, these outlays on nonbudgetary transactions were much more than enough to use up that surplus, indeed to do so about twice over. They were, of course, taking in other revenues at the time and making other outlays, but the fact is that that is where this surplus went at that time.
You will see, therefore, that the surplus for 1956-57 on hand at March 31, 1957 was entirely used, along with hundreds of millions of other dollars in cash, to discharge the obligations of the old government on and after April 1, 1957. The old government disbursed it all. Two payments alone by the old government absorbed the surplus in full, namely the payment to the Canada Council and the redemption on June 15 of the maturing issue of bonds. These were proper payments in the discharge of obligations created with parliamentary authority. However, the point is that the surplus from the year 1956-57 was used by the old government in the fiscal year 1957-58 before it went out of office and it drew heavily as well on other cash funds carried over into 1957-58 from 1956-57 before it went out of office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not the time now, but I shall be glad to answer questions at the conclusion of my remarks if hon. members wish.
We have heard references on the part of hon. members opposite to the high cost economy. I hope no one is going to suggest that I have not done all I can to warn all sections of the Canadian people against the dangers of developing here in Canada a high cost economy. A country that is dependent to the extent that we are on export markets is the kind of country to which the danger of becoming a high cost economy is very serious indeed. I can only repeat the things that I have said before in this regard in calling upon all sections of the Canadian people, whether they are employers, employees or self-employed, and whether they are members of this house who support the government or members in the opposition, to have regard for these dangers. Let us all see that we take advantage of the opportunities given to us to warn the Canadian people against the dangers of a high cost economy.
Mention was made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition of the money supply, and he gave the impression, as I did my best to follow him, that the holding of government bonds in the banking system as distinguished from public hands was growing. The fact is that that situation was reversed last autumn.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I should explain at once, Mr. Speaker, that I perhaps gave the wrong impression. My figures were for the end of September.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is unfortunate my hon. friend did not make his point much clearer than he did. It is true that there had been, up to that date, an increase in the public debt held in the hands of the banking system compared with that in the hands of the public. I am happy to say to the house that in the autumn months that trend was reversed, and happily reversed. We have had the situation since, thanks to the unprecedented success of the Canada savings bond issue last autumn, where there has been a notable reduction in the proportion of public debt held by the banking system and a relatively substantial increase in the public debt held in the hands of the public as distinguished from the banking system. I am glad the hon. gentleman has taken advantage of this opportunity to clear up what he said on that occasion because obviously the other impression was completely unjustified by the facts.
I had hoped to say something today about the conversion loan. I have time only to
The Address-Mr. Carter mention this, that we are deriving today very great and timely benefits from the tremendous success of the conversion loan last year. Do hon. members realize what kind of situation we would have faced in this month of January with the fifth victory loan maturing and over a billion dollars to meet or to refund in some way? Do hon. members realize, if we had not taken the steps we did at that time, what it would have meant to this country, with the rise in the interest rates since last summer and the softening of the bonds markets of this continent, to have to face now in addition to our current borrowings a maturity of more than a billion dollars? I think all members may well realize what benefit has accrued to Canada from the fact that we were successful, with the co-operation of the holders of over 90 per cent of these victory loan bonds, in postponing the maturity of that indebtedness. It is the sort of thing we could not do to-day. We may be thankful we accomplished it when we did.
Some hon. members opposite have been talking about the weakness of the bond markets on this continent as though it were something that gave them sheer glee. The fact is that there has been a very serious decline, and it would have hit this country much sooner than it did had it not been for the success of the conversion loan. However, the effects of the weakness in the New York bond market, the very serious weakness, could not fail to be felt in the bond markets of this country. You cannot isolate Canada from the economic influences of the United States, and you cannot isolate the Canadian bond market from the influence of the severe weaknesses of the United States market.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I must inform him his time has expired.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: I see
that I am faced with the task of compressing a 20-minute speech into seven or eight minutes and that is going to wreak havoc upon the masterpiece I have prepared for this occasion. As I listened to the minister who has just taken his seat, I could not help but recall those words of Kipling to the effect that the tumult and shouting dies, the captains and the' kings depart. Certainly there was plenty of tumult and plenty of shouting, and there was even a long peroration on inflation, but very little information on government policy.
This curious reluctance on the part of ministers opposite to take the people into their confidence and divulge what they intend to do about the twin problems of unemployment and inflation has characterized this debate

The Address-Mr. Carter throughout its entire course. Instead of telling us what their plans are, they have lectured us on the responsibility of the opposition; they have heaped personal abuse upon us and we have been called prophets of doom and gloom because we have ventured to call attention to some of the problems which concern the nation at this time. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made these points very emphatically in the speech he has just completed, but 1 wonder if he considers the president of the Royal Bank of Canada to be a prophet of doom and gloom, because the latter calls attention to the fact that prices today are near the explosion point. I think his words were that prices were being inflated to the point of explosion danger.
If we are prophets of doom and gloom we are in very good company, because we are in the company of bank presidents, leaders of finance and all the people who are in a position to form an intelligent opinion on this subject. Jeers and personal abuse are no substitutes for sound argument, and the fact that the government has had to resort to these tactics indicates that it is on the defensive and that it has no sound policies to put forward and no effective answers to our criticism.
Speeches which have been made by ministers in the course of this debate disclose a curious idea that members of the opposition are elected to parliament in order to formulate policy, and that it is the responsibility of the government to attack the policies of the opposition. We have continually been asked for suggestions and criticized for not putting them forward. The government has been charged in the course of this debate on many occasions with being contradictory. Certainly, one of the statements which has just been made by the Minister of Finance contradicts statements made by some of his colleagues. Hon. members will recall that the minister, like his colleagues in the cabinet, criticized us for attacking the government. I wish to put on record the opinion voiced by one of the members of the present cabinet, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), and I intend to read from a verbatim report of a television press conference which took place on January 30, 1956.	*
Mr. Levesque of the C.B.C. put a question to the Solicitor General which reads as follows:
If today or tomorrow you were in power, what essential difference could we note? Have you any idea on the subject?
To which the Solicitor General replied:
The role of an opposition in a democracy is to criticize legislation as it is brought down by the party in power.


I say to the Minister of Finance and to his colleagues the same words which the Prime Minister himself said to the labour delegation the other day: you certainly cannot have it both ways.
Now I should like to come to the point which necessitated my intervention in this debate, but before doing so I should like to join in congratulating the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) on the excellent contributions they made to the debate in moving and seconding the address.
Yesterday, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made a stirring appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to divert the motor vessel William Carson from Port aux Basques to the terminal at Argentia. I should be failing in my duty if I did not try to put on record some of the counter arguments with regard to this proposal. The first point I wish to make is that the terminal at Port aux Basques and the ferry service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques are part of the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland. This is a solemn pact which is now part of our constitution, and though the hon. member who made this appeal yesterday may not have realized it he was, in effect, asking the minister and the government to break this solemn treaty obligation. What value could we place on our bill of rights or what prestige would the government enjoy among the nations of the world if it were even contemplated for one moment breaking a solemn compact which is incorporated in the constitution of our country?
There is a very good reason, moreover, why Port aux Basques is mentioned in the terms of union as a place for this terminal, and the reason is that Port aux Basques is the only place in Newfoundland where a daily service can be operated between the province and the mainland of Canada. Thirdly, the ferry William Carson was built especially to provide that service. She is no ordinary ship; she was built especially for this service. She has three things to do and one of them is to break the tremendous backlog of freight which has piled up every year at North Sydney on the mainland-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty at this time to interrupt the proceedings and put to the house every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
When I read the motion which was moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) I had some doubts as to its regularity under the rules, but as no hon. member objected to the amendment I allowed the debate

to proceed. Hon. members will note, however, that I did not attempt to restrict the debate to the subject matter of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Since then I have given some thought to the matter and considered whether an amendment of this kind should go to a vote, and I came to the conclusion that it certainly should not go to a vote without my expressing doubts as to its propriety, so that it would not stand as a precedent.
On further reflection I have come to the conclusion that it is really not in order and that it should not be put to the house. I should, perhaps, explain briefly what are the bases of my conclusions, and I realize that I am not giving members an opportunity to speak to the point. Perhaps, if they wish to do so, they should do so before I make a ruling.


Mr. Winch:: On the amendment, I take it, not on the right to introduce it.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. It is clear on that point that it is open to any hon. member to introduce an amendment up until the moment when the final vote has to be taken at 5.30. My objection is to the character of the amendment. I will just explain my viewpoint by reminding the house we are debating the motion to thank His Excellency for the address from the throne.
The address from the throne is, broadly, a statement of the government's policy and the debate, broadly, is a debate on the policy of the government. That has been clearly established. Looking back over the amendments that have been moved over the past number of years they have been motions of want of confidence in broad terms rather than relating to a specific point such as the amendment I am discussing. This debate then is on the policy of the government generally and that has been indicated, as hon. members will And, as early as 1878 when the Honourable Mr. Alexander McKenzie, speaking on the address in that year, as quoted in Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 169 at page 142, said:
It has been thought desirable in our parliamentary practice that it is better to postpone debates upon specific subjects of discussion in the house until those matters are brought forward before us by a bill or resolution, and I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman admits that the speech has been constructed this time fairly in that respect.
He was referring to the speech from the throne. Speeches from the throne have been constructed in that way and have been challenged by amendments such as the first two which were moved this session and which were a broad challenge of the government's
Division
policy. On that point, Beauchesne in the same edition at page 143, citation 170, states:
170. (2) An amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne is a motion of "noconfidence"-
In subsection 3 of citation 170 Beauchesne states:
170. (3) Amendments to the address in reply to the speech from the throne are the means used by the opposition for the purpose of challenging government policies or actions when parliament meets again after a few months' recess.
Applying both principles to the amendment in question it does not challenge the government's policies. It suggests the advisability of the government introducing a motion to set up a special committee to carry on an investigation. There is no assertion of policy one way or the other. It simply calls upon the government to establish a committee to investigate the items mentioned in the amendment, the relevant words of the amendment being:
-to investigate the extent to which, directly and indirectly. Canadian companies are made subject to United States law and business policy and the damage this has caused to the Canadian economy through loss of export markets.
It calls simply and solely for an inquiry without challenging the government's policies. On that basis and on the basis of the quotations which have been made it seems to me that it is not the kind of amendment which should be accepted on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In saying that I feel that the hon. member who moved the motion is not suffering any injustice if I am in error because he already has had the opportunity of moving an amendment which was debated for six days. I will therefore put the question on the main motion.



WAYS AND MEANS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 55 provision is made that the house shall appoint committees of supply and ways and means. It is necessary to do so every session as soon as the address has been agreed to in answer to His Excellency's speech. I therefore wish to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming):
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now wish to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming):
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Public Works if the government intends to move to go into supply on Monday or whether it will be a private members' day.


Howard Charles Green: The intention is to have a private members' day on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Don't change it.


Howard Charles Green: That looks like trouble. On Tuesday, which will be a government day, we shall commence with consideration of the supplementary estimates, then take the resolution preceding an amendment to the National Housing Act, then the resolution preceding an amendment to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the one dealing with the Trans-Canada Highway Act. This business will be continued on Wednesday. Thursday will be another private members' day, and then government business on Friday. On the following Monday we hope to have a supply motion.
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister tell us when the unemployment insurance legislation which the Minister of Finance told us was ready is going to be proceeded with?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not comment on that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, you did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, you did.


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position at the moment to say when that will be considered.


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