1959-01-27

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of all hon. members. In Hansard for January 23 will be found an answer given by the Minister of Labour to a question I asked him-I am making this as brief as possible, sir-in which the minister states, as recorded on page 241, that the unemployment figure, the D.B.S. figure, for March, 1958, which he said was well known to me though in fact I do not carry all these figures in my head, was 509,000. He did not give more than the rough figure, and I do not criticize that. But, sir, on examining Labour Force, November, 1945, to July, 1958, reference paper No. 58, 1958 revision, published by the dominion bureau of statistics, the figure given for March 22, 1958 is 597,000. Therefore the minister was 90,000 out and in addition he was wrong in saying that this figure was lower than the figure in 1955.



HOUSING


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that the federal government has approved a contribution to the city of Windsor under the National Housing Act to assist the municipality to acquire and clear a blighted area in the central portion of the city.
The proposals put forward by the city of Windsor envisage the clearance of an area of some 28 acres. Approximately one-half of this land, when cleared, will be sold by the city to the federal government and the province of Ontario for the construction of a low rental housing project consisting of some 280 units, the cost of which will be shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the province in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the National Housing Act. These units will provide accommodation for the families living in the area.
The remaining half of the land will be used for civic and institutional purposes as well as for private housing. The city has estimated that it will cost approximately $4,300,000 to acquire and clear this land. Under section 23 of the National Housing Act the federal government will contribute 50 per cent of the cost and will also share in any proceeds from the sale or lease of the land.
I am informed that the province of Ontario, in addition to its participation in the financing of the housing project, will also contribute financially to the cost of acquiring and clearing that portion of the area which will be used as the site for the housing project. The remainder of the acquisition and clearance cost will be borne by the city.
This project is bound to have an important impact on the structure of the central area of Windsor. It will provide additional employment opportunities as demolition progresses and a start is made on reconstruction but, above all, it will provide a new environment and new homes for approximately 1,000 persons. It is expected that the taking over of the land will commence almost immediately. This, of course, is in the hands of the city, and there will be expropriation and demolition. When the housing project itself 'is undertaken there will be a cost of probably $3 million. The project should be started during the summer.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: I thank the Minister of Public Works for making an announcement which, in principle, was made about five weeks ago by the mayor of Windsor. The regrettable feature of this of course, as the minister knows, is that the opportunity which this project provides for giving immediate work does not afford any relief in terms of the present unemployment. However, I should like to say to the minister that this project will be of great assistance to Windsor if not in the immediate future then in the longer term, and I thank the minister very much for his interest in making this project possible to a city which he recognizes as one of the outstanding cities in this country.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to add just a word. The hon. member for Essex East has mentioned that this will not be of great help in respect of unemployment during this winter. May I point out to him, sir, and to the house that if he had been on his job as the member
358	HOUSE OF
Statement Concerning Champlain Bridge for Essex East while he was in the cabinet this work would have gone ahead some years ago.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I should like to ask him whether grants from the federal government will be made available to other centres such as has been announced in the case of Windsor. I have in mind areas where there is considerable unemployment, and where they have low-cost land in their municipalities.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this government is very anxious to see redevelopment projects go ahead in any part of the country, but the initiative must come from the municipality in question. In the case I mentioned it came from the city of Windsor. There are several other projects either completed or under construction; for example, in the city of Vancouver. We hope there will be requests from that city for a development scheme, but in each case the initiative must come from the city itself.



BRIDGES


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I have received inquiries, Mr. Speaker, from a group of members of parliament from Montreal and the surrounding district relative to the progress being made in the building of the Champlain bridge-


Some hon. Members:: Champagne.


George Harris Hees: 
the possibility of any further delay. The national harbours board report that no further delays are anticipated.
The bridge will be approximately four miles long, and will clear the seaway. It was originally intended to build this as a four-lane project, but due to representations which I received from the Montreal members of parliament, pointing out the tremendous growth which has taken place in the past few years in the Montreal area, we decided to build the project as a six-lane structure. It is estimated, because of the extra wide lanes, that the bridge will have a capacity about equal to that of Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges combined.
To date six contracts have been awarded for the construction of sections of the bridge as follows: three for fill; one for the main piers at the seaway canal; one for a temporary causeway from the Montreal shore to Nuns island, to assist construction, and one for piers in the channel from Montreal to Nuns island.
Tenders will be opened on February 12 for the main bridge structure between Montreal and Nuns island. It is expected to call tenders for the other main sections between Nuns island and the south shore within the next two months.
The target date for completion is the summer of 1961.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: In respect to the omission of the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull from the national capital commission, I wonder if the Prime Minister could explain the contradictions between the statement he made in the house yesterday explaining these omissions and that given out by his office, as reported in the press.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the hon. gentleman has not read the Federal District Commission Act and the new act that took its place. In the Federal District Commission Act provision was specifically made that the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull should be members of the commission. In the new act no such provision was made. The act was made available to parliament in bill form for consideration and examination, and at no time was any suggestion offered on the part of the opposition with regard to the change which was most apparent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would now answer my question.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the draft of the bill-and I am speaking now subject to correction-was made while the former government was in power, and specifically removed the mandatory appointment of the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has said is quite correct, and has nothing to do with the appointment or nonappointment of the mayor of Ottawa. It has to do with the mandatory provisions of the act. I asked the Prime Minister if he could explain the contradiction between the explanation he gave the house yesterday for this omission and the explanation given to the press by his office.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the contradiction is in the mind of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to comment on the report of Greg Con-nolley in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen that, because of the omissions, the municipalities are going to believe that the federal government under this arrangement intends to implement a federal district commission similar to the federal district in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has given notice that he intends to ask this question. May I say that the report has no foundation in substance or in fact, and is purely fictional in every respect.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask of the Prime Minister a question in another field. In view of the magnitude and seriousness of the continuing producers strike and the need to effect an immediate settlement, can the Prime Minister say whether he is in a position, along with the majority of the members of his cabinet, to meet the large delegation that we understand will be in Ottawa momentarily?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, no request has been made in that behalf to meet the Prime Minister, and I am sure the hon. gentleman has not the authority to speak for any delegation.
Inquiries of the Ministry May I also say that the attitude I took on previous occasions is unchanged. I seem to remember that in the past hon. members on the other side of the house took the strongest possible objection to any action being taken by this government in respect of the C.B.C.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the Prime Minister say whether he will meet the delegation and whether, because of the seriousness of the strike, he will bring the parties together?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member heard the Prime Minister's answer, which was to the effect that he had not been asked to meet the delegation.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of the opinion expressed by Rev. Father Jacques Cousineau, S.J.,-an authority on labour relations,-in last Saturday's Montreal papers, about the legality of the C.B.C. producers' strike? If so, could he tell us what he thinks about it?


An hon. Member:: What a jurist!


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Minister of Labour cannot answer my question, I believe the Minister of National Revenue is equally interested in it, so I would ask him to answer it.


Mr. Grafftey:: What question?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I understand the question, and I was following it in the translation, the hon. member is asking for an expression of opinion from the minister on a legal matter.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, no; that is not the point. The question was-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I am in error I should like to be corrected, and I should like to hear what the hon. member has to say.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to assist you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for St. Denis first directed his question to the Minister of Labour and then to the Minister of National Revenue. The purport of the question was simply to ascertain if, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of National Revenue had stated in the house that the dispute was illegal, he had

Inquiries of the Ministry now changed his mind in view of the opinion of the expert in Montreal. The question was simply that, and I submit it is perfectly within the rules of the house, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member who asked the question would indicate which minister he wishes to answer.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, we can rely on the Minister of Labour, who is looking into the matter. I presume that if he cannot give an answer to-day, he will give one tomorrow or later.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question. It is apparently a question of the state of mind of the minister, and I want to know which minister's mind he is inquiring into.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In order to clear up the situation, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I have never expressed an opinion as to the legality of this strike, nor have I any comment to make on the observations contained in the newspaper report.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I then direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the opinion given in Montreal by an expert in industrial relations having to do with this matter, I now ask the minister whether he is still of the opinion that the strike is illegal, as he called it.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Having first inquired into the state of mind of two ministers we are now getting into the realm of legal opinion. I have not seen the opinion to which the hon. member refers; therefore I am unable to comment upon it. However, I personally have not changed my opinion in the slightest degree. With picket lines preventing over 1,000 people who are under contract to work from fulfilling that obligation, and in view of the fact that approximately 1,000 who have attempted to cross the picket lines have been subjected to violence and threats, there can surely be no question whatever about the illegality of this strike. I would suggest that you do not need an expert on law in order to reach an opinion. You just need a little common sense.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Revenue did not read that expression of opinion, would he allow me to offer him a copny of it?

(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not an opportunity to make statements. It is an opportunity to ask questions, and the hon. member is free to supply the information to the minister privately.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the opinion which has just been given by the Minister of National Revenue alleging violence and the breaking of the law in connection with this dispute, I ask the minister how it was that yesterday he declared that this strike in his opinion was legal.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if the law has been broken there is no doubt that those acts have been illegal, but the question asked by the hon. gentleman yesterday was whether in my opinion this strike was illegal, and I said that in my opinion the strike was not illegal.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I am interested in finding out on what ground the minister could make the statement that the picket line prevented 1,000 people from crossing it, when we understand that more than 1,500 employees will be in Ottawa supporting the strike.


George Clyde Nowlan: There will not be 1,500. There may be 1,500 coming from various sections of Montreal and various political parties, but there will not be 1,500 employees of the C.B.C.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice whether any action is being taken by the combines branch as a result of complaints made to the branch that a combine exists to restrain competition in the purchase of tobacco from Quebec growers.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am able to advise him that immediate steps have been taken to interview the complainants in order to ascertain the specific grounds of their complaint and the reasons they have for thinking a combine exists. The information obtained from these interviews will be studied promptly and carefully.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Bell):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the press release last week from the Department of Labour to the effect that in the Sudbury and nickel belt area there were 8,607 unemployed as compared with nearly half that number last year, or 4,352, and in view of the press report in the Sudbury Daily Star to the effect that unemployment amounted to only 1,800 in 1950, may I ask the minister whether the plan to erect new armouries in Sudbury which has been under study for some three years, and with regard to which the present government spoke of taking action, will be implemented shortly in order to alleviate the present unemployment position.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be funds available in the vote of the Department of National Defence to enable us to begin construction of that armoury shortly. We recognize the necessity for having an armoury there, and as soon as funds can be made available further consideration will be given to the building of the armoury.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister table the report which has been in his hands now for over a year on the economic survey made by the two railway companies with regard to the construction of a railway from Alberta to the shore of Great Slave lake?


George Harris Hees: The report I have from the two railway companies is not a public document. It is a report they have made to me, and I do not propose to table the document.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wonder if I might address a question to the Prime Minister. It is not a matter of urgency, but it is one of general interest. In view of the
Inquiries of the Ministry stimulation aroused by the story in last Saturday's Citizen as to this government's intention to reintroduce peerages and similar honours, would the Prime Minister end such discussion by giving a negative indication?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will appreciate that he is entering into the realm of policy which might better be left to be declared when it is decided.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
suggest that the reaction to this question-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Port Arthur has asked a perfectly legitimate question, and it is up to the Prime Minister as head of the government to indicate whether or not he wishes to answer it. I suggest that the question is a proper one, and the hon. member has a right to expect some kind of answer from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Essex East, who is a very experienced member and who knows what it is proper to ask in matters of policy. This is an inquiry into something which has no immediate urgency or reality, as the hon. member himself stated. If it were a question of whether any recommendation had been made, or something of that kind, I would permit it; but a simple question as to policy in general is, I think, going too far.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be
allowed to point to a precedent in this case. I remember that when I sat on the other side of the house a similar question was asked of a former prime minister under similar circumstances, and he made a reply and stated quite clearly what the attitude of the then government was with reference to this question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently that event must have remained in the hon. gentleman's mind, because that would be the only occasion when such a thing had actually happened. So there will be no misunderstanding about this question I have simply to say this. This is another of the speculative articles whose only foundation is in the mind of the person who wrote the article.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister say whether he considers this parliament bound by the Nickle resolution?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to express an opinion.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


Mr. Speaker:: That is an opinion on law and he knows that opinions on questions of law are not given in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With great deference, Mr. Speaker, I was asking an opinion on a question of fact.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the question originally was the type of question the Prime Minister used to ask regarding the Canada medal when he was in the opposition. I wonder whether I could ask a supplementary question with regard to the Canada medal. Has the Prime Minister given any consideration to introducing the Canada medal into active service?


John George Diefenbaker: No consideration whatever has been given to it. I seem to recall that Mr. King brought this into being, and having brought it into being it became one of the finest and most sought after collectors' items in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one has ever got one yet.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of information I have that the western produce association ordered a reduction of 3 to 5 cents in the price of grade A large eggs and 3 to 4 cents in the price of grade A medium eggs.
Will the minister say what steps have been taken to assure to producers a fair support price on all grades of eggs, and whether both these reductions have now been prevented?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I think the hon. member's information is incorrect. I have no information along that line. I think there is some confusion over the fact that some 10 days ago the western produce association members met together and decided to reduce the price of extra large grade A eggs by some 3 to 5 cents, thereby, I think, perhaps laying themselves open to investigation under the Combines Investigation Act; but in any event we took steps something over a week ago now to ensure that this reduction did not go into effect.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, there was a typographical omission in the question. As the minister very properly said, the question was

with regard to grade A extra large eggs. I had intended this as a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice in any case after the reply of the Minister of Agriculture. May I ask the Minister of Justice whether the officials of the Combines Investigation Act are making an investigation into the very serious charge by certain agricultural representatives that the western produce association in practice appears to constitute a combine under the Combines Investigation Act?


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the first time that the matter has been brought to my attention; therefore I am not posted on it. But I will inquire and give the hon. gentleman an answer later.
(Translation):



EXTENSION OF SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION SYSTEM TO PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he has had set up, in his office, a listening device connected with the simultaneous interpretation system of the house?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a question for the Prime Minister but for the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: 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.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the confusion that is in many minds regarding unemployment statistics, for which we seem to have three sets of figures, namely D.B.S., unemployment insurance registration and the Martin bureau figures. Will the minister consider the production of new statistical means of following the course of unemployment that would combine the unique features of all three?

The Address-Mr. McQuillan



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and ask him whether or not any negotiations are under way between the province of Quebec and the federal government with respect to the possible participation of Quebec in the hospital insurance plan, which was passed in this house as a result of the initiative taken by the St. Laurent government?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I may point out, despite what the hon. member for Essex East said about the legislation having been inspired, one might say, by the St. Laurent government, that it was the Diefen-baker government that made it possible for this act to come into force six months earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
I would say there are indications that the province of Quebec is interested in the hospital insurance plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was whether there were any negotiations between the minister and his opposite number in the provincial government.


Jay Waldo Monteith: No negotiations are going on at the moment.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 26, 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. H. C. McQuillan (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my congratulations to the many that have already been extended to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like to say to the hon. member for Provencher that I have been thoroughly indoctrinated in agricultural thinking, because I find I have little support in this particular section of the house. I also wish to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet who seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want to thank him for the effort he made to bring about greater unity in Canada.
The speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was also particularly masterful 66968-9-241
in that his accusations against the government of fumbling and bumbling were a bold attempt to cover up what has plagued his party for a good many years. Some of his fellow members betrayed him rather badly in subsequent speeches. The Liberal party professes to be a free trade or low tariff and free enterprise party, but almost invariably its members cry in the house, if not directly then by inference, for tariff protection or federal financial assistance for industries in their own constituencies.
The Liberals got along fine as a government as long as Canadian industry had a sellers' market in a goods-hungry post-war world, as long as Canadian industry could keep pushing up the prices of its products to meet increasing costs created by spiralling inflation and taxation in the post-war years. But, Mr. Speaker, when we hit a buyers' market the Liberal balloon soon deflated, and it is going to take a lot of patching before they will ever get it into the air again. Speaking of fumbling and bumbling, they bumbled their way last night into supporting a socialist amendment in the house.
The leader of the C.C.F. group also did a good deal of fumbling in his half hour masterpiece. He talked about the plight of the poor farmers in Saskatchewan, that C.C.F.-governed province, and how inflation was squeezing the life out of them. Yet one of the leaders of his party, a former member of the house, advocates a policy for labour that must inevitably lead to increases in the cost of the goods and equipment that the farmers must buy.
I have every sympathy for the farmer. I was born on a farm, and as a boy I worked many a long day on the land. I worked on a Saskatchewan farm in the days of the harvest excursions, when men used to come from the far west and east to help in the harvesting of the crop. Those were the days of an earlier radical group known as the I.W.W. I refused to be prevailed upon by members of that group to throw a pitchfork into the separator, weary as I was sometimes and tempted to do so.
I have been in Saskatchewan several times in recent years, and I spent some time there last fall. I drove through most of the agricultural area of Saskatchewan, even getting up to their prosperous timber area. I am a fairly observant person, but I did not see any evidence of the dire poverty and distress that we hear so much about in the house from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I can be broadminded enough not to condemn all the farmers of Saskatchewan if the proposed march to Ottawa takes place by some of them who have been whipped into mob

The Address-Mr. McQuillan hysteria by irresponsible people both in and out of Saskatchewan. I do not know where they think the money will come from to give them approximately $250 million in so-called deficiency payments which they are demanding. I do not think they really care. Perhaps they are naive enough to think it can come from increased taxation of other Canadian industries. They may even think that it can come from an industry with which I have been connected for a great part of my life. I refer to the forest industry.
I wish to speak about the forest industry for a few minutes. I think most hon. members are aware that the forest industry is by far the biggest employer of industrial labour in Canada. It provides a larger share of the payroll for Canada's industrial labour force than any other industry. It has the biggest capital investment in plant and equipment and is responsible by far for a greater part of Canada's export trade than any other segment of our economy. Its exports amount to approximately $1J billion annually, or 30 per cent of Canada's total exports.
The industry has weathered the recession fairly well, largely through its own initiative in selling to export markets, and this despite the fact that our lumber exporters, mostly centered in British Columbia, have had to face a 20 per cent drop in export market prices during the last two years in order to meet world competition. The industry has been primarily responsible for the fact that unemployment in British Columbia, according to the latest figures, has not worsened over what it was at this time last year. In fact on my last check I found that there was considerable improvement in my own constituency. If mother nature does not throw too much snow, such as we are getting in Ottawa, on British Columbia's coast, I believe we can look for considerable improvement in the province's employment picture.
The forest industry is the highest taxed in the nation in two of Canada's major producing provinces, Ontario and British Columbia. This is because of discriminatory provincial income taxes that are a legacy of provincial tax-sharing agreements made by the former federal government, which left the way open for money-hungry provincial premiers to impose income taxes over and above those levied against any other industry. The royal commission on Canada's economic prospects stated in its report:
-Canadians must guard against overrating the strength of their position in forest and mineral products: for most of such commodities, there are many closely competitive sources in other parts of the world.
[Mr. McQuillan.1
I should like to suggest to the Minister of Finance that the first step in implementing this recommendation of the Gordon commission would be for him to help these industries to rid themselves of the iniquitous, discriminatory taxes from which they suffer in the two provinces I have mentioned. I know that in British Columbia these taxes are discouraging much potential new capital investment which would go a long way toward beating the unemployment problem there. In my opinion that is the right way to defeat the unemployment problem.
I also suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that his department should spare no effort and, indeed, that they should extend themselves in helping the forest industry to maintain and expand its markets. Sometimes I get the impression from statements made in the house that the only export commodity Canada has is grain. I should like to remind the house and particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there are many other commodities with respect to which the officials of his department could extend themselves. These forest markets are British Columbia's living.
In view of the tremendous part that the forest industry plays in Canada's economy I should like to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister, and I hope he will not treat it lightly. I think the time is long overdue for a government department which is primarily concerned with Canada's forests and forest industries. Some of you might think I am looking for a job, but that is far from my mind. The need for this department is obvious if one just reads the trade statistics.
Another problem which faces our forest industries in British Columbia, and a very pressing one, is that of freight rates. If I might misquote a song from the musical play "Oklahoma", that last one was about as far as we can go, in fact it was a little bit farther than we can afford to go. If there were another such increase we would be faced with the loss of most of our rail markets. I do think it is high time we faced our railway problems realistically. It may be that we will have to sacrifice some of our unnecessary and costly passenger or freight services throughout the country. We must hold the line on freight rates or our export industries will soon find themselves priced out of their markets. If the prairie grain producers need, and I do not dispute that they need, special consideration in the form of the Crowsnest pass freight rates, then I do not believe it is fair that other exporters should have to pay for this special treatment.
While on the subject of freight rates, I may say that on the Pacific coast we have a coastal

freight rate problem which I am afraid is worsening very quickly. Up to last spring we had three major steamship companies serving the British Columbia coast-the Canadian Pacific, the Union Steamship Company, which served the coast for over 50 years, and the Northland company. I do not count the Canadian National. They have one luxury cruise ship which makes a few trips during the summer, but its sole contribution during the winter months for the last few years has been to provide accommodation for visiting Grey cup fans. For many years the Canadian Pacific and the Union Steamship Company received varying subsidies and did provide an excellent coastal service.
Shortly after the war the Northland Steamship Company entered the coastal service and last summer acquired two vessels from the Canadian Pacific, and the Canadian Pacific retired from the upper coastal area and the west coast of Vancouver island. It is my understanding that they agreed to stay out of these areas as long as the Northland company provides service. The management of the Northland company succeeded in arranging for quite a substantial subsidy from this government. The Union company, which had been operating without a subsidy since January 1958, continued operating but were unable to successfully negotiate a subsidy. Their financial position steadily worsened, to such an extent that a few days ago they found it necessary to sell their fleet to the Northland company. Now, instead of two or three junk fleets, we have one great big one. The Northland company now has a virtual monopoly of the British Columbia coastal steamship service, except from Nanaimo south along Vancouver island.
Recently I have received a number of communications on this subject, and I should like to read one or two excerpts from them. These are the first communications I have received, but I know there are many more to come. I have a telegram here from the village of Sointula on Malcolm island. It reads in part:
With the cessation of Union Steamship services last week we find that Sointula is deprived of southbound passenger service entirely. Northbound being restricted to eight passengers on a tramp freighter which accommodation is intended to take care of other ports besides. This situation is ridiculous and we trust that you will take it up with the Minister of Transport for early correction.
I have another letter here from a man who has spent his life in the upper coastal area where he and his son operate a small sawmill. He says:
Again we are being thrown to the wolves. Yesterday we were informed by the Union Steamship Company that they were being taken over by the Northland company and that the Catala was off
The Address-Mr. McQuillan
the run. We were also notified that our mail and perishable freight would be delivered either at Alert Bay or Beaver Cove as we wished, but no days yet announced.
It goes on to say many more things, and he informs me that if I do not do something about this I will not be down here after the next election. He is quite justified in telling me that.
There will be disruptions and cancellation of service, as well as rapidly increasing freight rates. They have a little gimmick in coastal freight rates in that they have cubic and per ton rates. I do not know just who decides whether an article is to take the cubic or per ton rate, but 40 cubic feet are supposed to represent a ton. Wherever there is no competition the steamship company uses the cubic rate. As a result it simply means that to send 100 loaves of bread a couple of hundred miles up the coast it will cost somewhere between 6 cents and 10 cents a loaf. I have another letter here from a man who lives 100 miles north of Vancouver, in which he points out that it costs him $24.70 to get 1,000 feet of lumber from Vancouver.
As I said before, there will be disruptions and cancellation of service, as well as rapidly increasing freight rates, unless the government provides subsidies in order to maintain the rates at their present level. These subsidies are going to be on the Northland company's terms, or there will be no service or freight rates will be so exorbitant they will seriously jeopardize the economy of many communities and undoubtedly drive many businesses and residents out of the area. This is an area, Mr. Speaker, which is one of the first to have a short labour supply whenever there is anything resembling prosperous conditions in the country, because of the isolation and the fact that people with families do not want to live there. This area produces much of the raw material for the plywood plants and other industries on Vancouver island and the lower mainland.
I have been concerned for the past year about the possibility of such a situation as has arisen, and have repeatedly brought the matter to the attention of the minister concerned and some of his officials. However, the concern seemed to be all mine, and here we are with the worst coastal transportation problem in British Columbia's history staring us right in the face. I should like to tell Vancouver members to take an interest in this matter, because if those mills in their constituencies run out of logs because no one will live up the coast to produce them, they are going to have an unemployment problem that will make their present one look like prosperity.

The Address-Mr. Bourget
Even without any deterioration of the coastal service as it has existed for the past few months there is the matter of the mail service to many of the small coastal communities, which is a source of annoyance and inconvenience. Some of the communities are fortunate enough to have first class air mail service, while others receive their mail by infrequent boat service. This situation exists despite the fact that small float planes shuttling passengers to and from Port Hardy airport frequently pass by all these communities. I have taken this matter up with the Postmaster General, and he has undertaken to investigate it and have a report made.
The second class mail constitutes a real problem. Very few people in that area subscribe to newspapers any longer, because by the time they get them they are perhaps 10 days or two weeks old. One woman told me that second class mail service is so poor that when she ordered a pair of shoes for one of her children, by the time she received the shoes the child had outgrown them.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment this government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and in particular the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for the lead they took in arranging for the commonwealth trade conference held in Montreal last fall. There is no question but that this was a worth-while conference. Much was accomplished and I think much more can be accomplished by another one in the near future. I would suggest that the motto be to have a commonwealth trade conference again in 1959.


Mr. Broome:: In Vancouver.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Yes, in Vancouver. I want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his ministers for the lead they have taken in, as one might say, rejuvenating the British commonwealth of nations. It is showing increasing strength day by day. The Prime Minister's journey to the commonwealth nations scattered throughout the world was a worthy effort to make a stronger commonwealth. I sincerely believe that the British commonwealth of nations is and can be for many years to come the greatest force for peace that we have in the world.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, before saying what I have to say about the address in reply, may I tell you how happy

I am that you are again presiding over the proceedings of this house. I am confident that, as in the past, you will be doing so with tact, judgment, impartiality and at the same time with some leniency.
I should also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that one of our colleagues who took sick some ten days ago is with us today, and back in good health. I refer to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter).
I too would like to join the previous speakers in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) of the address in reply who spoke knowingly of the problems of his electors, who are farmers. I think he performed his task in responsible and eloquent fashion.
As to the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) a distinguished son of the constituency of Levis which I have the honour to represent here, I want to say that his was an excellent speech. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that he will follow in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, and will worthily represent the constituency of Mont-magny-L'Islet.
I was particularly happy to hear it stated by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet that he considers the province of Quebec to be like any other province. It was something new, Mr. Speaker, because ever since we have had the Union Nationale in the province of Quebec, I do not recall having heard a French-Canadian Conservative member of the province make such a statement. I congratulate him, because he thereby recognized that we Liberals, in the past, were right to say that the province of Quebec is a province like all other provinces. I hope, for the good of our fellow citizens, that these words will not only be repeated but acted upon.
May I be allowed also, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the presence this morning in the gallery of our good friends from Montreal, the radio and T.V. employees, who, despite their long drive of 120 miles, despite the hardships they have put up with these last four weeks, seem to me, although I can only see them some distance away, to still display that smile that we are so happy to see on our T.V. screens in the province of Quebec. Well, may I give them a word of encouragement. I believe there is a glimmer of hope for them, because yesterday, following the questions

asked by the member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) who, since the beginning of the session, together with his colleagues from Montreal in particular, has shown interest in their problem, a minister has said here yesterday, and even has repeated today that their strike is not illegal.
My colleague from Gloucester, N.B. (Mr. Robichaud), has just been telling me that His Eminence Cardinal Paul-Emile Leger, Archbishop of Montreal, referred to the C.B.C. producers' strike in an address given yesterday evening before the alumni of College Ste. Marie. His Eminence stated, and I quote:
Like the Ste. Marie alumni, everyone has the right of association. The C.B.C. strike is nothing else than that. That right, and we have examples of this every day, must be asserted.
Since we were told yesterday and again to-day by a minister of the crown that this strike is not illegal, there is every reason to hope that, in due course, the government will do something or, at least, will agree to the hon. member for Laurier's request that the negotiating committee on radio be convened at once to hear this case and the government's case at the same time.
At any rate, on behalf of my colleagues, I welcome these visitors and hope that their stay among us will be as fruitful for them, their families as for all those who, in Frenchspeaking communities in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec, are anxious to see these smiling faces again on television.


An hon. Member:: Cheap politics.


Maurice Bourget: Cheap politics! There again, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) who, each time a member from the province of Quebec has the floor, indulges in interruptions, each one of them more stupid than the last. Instead of making those stupid interruptions, if he is not interested in the debate, why doesn't he stay cooped up in his office and try to find ways which might spur the government of his friends of the Union Nationale to allow universities to accept federal grants, for instance, and the province of Quebec to get the funds which the federal government puts at the disposal of the provinces.


Mr. Tremblay:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I should like to point out to the speaker-


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Lionel Chevrier: Order!
The Address-Mr. Bourget


Maurice Bourget: If the hon. member has any question to ask me, I have no objection to answering him, but if he wants to make a speech-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: On a point of order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Levis to sit down when the Speaker is standing. May I point out to the hon. member for Roberval that he is allowed to ask a question to the hon. member, but that he may not interrupt and make a speech of his own while the hon. member for Levis has the floor.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed a remark? My point of order was that the hon. member for Levis has credited me with remarks that I did not make in this house. I made no comment; I simply pointed out to the colleague with whom I was chatting that the hon. member was being a demagogue. I also would point out, Mr. Speaker, that not only am I not opposed to the producers, but that I even made unofficial representations on their behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Mr. Habel:: This is a speech!


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I find that the hon. member for Roberval did not ask a question. If he has not said the words I attribute to him-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: I don't put questions to ignoramuses.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks of anyone acting like a demagogue, we know that he has perhaps been more of a demagogue here than anyone else.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Liberals are pretty good at it.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we are being demagogues at the moment. They are the ones who, in the province of Quebec, practised demagogy more than anyone. So much so that today, they are forced to take back all that they have ever said.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I regret this digression; however-


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Your eloquence is missing the mark.


Mr. Rouleau:: The professor again.


An hon. Member:: He will never learn.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, is there a special set of standing orders in the house, for any special member?


Guy Rouleau: A special professor!

The Address-Mr. Bourget


Maurice Bourget: When the hon. member for Roberval wishes to have the floor, he can have it. I must tell him that I am not in the habit of interrupting other members. I have been sitting in this house for 19 years, and I do not think I have a reputation for butting in. When I put a question to the person who has the floor, I at least have the courtesy to ask his permission.
Mr. Chairman, I shall go on with my remarks.
I was saying that I wanted to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply, and also Mr. Speaker. However, I am sorry I cannot so heartily congratulate the government which has been managing the affairs of Canada since June 1957.
Since the opening of this debate, our leader and other Liberal members have shown up with undeniable evidence the weaknesses of the present administration.
In the few minutes I have at my disposal, I should like to deal chiefly with one of the most significant problems of the day, unemployment, and particularly to analyse, in the restricted field of unemployment, the effectiveness of the winter works program put forth by the federal government.
The letter that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) sent to members of parliament last November 20-informing them of the government's proposals to the provinces in connection with the campaign for the promotion of winter employment in the municipalities, was accompanied by a copy of the letters he had sent to the various provincial premiers, outlining the same program. In these letters to the premiers, the Minister of Labour stated in detail the conditions governing the federal government's offer. There were fifteen conditions, and the third listed the types of allowable projects, subject to acceptance of each winter works project. Among the projects that could be undertaken by municipalities and in which the government agreed to share the costs, were the following:
(a)	Construction and major reconstruction of streets, sidewalks and roads, except main highways.
(b)	Construction and major reconstruction of waterworks, sewers and storm sewers, not including buildings.
(c)	Construction and development of municipal parks.
Later on, the following were added:
Municipal playgrounds, whether located inside or outside a municipal park, excluding school playgrounds.

For these classes of acceptable projects, the government of Canada, subject to approval of each project by the provincial government, will refund to each municipality one-half the direct cost to the municipality (or to its contractors or subcontractors) of salaries paid during the period from December 1, 1958 to April 30, 1959 for the carrying out of accepted winter works covered by this proposal.
Such was the outline of the offer made by the federal government to the provinces for its winter works program. The program was widely publicized, the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche) even gave a talk about it on television on December 22 last-the producers were not on strike at the time. In the course of his remarks he said among other things:
However, the Diefenbaker government has taken every possible step for relieving unemployment on a large scale. This comes as a surprise to many Canadians. The Liberals had accustomed them to another, somewhat ostrich-like, policy. The ministers were content to deny that there was any unemployment, leaving provincial governments, municipalities and individuals to face the problem.
No matter how much we protested, or pointed out all kinds of dangers and threats that could easily have been met or averted, the previous administration always disclaimed responsibility. For them it was enough to say for instance: "We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the fear of unemployment, leaving provincial governments, unemployed, provincial governments and municipalities.
The response of the Diefenbaker government has been different. It has not eluded the problem. It has accepted it and is doing its level best to find an adequate solution.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that the Secretary of State claimed that the government had not eluded the problem, but then I say to the Secretary of State that the government did not solve the problem either.
Before going any further, I want to tell the hon. Secretary of State that if we Liberals had accustomed the people of Canada to an ostrich-like policy, we certainly did not keep our heads buried in the sand as long as did the Conservatives, because workers never had to put up with as much unemployment as there has been since the Conservatives took power.
I wonder also if before delivering his address, the hon. Secretary of State carefully considered the practical impact of this winter employment program on the unemployed and the municipalities of this country.
Before telling him exactly what this means, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on the background of the unemployment question. We recall, no doubt, that during the fall of 1957, when employment was growing alarmingly, Liberal members, one after the other were trying to induce the government

to take the necessary steps to alleviate the situation. Contrary to what the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche) said in his talk it was not the Liberals who were in power then but the Conservatives, and the Conservatives were the ones who refuse to admit that there was unemployment then. And, it is only by the end of January, on the eve of the general election, that the Conservative government recognized that the country had unemployment and that the situation was becoming alarming. It is then that it admitted the existence of unemployment and claimed that if there was, it was the fault of the former administration. On March 31, during the election, the hon. Secretary of State as well as the other ministers and the Conservative members from the province of Quebec and the rest of the country emphasized the famous special public works program which was to cost $1,185 millions. Well, Mr. Speaker, we realized soon afterwards that the famous special undertaking of public works costing $1,185 million, publicized over television and radio, existed only in the minds of our opponents, because in the final analysis the amount of $1,185 million which was mentioned represented only the sum total of the amounts spent each year by every department which performs construction work. And, furthermore, the bulk of the projects included in that program of $1,185 million had been conceived and developed by the former Liberal administration.
Subsequently, during the session which opened in May of last year the Liberal opposition asked the government on different occasions to take the necessary steps to spare thousands of Canadian workers the distress they had to suffer during the winter months of 1957-58. It was only in July, on the 14th and 15th of July, to be exact Mr. Speaker, that a national conference on winter employment was called last year in Ottawa. Representatives of all provinces, and representatives of many Canadian associations, workers' unions, industries along with prominent economists took part in this conference. It seems to me that, after that conference, when the government could have taken advantage of the suggestions offered by that group of persons, the people of Canada were entitled to expect the government to come up with a faster and more generous solution than the one I mentioned in my earlier remarks. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the offer came too late because, according
The Address-Mr. Bourget to the letter of the Minister of Labour to the provincial premiers, it was only in October, three months after the conference took place in Ottawa, that the provincial premiers were informed by telegram of the offer the federal government wished to make.
Anyone who has some knowledge of municipal affairs knows in the first place, that it takes several weeks to survey the sites, to draw up plans and specifications, to have them approved by council, to call for tenders and to go ahead with the work. Moreover, and I am referring to my province in particular, I must say that it was only on December 11 or 12, three weeks after the provincial session opened in Quebec, that the Union Nationale government enacted legislation authorizing municipalities to take part in this project and giving them the right to borrow the necessary funds to carry out those works without referendum. This, Mr. Speaker, was a further three week delay after the already belated offer of federal authorities in regard to those works. But what is even worse, in my opinion, than the delay in announcing this program, is the futility of the reimbursement offer made by the federal government to the municipalities. As a matter of fact, and still according to information provided by the hon. minister, the federal government agrees to repay to each municipality half of total salaries paid between December 1, 1958 and April 30, 1959. Now, Mr. Speaker, as an engineer with some experience in the type of works referred to in this offer, I can state positively with many others that labour costs in those various projects represent at most 20 per cent of the total costs of works when performed in the summer. I would not like to venture an opinion on the higher cost of winter works in the other provinces since I did not practise my profession in those provinces. However, I do know from experience that, in the province of Quebec, and particularly in our area, winter works cost from 15% to 20% more. This increase, Mr. Speaker is made up of higher labour costs amounting roughly to 80 per cent; and 4 per cent higher cost of materials, machinery, "borrowed material" and other things to which the government offer does not apply because the government is not paying anything as regards materials or machinery.
Let me give you as an example a waterworks project. I use that example because I think that, in Quebec or other parts of

The Address-Mr. Bourget Canada where almost the same climate conditions prevail, it would be quite difficult, to undertake anything but waterworks and sewer projects. Let us say, for example, that a municipal corporation has in mind some waterworks project which would ordinarily cost $100,000, i.e. $20,000 for labour and $80,000 for equipment and material. The same work done in the wintertime will cost $119,200, i.e. $36,000 for labour and $83,200 for equipment, materials, etc. Then, in the present case, under the federal offer, the municipal corporation would get 50 per cent for labour, 50 per cent on $36,000, or $18,000. The municipality will therefore have to pay an extra $1,200, i.e. the difference between $19,200 and the $18,000 it will get from the federal government.
I don't believe it can be said that the government has been over-generous and that our municipalities should be enthusiastic over that highly publicized offer. The example I just gave is based first on my own experience of municipal works and my opinion is corroborated by studies made by the city of Quebec technical services on some projects which they propose to submit to the federal government.
In the paper Le Soleil of December 17, 1958, there is an article which reads as follows:
Quebec will launch a $500,000 works program to cut down unemployment.
Two days later, on December 19, the same paper published an editorial entitled:
The city-
-meaning Quebec.
-will do its share, but without much enthusiasm.
And here is a part of the article that will be of great interest to hon. members. I quote:
Municipal authorities have decided to take advantage of the federal law which provides financial assistance to municipalities for winter works projects to reduce unemployment throughout the country. The council's decision was not taken in a surge of enthusiasm. Council members resigned themselves to the idea with the conviction that it was only a lesser evil. Explanations which were given at the last council meeting when a list was drawn up of works to be undertaken in mid-January,-
And, according to the latest information, these works will be undertaken only by mid-February. Then-
-showed that municipal authorities are convinced that they are making a bad deal. The works amounting roughly to $500,000 will yield $186,000 in salaries. From 100 to 200 persons will be employed for about three and a half months.


I repeat, 100 or 200 persons, when there must be at least 15,000 unemployed in the city of Quebec. They will employ from 100 to 200 persons during two or three and a half months.
Even if the federal government is to pay half of the labour cost, the city would spend $5,000 more on that works program than if the work had been done during the summer, at the city's own expense. It is obvious that this initiative on the part of the city which it could hardly avoid taking, will be of little help in relieving unemployment within the city. A small fraction only of our unemployed will benefit from it, and on the whole it will be a very slight impetus to the Quebec economy in general.
That is why council members said that the federal legislation is inadequate.
Furthermore, the mayor of Quebec stated the following, as recorded in Le Soleil of December 1958. I quote:
The city is undertaking those projects solely to help the unemployed; in fact, from the administrative point of view, the city is not making a good deal.
This seems to me a good example to bring forward at this time. Besides, other municipalities are reacting in the same way. After all they fully realize that they will be called upon to pay 100 per cent or even more of the costs of the works which they would decide to undertake in the course of that period.
I should like to add that in the province of Quebec municipalities are worse off than elsewhere; indeed in certain provinces, like Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it was deemed proper, no doubt after considering the program and what I would call the federal government's measly offer to municipalities, to contribute additional amounts varying between 25 to 30 per cent of the cost of salaries.
In the province of Quebec, the Union Na-tionale government usually proves itself quite large-handed when awarding contracts, yet it did not see fit to vote a penny to assist the 175,000 or 200,000 unemployed we now have in the province. However, the provincial government keeps repeating, especially in election time, that the financial situation of the province is just fine, that it is the best of all provinces in the confederation. Well then, why not help out the municipalities under the circumstances?
In the past our opponents consistently claimed that the responsibility for a solution to the unemployment problem lay mainly at the door of the federal government. Well,

it is a sad thing to see this fast reversal of policy, since after all, as I said, the share paid by the federal government in those projects is nominal and, in the province of Quebec, the financial assistance given by the Union Nationale government is nil. As was so pointedly stated last Wednesday by the hon. member for Laurier, it is certainly not with four, six or eight million dollars that we can hope to improve the situation of the 600,000 unemployed in Canada.
I was therefore correct in saying that this federal government project, like last year's famed public works program, is nothing but eyewash.
I shall be urged to be objective, to state what solution the Liberal party would have offered under the circumstances. I see that my speaking time is running short, but I would suggest that my hon. friends look up the program that the Liberal party offered to the Canadian people in the last election. They will see, in the section dealing with aid to the municipalities, what we would have done, they will find that we would have paid a greater part of the total cost of the works, so as not to let the full burden rest, once again, on the municipalities, which, Mr. Speaker, now have to pay at least six, and in certain cases up to seven per cent interest on loans.
In my constituency, no municipality is sharing in this program, because they cannot afford it. I know that my hon. friends opposite share my view in this regard and realize that our municipalities, particularly in the province of Quebec, cannot afford to share in this program. The reason is not, Mr. Speaker, that we have no unemployment, no cases of hardship. Actually, in mid-December 1958, there were 4,447 applicants registered at the Levis office, and the figure must now have reached close to 6,000, not including those who have not registered.
I said a moment ago that we would have contributed a larger share of the total cost of the works. In fact this government could have done as much if it had known how to manage those expenditures wisely, without any extra cost to the Canadian taxpayer. It only had to grant j of 1 per cent less interest on the bonds of the last conversion loan. This would have meant a saving of at least 15 to 20 million dollars which could have been applied to this winter work program. But this was not done, Mr. Speaker, because it is quite apparent that, since they took office, our friends opposite have no time to think; they are satisfied with proceeding on a piecemeal basis.
The Address-Mr. Tremblay
As I said, this government must take the blame for its lack of action and for having no definite projects in mind to alleviate the problems which we must meet, and also for failing to take steps which were imperative.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall not be told that my approach has been merely negative. On the contrary I have tried, during those few minutes at my disposal, to be as unbiased as possible in showing the weaknesses of that program while suggesting one way to solve the problem or at least to improve in a substantial way the winter works program now submitted to the population by the Conservative government.
(Text):
In my closing remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to repeat my leader's appeal to the government to conclude this debate immediately and proceed at once with legislation to deal with the unemployment problem. So long as the government persists in prolonging the debate and delaying action the Liberal party will take its part in the debate, but we are ready to have the vote now and get on with the nation's business.
(Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I admit that at first this session of parliament had me scared. There had been talk, on the Liberal side, of a definite offensive, of a bold stroke. All the press had been forewarned and we were promised a battle worthy of Thermopylae. The Liberals, according to the press were coming to Ottawa armed cap-a-pie.
Mr. Speaker, I have always feared war. But the knowledge that you would again referee our debates brought me a measure of comfort. I told myself that your qualities, which I had had the opportunity to appreciate, would constitute a defence in case the enemy attempted to pulverize me. Besides, I knew I could count on the courage and the virtues of the hon. Deputy Speaker, (Mr. Sevigny), who is also a great fighting man.
Very fortunately, to take our minds momentarily away from the atrocities of war, there were the magnificient ceremonies which marked the opening of this session and the encouraging addition of three new members to our ranks. I offer my most sincere congratulations to the new members for Grenville-Dundas, for Springfield and for Montmagny-L'Islet, (Mrs. Casselman, Mr. Slogan and Mr. Fortin).

The Address-Mr. Tremblay
Yet, ours was not unalloyed joy for at the same time, came into this house a new Liberal soldier, wounded, it is true, but victorious in the short counter offensive of Trinity (Toronto). With all my heart, Mr. Speaker, I offer to this hon. colleague my humble congratulations.
The speeches heard subsequently were quite reassuring. The mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), who had told us quite realistically of farm problems, deserved for his contribution as many warm congratulations as the seconder of the address, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin), who gave us his views on national unity.
But Mr. Speaker, it was no longer possible to put off the fray. I shut my eyes when I heard the first shot of harquebus from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson); but at the second shot, I opened them. At the third shot, I watched the Liberal captain sighting his weapon. It failed to go off. His powder-horn was empty. I realized, that after all the harquebus is a rather obsolete weapon and I realized that the war was over. And now the arrows of the old pensioned officers or the pea-shooters of the adjutants cannot scare me. Their fighting methods are much too primitive.
Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the subject I intend to discuss, I should like to protest with the utmost vigour against the words and ulterior motives which the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) ascribed to me a while ago. I stated, when a point of order was raised, that I had not said the words that were put into my mouth, for I indeed did not say them.
Mr. Speaker, not only did I not show any intention of rising in protest against the demonstration we witnessed today but for the past week I have been sitting down with C.B.C. producers for hours, and even late into the nights, discussing the matter so that 1 could have a fair view of the situation and that I could enlighten, if possible, my government.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to comment beforehand on the rights and facts involved in the C.B.C. producers' strike, but I shall state here most emphatically that due process of law, fairness and uprightness should prevail all along the line, instead of sheer electoral demagogy.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow me to ask a question?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Certainly.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is in the name of this fairness, referred to by the hon. member, that I ask the following question: Why should not the government intervene to settle this dispute?


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Laurier's deftness in dealing with questions in the past should now enable him to answer the one he just asked me. For the last few days, he has been asking questions in the house on this subject and answers were given. It is not my responsibility to answer on behalf of the ministers of the Crown, but what I want to say and state again is that I favour law, fairness-


Maurice Bourget: So do we.


Mr. Fortin:: You are not that many for that purpose this morning.


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -and truth.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks on this subject, I must say that, like everybody else, I am anxious that this strike should come to an end according to the principles of justice and order, because as a professional teacher, 1 appreciate the importance of radio and television for the Canadian culture.
At the opening of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I said that we had come to this session expecting it was going to be like war but I realized that we had better come back to peacetime and adapt ourselves to those conditions better than the Liberals adapted Canadian politics to peacetime after the 1939-45 war. In view of the general economic recession, this is indeed the chief cause of the conditions now prevailing in the country, conditions that are difficult without being extreme, even if we must understand that words alone will not improve them. The Liberals are attempting to show that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) contradicted himself on this matter. Because he stated that the Liberals are responsible for the present uneasiness and because he said, on the other hand, that there were signs of recession almost everywhere in the world, a contradiction has been discovered. Quite the contrary one statement only confirms the other. One indeed could expect that, following high-gear wartime production, industrial and

commercial activity would slow down to a level of stability. This quest for stability was necessarily accompanied by some groping and uneasiness characterized by a more or less severe recession. Such is the situation at the present time. It is in order to minimize the disastrous effects of this period of economic instability that the Liberal government should have taken constructive action. It must be recognized that no action was taken by that government because, as recently as the end of 1956, Canada was in the throes of recession that touched off a drastic business slump and unemployment.
This confirms and substantiates the hon. Prime Minister's claims that depressed economic conditions the world over are responsible for those now being felt here in Canada and which are all the more serious for the Liberals' inability to prevent the effects of this general recession.
That is why the Liberals are wrong in trying to evade their responsibilities. They say that the hardships facing the population of this country are no concern of theirs. They hypocritically wash their hands of the matter, because, as many of them have stated here, the Conservative government has been in office since 1957. They forget that when the government took over, the recession was already here. The Liberals knew it perfectly well, for before the election they concealed an economic report which cautioned them against impending dangers. Now, of course, they would like to pass the buck. They have neither the courage nor the sincerity to stand by their past actions. However, perhaps they still have the sincerity of the principles which they now dare to express, for instance: " to govern is to foresee". Why did they not foresee? Since the end of the war, from 1945 to 1957, twelve years have elapsed, mind you. Twelve years during which the Liberal government has had all the time it needed to adapt our country to peacetime conditions, to accumulate reserves, to restore the Canadian economy to normalcy and to foresee all the shocks which, in the international economic field, would necessarily follow in the wake of wartime conditions. They did not do anything of the sort. That is why they have no right now to cover their faces and say: "to govern is to foresee". They had to account for their actions. The people of Canada have judged them and have condemned them precisely because the Liberals
The Address-Mr. Tremblay had been unable to foresee. And if, in 1957, the people of this country, despite all the clamours of the Liberals, and despite their charges concerning unemployment or the recession, gave their support to the Conservative party, it is because people realized that the Conservatives were not responsible for these difficult times. They asked us to take over the government of the country and straighten things out. They asked us to provide for the future first by facing the problems of the day, and by repairing as best we could under the circumstances, the economy that the Liberals had let go to ruin.
Scarcely two years have elapsed, and already those Liberals, so vigorously castigated by the people whom they had mocked, were beginning to raise their heads once more, and trying again to capitalize on the good faith of the Canadians. They launched a press campaign to prepare the ground for this session; they prevailed upon newspapermen to write that the real problem of our present policy is not to try to find who is finally responsible for the economic recession, but to find a solution. Nobody will claim the contrary. But the press also has a no less imperative duty, that of recognizing the efforts of the government and to help the population to understand that no one can repair, in a few months, an economic structure whose foundations were so deeply shaken. This is the statement I found in L'Action Catho-lique of January 21:
Indeed, each citizen has the right to discuss the advisability of such and such measure with a view to curing unemployment, but every citizen is bound to admit that the government faces its responsibilities and fulfills its duty by trying to promote employment.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have again taken up a tune which helped them to delude the Canadian people during the difficult years of the world economic depression. In 1930, after a bitter defeat, they secretly enjoyed seeing the Conservatives fight unemployment. In 1935, they beguiled the people by saying for instance: we will put an end to the recession and to unemployment. Everybody knows that, when the international situation had slowly recovered under the impetus of preparations for war, the Liberals had still done nothing to help the population, so that the new Quebec government, from 1936 on, had to-
(Text):
At one o'clock the house took recess.
374	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tremblay AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):


Jean-Noël Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, before recess, I was saying that the Liberals had deluded the Canadian people by saying: "We will put an end to the recession and to unemployment." I added that it was a well-known fact that when the international situation had slowly recovered due to war preparations, the Liberals had still done nothing to assist the population so that the new Quebec government, from 1936 on, had to give direct assistance to the people of our province through public works and social security measures.
The war in 1939 saved the Liberals who were haunted by the depression and unemployment. The people credited them with Canadian prosperity until, around 1955 and 1956, they saw our economy floundering. They worried to the point of asking the Conservative party to take over in June 1957.
This time the Liberal party will not be able by means of a smear campaign to grasp control over the nation's affairs. People are watching, day by day, the work of the government they elected. They realize that this government is going out of its way to find efficient remedies to the evils which beset us. Above all, they accept the sacrifices made necessary by the nation's economic recovery. They do this to follow the example set by other countries which must also, in order to face their difficulties, impose on their taxpayers a regime of austerity; such is the case in Argentina and in France.
Another thing that people see is the unhealthy use being made by the opposition of the difficulties facing the government and the citizens. Political capital is being made of unrest, unemployment, and the suffering of citizens. Politics are being played with matters which, on the contrary, should call for reflection, sympathy and positive action. What have we been hearing here since the debates have been resumed? Cries of alarm, affected indignation, hypocritical profession of faith in principles of humanity and social benevolence so often betrayed and despised. Who spoke about unemployment in a way to unduly frighten the Canadian people? Who moaned, cried, vociferated about imminent catastrophes and irreparable disasters?
This show of assumed compassion has been given us by seasoned actors, by men who know every trick of expediency and artifice.


Mr. Speaker, one of the beneficial effects of this sadistic propaganda was to disgust an hon. member of the opposition who seems to be a member of that party without being one of its supporters. I quote him from Hansard of January 22, 1959, page 19 of the English appendix:
I do not wish to play politics with unemployment. Too many members in this house use this calamity to play politics.
And later, he added:
X believe that we should consider the question of unemployment from a human point of view and try to find a solution.
This was, Mr. Speaker, the voice of reason, of common sense, and in a word, of decency.
This call to order was bound to ring out amidst the shrieks of political passion. And it is interesting to note that that intervention came from the most fanatical of the opposition groups. Within the Liberal camp, such a note must really be too jarring, but in any event, it reveals that after two sessions, several Liberals have reached the point of saturation. There is certainly a new trend in the making, a trend which we feel sure will be in the direction of honesty and fair play.
We hope, for our part, that this change of heart on the opposition side will result in positive suggestions being made, instead of the bitter and negative criticisms we have been hearing so far. Indeed, it must be recognized that if, in fact, the situation of this country is as tragic as it is being represented to the people, it must also be admitted, Mr. Speaker, that we have been left alone to improve it. Who, in the opposition, has come forward with practical suggestions? Oh, of course, Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions! The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) stated, for instance, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr): "It is your business". And the improbable member for Hull (Mr. Caron) who, as the man in the fable, would have pumpkins grow on oak trees, advanced the suggestion that to end unemployment Her Majesty the Queen, when she visits Canada, should pat Canadian babies on the cheek. On that occasion, he wrote this statement, which is well worthy of the dadaist school, and I quote from page 197 of Hansard:
And when the Queen Mother went by, so close to the people, a woman held up her baby and the Queen Mother went up to the child and patted it.
Imagine the feelings of this mother seeing the Sovereign of Canada go up to her baby.

Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to Her Majesty, I do not believe that the proposal of the hon. member for Hull could in any way relieve the present unemployment situation.
Who did provide us with suggestions for restoring the Canadian economy? The Liberals claim that they have always been wise and careful administrators. Have they? If this is so, why don't they put their wisdom and their experience at the service of the citizens and of the government? Do we have to corner them into doing it? Where are the improvident administrators that the people have condemned twice, in 1957 and 1958, and, in this case, why do they criticize and why do they spread confusion in the minds of citizens? If they are experts in the field of administration, they have no right to deprive the government of their valuable advice.
It must be admitted that the Liberals' contribution to the people of Canada has been rather poor these last few months. This contribution has amounted to no more than the selfsame grievances, voiced by the Liberal chieftains, parroted by the party's rank and file, and heeded only by professional agitators, whose function is to spread trouble and strife.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the similarity of the methods of those who, in Canada, incite aggressive claims, manage to insinuate themselves into our labour organizations, capitalize on the difficulties and disputes that happen between employers and employees, and the methods used by marxist propagandists.
This similarity is evident in their common desire to create disturbance in the minds and conscience of people, to alarm citizens by setting up the cry of real or fancied injustice. This first step is soon followed by the running down of authorities at all levels. They work on the principle that authorities always favour the strong, that the weak are necessarily always right, and that whatever governments might do, they will never be able to restore equity. This is the normal process of an impulse which, bred in the discontent which it has managed to create, leads to aggressive claims through direct attacks on authority and an assault against law and order.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I know what weakness and cowardice can often hide behind those words:	order and authority. But
beyond the people and individuals who, at a given time, hold the power, there is a principle which must be preserved, that of authority without which all is disorder and
The Address-Mr. Tremblay anarchy. I believe the time has come in this country to think about safeguarding this most important asset of society. Let anyone induce people to lose confidence in the institutions which govern them, and the decisive step has been taken towards irreparable social catastrophes. And here I am reminded of the warning given by Cardinal Leger in his recent pastoral letter on unemployment, and I quote:
Labour unions may try through collective action to interest public opinion in their legitimate claims provided however that truth, justice and charity are always respected. Organizations must keep away from demagogy which is always an obstacle to genuine solutions, generates an unhealthy climate of class struggle and uselessly and dangerously increases bitterness and resentment. The activity of the organizations must tend to enlighten the minds and stimulate the wills towards practical achievements. This is the climate that will generate an authentic spirit of co-operation without which there can be no real solution.
This appeal in favour of honesty, truth and charity is not directed solely to labour organizations but to all those who, in some degree, are responsible for government and public opinion.
It seems to me that the press, particularly a certain leftist press that will not let up until it has undermined order in Canada, should take this appeal to heart. Opposition members, in particular, should ponder those words, because they suggest a straightforward policy which does not exclude sound and constructive criticism, differences of opinions, re-examination of some problems and the criticism of institutions and of the men who operate them.
Those words of Cardinal Leger put us again in the face of our duties, the least of which does consist in trying to spare our country the political and social mistakes which paved the way to marxism in many countries. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to impart to you certain thoughts that occurred to me following my stay in New York as Canadian delegate to the General Assembly of the United Nations. And I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister, in my own name and on behalf of my constituents, for thus honouring the constituency of Roberval.
The time I spent there enabled me to realize more fully the threat of communism to world peace. I realized that the efforts of official diplomacy cannot alone defeat communist ideology. We must, by our example and by positive action, show to the world a
376	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tremblay philosophy that is carried into everyday life, and is practised in such a way as to win the acceptance of anyone sincerely concerned with promoting, in one way or another, the well being of mankind. We must win acceptance, in our society, for the principle of authority and also for the principles of justice and charity without which all authority is sham and tyranny in a more or less disguised form.
I spoke approximately in these terms to the people of my constituency on the evening of January 3rd last, through the medium of television. Discussing the emergence of nationalism that is apparent in the countries of Asia and Africa, and the resentment felt by these people towards the nations that long dominated them, I laid stress on our duty to help by every means at our disposal, these people that have but recently achieved political independence. I said particularly that we must, in the eyes of these people, give renewed value to the principles of our western and Christian civilization through the practice of genuine charity, equally free from shabby interest and from scornful condescension. I therefore called upon my constituents to lend their support to our government's participation in the plan to give technical assistance and aid to underdeveloped countries. This is what I said on that occasion:
The communist regime is largely the product of social injustice. It is the responsibility of the countries that still understand the value of spiritual ideas to remove, in so far as possible, the causes of hardship and injustice. That is the only way in which we can defeat an atheistic and materialistic ideology that promises people their freedom and lures the meek by the false promise of illusory happiness born of equality among all classes of society. This task prompts us to share fully in the assistance and international mutual aid program. We can no longer afford to lag behind. It behooves us to provide our financial share and it is in this fashion that we shall contribute to the achievement of world peace.
If my colleague of the constituency of Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) had heard me that evening, he would not have stated so firmly the other night that no Conservative members from Quebec had yet pronounced itself on that question of assistance to under-developed countries.
I can only explain his attitude by his unawareness of that fact, because I know he is honest enough not to wilfully hide the truth. Besides, he belongs to a different school and is of different background from those of several colleagues of his party, those young and even not so young demagogues who will never learn, during the debates, to remain at the level of the principles of politics, history, political economy, legal economy and social


philosophy. And may I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am ashamed to hear fellow-citizens of my province expressing themselves like anarchists when it comes to anything concerning Quebec, its prerogatives, its traditions and its institutions. I do not believe they rise in anybody's esteem by smearing those who control our affairs in Quebec. That they do not share the political beliefs of their opponents, that is their privilege, as men and citizens, but this does not give them the right to smear and insult the people of Canada who, by democratic means, have chosen their government.
Mr. Speaker, the exercise of democracy as we know it entails one handicap: that of electing to power, among fair-minded men, among men imbued with sound ideas and principles, dubious individuals and political adventurers. Fortunately, in this field also, immanent justice eventually prevails and only in rare cases do vituperators like those we have heard in recent days, last very long. They are soon swept out by the same wave which had momentarily held them afloat.
Last year, during the budget debate, I said that we, Conservatives from Quebec, have no lessons to learn from the Liberals. I was emphasizing in particular constitutional facts and problems. I was stating especially that the difficulties we are now encountering in this field are due to the fact that the Liberal party has forced the constitutional development of our country. This phenomenon has taken concrete form in the constitutional solutions of the Liberal party, and the least that can be said about them is that they are not always wholly in keeping with the nature and spirit of the British North America Act.
Thus it is, for instance, that adepts of Canadian neo-federalism are slyly attempting to shift the objectives of constitutional struggles. They would substitute an economic system contingent in itself, and subject to the changing conditions of our national economy, to a constitutional formula which in itself has a much more permanent value, for it is founded upon the lines of force of our history and the essential factors of the psychology of our ethnical groups. The undertaking is significant, but how perilous.
I submit that the Liberals are ill-advised in plying us with questions on constitutional problems and especially on fiscal problems. They need not fear. We shall, in due course stand by our convictions. Their experience will probably help us to avoid serious mistakes. In particular have we nothing to learn from Liberal members from Quebec?

Too long have they been tongue-tied on this subject, for us to be so naive as to believe the moon is made of green cheese. They are now like the monkey operating the magic lantern, save that they too have forgotten to light the lamp. The pronouncements made by the right hon. Prime Minister on education should sufficiently indicate to them that the Conservative party is intent on abiding by the constitution of this country. The representations made by the Liberal opposition will leave us unimpressed. It takes time to iron out certain delicate issues: it takes time and thought because a problem of such moment does not admit of a rash solution.
Last year, the most obscure and the most mixed up member of the Liberal party tried to take the Conservative members from the province of Quebec by surprise by asking for a vote after an inane speech that will remain as a model of what can come out of sheerest ignorance. After saying that the French element had died in 1760, after picking all concepts to pieces-


An hon. Member:: What an intellectual!


Jean-Noël Tremblay: -the member who, on that occasion, was dabbling in the field of education, concluded what one can not even describe as remarks, with a piece of clownery. His gesture was intended to have high meaning. It was meant to be a rallying sign.
This cheap ranting, Mr. Speaker, was greeted by public opinion with impressive silence. The only consolation of the member in question was that he had fulfilled the task entrusted to him. But those who, not personally desirous of saying what the member had said, had entrusted him with this demagogic mission, must have finally realized that, ass of Balaam though one might be, one is an ass for all that.
Again in the area of constitutional problems, the debate on the address gave us, Mr. Speaker, an exceptionally moving moment: the conversion of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). The other day, he spoke like a convert, an egregious convert. At the close of his speech, he suddenly broke into unwonted nationalist accents. I say accents, but perhaps I should say outcry. The whole house was shaken by it. But after going over as far back as 1935, I found nothing in the hon. member's speeches that sounded like a nationalist profession of faith. So, Mr. Speaker, I find myself compelled to revise my remark and say that the hon. member for Laurier has let out a nationalist cry, the first of his career, a sort of swan song, the last roar of an aging lion currently being displayed in the province of Quebec for lack of native fauna.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
I hope that star does not take himself too seriously. The fact is, Mr. Speaker that in this field, we, in Quebec, do not like imported goods. We prefer genuine Quebec Liberals of Quebec; they amuse us without annoying us.
Mr. Speaker, I would still have many things to say on the problems of particular concern to the constituency of Roberval. Today, however, I shall confine myself to the remarks I have made so far. In conclusion, I would like once again to challenge the allegations that were made against me this morning and the malicious intentions gratuitously credited to me. At a time when there was in the public gallery an audience whose presence was well calculated to elicit demagogic statements, an attempt was made, by insidious questions, to stir public opinion and to create the impression that the Conservative government has not really dealt with the country's problems. My remarks, Mr. Speaker, were possibly unpleasant, but my purpose in making them was to keep the record straight and to give credit where credit is due. I hope I have not spoken in vain. I hope all this will be taken as evidence of my good will, the good will of a Canadian from the province of Quebec who has understood that the welfare and prosperity of Canada are based on unity. However, that unity finds expression in mutual understanding of the ethnic groups that make up this country and in the pooling of their respective heritages. And this, Mr. Speaker, must be based on the constitutional law and the history of our country. That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely the political ideal I intend to promote in this house.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for rising to take part in this debate for a second time. I wish this afternoon to discuss two questions which affect in a special manner the citizens of the province of Quebec, but before I do so I hope the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat and who has complained so bitterly about the language used by hon. members on this side of the house, and especially about the language used by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), will not complain when I say to him that the language he has used has gone far beyond reason and that suggested by the hon. member who spoke this morning.
So far as his remarks with regard to myself are concerned, I pay not the slightest attention to them. The reason is that I hold my seat in this house as a member from the

The Address-Mr. Chevrier province of Quebec and as the member for the constituency of Laurier, and I have no lesson to learn from the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat. Furthermore, if the hon. member thinks he is going to teach anyone in this house a lesson by the kind of language he has used this afternoon he is entirely mistaken, because all he has done is go to the other extreme; and I say to him this: there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The first matter to which I should like to call the attention of the house is one which is to my mind of considerable importance not only to the people of Canada as a whole but in a particular degree to the people of the province of Quebec. I refer to the Chicago water diversion scheme. There has been some discussion of this in the house, and perhaps I can go over the matter again very briefly. By virtue of a decree issued in the United States supreme court it was provided that on and after December 31, 1938, the diversion of water from lake Michigan through the Chicago canal should be limited to 1,500 c.f.s. in addition to domestic pumping for the city of Chicago. Ever since that decree was made by the supreme court, Chicago and the metropolitan sanitary district of that community have sought to increase the diversion permitted; and while it was increased very slightly in 1940, in 1942 and again in 1944, the additional amount, I am told by the authorities, was not serious.
Since then, however, there have been three bills introduced into congress seeking to authorize an additional diversion of 1,000 c.f.s. Two of those bills have been vetoed by the President. In 1954 one bill was vetoed by the president. In 1955 another similar bill died. In 1956 the President vetoed a further bill and finally, in 1958, a bill failed to pass the Senate.
There is now before congress, as this house knows, another bill known as H.R. No. 1, the purpose of which is to divert an additional amount of water from lake Michigan into the Chicago drainage canal, which would have a serious and detrimental impact on downriver rights. Here I should like to refer to a question I asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on January 21, which will be found on page 148 of Hansard:


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that according to a study made by a subcommittee of the international joint commission power development in the international section will be materially affected by this diversion, and that the water level in Montreal will be reduced by three-quarters of an inch?


Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenae):: I am not aware of this report, but I can assure the hon. member that that, along with other matters, is now being considered as I have intimated in my reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a further supplementary question. Is this particular bill similar to the one which was introduced on this subject last year in the United States congress, and concerning which the government said it had no objection to its passage?


Sidney Earle Smith: I have not seen the bill and I have not compared it, but I do understand that it is almost identical.
Then again, sir, at page 240 of Hansard, dealing with the same subject, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) rose on January 23, 1959 and asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, by way of clarification I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the question of the Leader of the Opposition to the minister on Wednesday dealing with the diversion of water from lake Michigan at Chicago. My question is, did the Canadian government raise any objection to the bill concerning the Chicago diversion which was before the United States congress last year?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I must emphasize in reply that the Canadian government did make lengthy representations in writing which are contained in an aide memoire to the United States Department of State of January 6, 1958 and which, as I said on Wednesday, was tabled in this house on August 2, 1958.
The aide memoire registered the serious and deep concern of the government with respect to the injurious consequences which would result from any considerable diversion of water from the great lakes system.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did the particular note to which my hon. friend refers express objection to the passage of this particular bill?


Sidney Earle Smith: It did, sir; in essence it did.
Now, sir, I say that in that reply the minister misled the house. And immediately, so there will be no indication on my part to be unfair to the minister, I say to him I am sure he did not do it willingly because, knowing the minister as I have for years, that is not his method of approach to a question. But none the less that statement made by the minister is a misleading statement, because these are not the facts as I have ascertained from the report of the international joint commission.
What are the effects of the 1,000 c.f.s diversion out of the great lakes, as found by the international joint commission? I hold in my hand an interim report made to the international joint commission by the international lake Ontario board of engineers on this whole matter. This report is dated June 14, 1955. The purpose of the report is outlined at page 2, and I read:
The purpose of this interim report is to determine the effect on the levels of lake Ontario of 1,000 cubic feet per second increase in diversion out of lake Michigan at Chicago for a period of three years. The consequent effect of the lowering of lake Ontario upon navigation in lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence river and upon the generation of hydroelectric power at Niagara and in the St.

Lawrence river are also determined on the assumption that the three-year period of increase in diversions would commence on July 1, 1955.
Now, what are the tacts? According to this report, if this diversion were to take place there would be a maximum reduction instage of lake levels in lakes Michigan and Huron of .05 feet; lake Erie, .03 feet; and lake Ontario, .03 feet. In so far as navigation is concerned the reduction in levels in inches would be at Montreal harbour, three-eighths of an inch; in lake St. Louis, one quarter of an inch; in the harbours on lake Ontario, three-eighths of an inch; and in the harbours of other lakes such as Michigan and Huron, five-eighths of an inch.
This report also goes on to deal with the effect of the diversion in so far as power development in the downstream areas of the river is concerned. In the St. Lawrence river plants it is stated that reduction in flows of the St. Lawrence river, because of this 1,000 c.f.s. increase in Chicago diversion for three years, would reduce the water available to the plants now under construction at Barnhart island and the existing Cedars and Beauharnois plants, and the proposed addition to the Beauharnois plant and any proposed plants which may be constructed in the Lachine rapids section. Then the document concludes that the total energy losses at the Beauharnois, Cedars and Lachine plants will be in the neighbourhood of 86,600,000 kilowatt hours. Later on in the report, at page 12, it is said:
The total computed loss in energy at the above plants is 420 million kilowatt hours. Of this amount only 276 million kilowatt hours would be lost at existing plants and plants either under construction or actually scheduled for construction.
I should like to pause here for a moment to say this. While the bill will help to solve the sewage and drainage problem at Chicago, there is no justification for taking such an amount of water out of the great lakes basin, and it cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination because it is not right from a moral standpoint. The waters belong to all the citizens of the great lakes, and if this is authorized then another additional amount will be sought by the Chicago drainage commission.
Perhaps the minister does not know, but it is a fact that at one stage the Chicago sanitary commission sought to get an additional amount of great lakes water in order to develop hydroelectric power in the Chicago area. That has been stated already before the rivers and harbours committee in the United States, where it has been said that the real motive behind this demand for increased diversion, according to the great
The Address-Mr. Chevrier lakes harbour association which gave evidence before that committee, is the desire on the part of the sanitary district of Chicago to obtain additional hydroelectric power to be developed by the facilities they own and operate, namely the hydroelectric project at Lockport, Illinois. In 1948 the assistant chief engineer of the sanitary district commission asserted that increased diversion could double the power output at the Lock-port plant of the sanitary district, and in 1947 the suggestion was made that increased diversion of water was needed for the development of atomic power because of the establishment of the Argonne laboratory on the banks of the sanitary district canal some 20 miles southwest of Chicago. Then in 1950 an appeal was made to President Truman to obtain additional diversion in order to obtain additional hydroelectric power during the coal strike.
Therefore it appears from those statements which are public and can be read by the minister, that the Chicago sanitary district is interested in obtaining additional diversion for power purposes.
The minister referred to an aide memoire which he tabled and which contained a protest against the possible diversion. I have obtained this aide memoire, which was printed as an appendix to Hansard; and while I am unable to find in this the kind of protest I would like to see, what I would like to bring to the attention of the minister is this. On page 2 of the aide memoire which has been given to me, while there is some general reference to the fact that it is assumed by the United States administration the diversion will have a detrimental effect on navigation and hydroelectric power generation in both countries, the reasons are not set out therein. In the concluding paragraph there is set out in some detail what the effect of this diversion will be on upriver interests, on lake levels in the upper regions of the lakes and on the international section, but not one word is said about downriver interests, and it is against this that I rise to protest today. I should like to quote what is said in the aide memoire.
However, if it were possible to offset part of the effects of the Chicago diversion by inflows from the Albany basin in Canada it would be equitable that an equivalent amount of water should remain available for use in hydroelectric power generation by the Ontario interests at St. Mary's falls, Niagara falls and in the international section of the St. Lawrence river until the effects of the proposed temporary diversion will have ceased to be felt in the great lakes system.
It is there that it seems to me that the aide memoire is deficient. It seems to me that there is no protest in the aide memoire
380	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier about what will happen or is likely to happen to power development at Beau-harnois, at Lachine, at Cedars. I noticed in the press this morning that the minister of hydraulic resources, of the province of Quebec, indicates that there will soon be a development of hydroelectric power at Lachine. I welcome that announcement. I think it is all to the good. But if because of the 1,000 c.f.s. sought to be taken out of the great lakes over a period of three years that power development is affected below there should be the strongest protest on the part of the government.
There is also nothing in the note having to do with the water levels at the port of Montreal. If anything is done in the upstream end of the lakes that affects water levels at Montreal, navigation may be seriously affected. What is going to be the effect of the lowering by three-eights of an inch at the port of Montreal and the loss of these many millions of kilowatt hours that I mentioned earlier? I am not an electrical engineer and am not in a position to say. All I can say is that experts say that it is serious. Those who have knowledge of the matter in the United States have stated before a public committee there that it is the intention of the Chicago sanitary district authorities, if additional waters can be diverted from the great lakes, to develop power in that area. It seems to me that it would be unconscionable if water were taken from the great lakes for the development of power in that region.
Then there is no protest against the new bill itself, and that is what prompted me to say a moment ago that the minister had misled the house. There is no protest against bill No. 1. No protest has been launched against this particular bill. While a protest was launched against an anterior bill, which to my mind is a very weak protest, there has not been launched against this bill the kind of protest I should like to see and the kind of protest that I am sure the citizens of Canada want to see.
This is not a new problem. It is one which has attracted the attention of the country before. It is an old question that comes up from time to time, and Canada must be on its guard continually so that our rights with regard to the development of power in the international section as well as of navigation in the St. Lawrence will be protected.


Sidney Earle Smith: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. How could we, in a note presented in 1958, speak to a bill that was put before congress in 1959?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the aide
memoire sent by my hon. friend is dated in 1957 and, as I said earlier in my remarks, there were other bills. There were bills in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1958 and another in 1959. So I say two things. I say first that the note prepared by my hon. friend is not a proper protest. Second, I say that so far as the new bill is concerned he should prepare another note of protest and put in that note in detail how the downriver interests on the St. Lawrence at Montreal and elsewhere will be prejudicially affected.
In any event, may I ask the minister this question. Does the minister think this is the kind of matter which should be disposed of by congress? After all, there is a treaty between Canada and the United States incorporated in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act which clearly establishes the position of the two countries. With all respect, it seems to me that this is a matter which should be dealt with by the international joint commission, since to a large extent it is a boundary waters matter.


Mr. Murphy:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit me to ask a question.


Lionel Chevrier: If that is the case, it would strike me that the proper thing to do would be for the minister first to protest as I have suggested; then if the protest has no effect, to ask that the matter be referred to the international joint commission.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I wanted to ask whether the hon. member who now has the floor is aware that lake Michigan does not come within the purview of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.


Lionel Chevrier: As my time is fast coming to an end, there is another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the house.
(Translation):
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is another subject the hon. members may not like to hear about but if they care to have a little patience I shall try to discuss with calm and moderation this second subject, so interesting for a large number of the people in the province of Quebec. In discussing this problem I shall not attempt to use the words we heard earlier but rather I shall try to do it in the way the right hon. Prime Minister would do himself were he sitting on this side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind you that last Friday, in this house, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) expressed his opinion about the actual contradictions with regard to the dispute between the C.B.C. and the

radio and television producers. However, since Friday, the situation has been deteriorating instead of improving. In the first place, on Friday afternoon, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, in the course of their annual interview with the C.C.C.L., again refused to intervene in this dispute. The right hon. Prime Minister recalled, in the course of the meeting, that his predecessor himself had already been blamed for intervening in C.B.C. affairs. He went on to say that it was not his intention to intervene in this dispute for fear of laying himself open to the same criticism.
This argument of the Prime Minister's is surely unacceptable. It is but a pretext used,
I think, in an effort to justify the incomprehensible stand taken by the government. We of the opposition have been asking every day, from the beginning of this session, through our questions to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of National Revenue, to intervene in this dispute and to offer their good offices to both parties. In fact, we thought there was no reason why the government should not intervene within the terms of section 56(1) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Nobody could seriously claim that the government would exert undue influence by taking advantage of powers conferred upon it by this section of the act; on the contrary, it would only be doing its duty. So far, it has obstinately refused, without any good reason, to perform its duty. It seems to me that such an intervention would have been useful, and could have been of some help to the parties concerned who, at that time, were still in communication with each other. It would therefore have been possible to settle this dispute.
But, to revert to the reply given the C.C.C.L. by the right hon. Prime Minister on Friday, I must say that an intervention like the one mentioned by the Prime Minister is in no way comparable to the one he made during the visit of Mr. Macmillan last year, when he tried to prevent a C.B.C. employee from performing his professional work as he saw fit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Lionel Chevrier: At that time, it was a question of interference with the freedom of information and of expression on the C.B.C. network. Today, what is the point at issue? It has to do with freedom of association, which authorities are duty bound to protect whenever the occasion offers. It is so true that yesterday the head of the Catholic
The Address-Mr. Chevrier church in Montreal, his Eminence Cardinal Leger, addressing a group of former pupils of College Sainte-Marie, said this:
Everybody has a right to associate. The C.B.C. strike is nothing else than that. And, as we can see any day, this right must be asserted.
However, according to the Minister of Labour, that right ought not to exist. After having said that the strike is illegal, he changed his mind and said that it is legal. Moreover, this morning he again clearly stated that in this instance there was no justification even for the right to associate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that the uncompromising attitude of the government showed itself again to-day. During the interview that the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General had at noon to-day with the delegation of Montreal radio and television producers and union men, the Minister of Labour still refused to intervene and simply told the delegation to go back to the C.B.C. and resume the negotiations with the corporation which, quite obviously, is responsible for the breakdown of the parleys. This attitude on the part of the minister shows, in my opinion, too much ill-will, since he found nothing else to tell the delegation, which had taken the trouble to come a long way, at considerable expense, to see him.
As far as we are concerned, we shall not permit the government to justify its lack of action by specious arguments like those put forward by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Revenue, since we consider that this dispute is very important. In fact, it might involve serious consequences, not only for the artists themselves, but for all those who are directly involved in that strike and, besides, for the whole future of the C.B.C. French network.
According to yesterday's papers, Mr. Speaker, C.B.C. officials are reported to have stated they were prepared to start over from scratch, rather than resume negotiations which they themselves had broken off with the producers. I submit that even if the C.B.C. officials wish to take this autocratic attitude, the people of Canada, who are paying the operating costs of the C.B.C. and who are interested in the French network, are not prepared to start again from scratch. The French network, as the English one, has made tremendous progress since the beginning of television in this country, and taxpayers will not tolerate that the government allow such a catastrophe to occur without even attempting to intervene.
382	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
We are told that during the meeting between government authorities and representatives of the C.C.C.L. last Friday, the Minister of Labour claimed he never said the strike is illegal. So, according to the Minister of Labour himself, his colleague the Minister of National Revenue was wrong in declaring that it is illegal. Here, therefore, is a first contradiction between the two ministers.
But that is not all. It was reported also that, at the same meeting, the Minister of National Revenue declared that "he throught he had gone too far in his statement". This time, the Minister of National Revenue is in contradiction with himself and refutes his own statements.
Yesterday, the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), answering my question as to whether he believed the strike is illegal or not, answered that, as far as he was concerned, it is legal. Hence, another further lack of action and another contradiction. A minister on the right declares that the strike is legal and another on the left says it is illegal. Is there no more ministerial solidarity in the government?
Therefore I am right when I say, Mr. Speaker, that in this dispute there is too much inaction, and there are too many contradictions in the attitude of the ministers. It seems to me-


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Provided I am allowed the time at the end, I have no objection.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Do it quickly.


Noël Dorion: What kind of intervention would the hon. member for Laurier suggest, and what part could the government play on such an occasion?


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for raising that question. I shall suggest a form of intervention.
If I were sitting opposite and one of my colleagues in the cabinet stated that the strike is illegal, I would ask all my colleagues from the province of Quebec to join with me in telling him the score. And I honestly believe that if the fifty government members from the province of Quebec went to this autocrat and said: "We want to see that strike settled", it would be settled. To answer


the query of the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion), I will say that if you want to use your influence, as you are entitled to do, you can, by using common sense, try to sway the minister who, in my view, is preventing a settlement of the strike by saying to the management of the C.B.C.: "Don't negotiate".
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed-


Noël Dorion: May I be allowed a further question?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if the
member wishes to put his question after I am through with my remarks, I shall be pleased to agree.


Noël Dorion: Very well.


Lionel Chevrier: I have something else
to suggest to the government. I would ask the Prime Minister-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I was just about to say that the hon. member who wishes to intervene must secure the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: I have given consent after I have completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
Here is my suggestion. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to postpone this debate and to set up the committee on broadcasting so that the parties might submit their grievances to the committee and so that the committee might hear the arguments of both sides. I believe this would be to the benefit of all concerned. The Prime Minister has rejected my suggestion and that is his prerogative. I now renew my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, because I think it makes sense. In the case of disputes involving government agencies, such as the disputes in the telecommunications field and in the railway field, as well as the present one in the field of radio and television, the matter is the responsibility of the government. It is therefore my view that the government should do something to try to bring the parties face to face. Unfortunately, the government keeps saying that the matter is not its concern.
The Minister of Labour tells us he will not intervene. The Minister of National Revenue replies that the strike is illegal. The Solicitor General assures us that the strike is legal. Why not, then, take appropriate means to settle this matter, which is the responsibility of the federal government?
If the dispute involved other groups not directly under the responsibility of the federal government, then I could see a reason for

the government's refusal to intervene; but such is not the case here, as the C.B.C. comes under the federal government. I therefore repeat the suggestion I put forth a moment ago, as I believe this is the only way out; otherwise, the situation will become intolerable. I do not think it is fair, under the circumstances, that thousands of people should suffer, as is the case of the people involved in this dispute.
This struggle, I repeat, has been going on too long. And if the government persists in maintaining its "hands off" attitude, let it at least accept my last suggestion. It is, I feel, a most reasonable suggestion on our part, and a practical one that would no doubt lead us out of the present deadlock.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to repeat my leader's appeal to the government to conclude this debate immediately. So long as the government persists in prolonging the debate and delaying action, the Liberal party will take its part in the debate; but we are ready to have the vote now and get on with the nation's business.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am certain that they will not believe that I am the less sincere because my congratulations are short. I expect that they have heard these congratulations so often now that they are apt to take them as a matter of form. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that they are far from being a matter of form but are a matter of real conviction.
We have just listened to an interesting speech delivered by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). Although it was not my main intention to deal with what the hon. gentleman has said, some of what he has said has been of such an extraordinary nature that I think it deserves at least a reference. The extraordinary nature of the hon. gentleman's remarks may be indicated by a realization of the position in which he found himself in making them at all.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition has adopted an attitude of anxiety to conclude the throne speech debate. They say that the throne speech is not important. They say, "Let us get on with important matters", such as matters in the field of unemployment which they are adopting the attitude of trying to have us believe they are anxious to discuss. If that be their attitude, is it not rather strange that the hon. member for Laurier should feel this
The Address-Mr. Fulton debate to be so important that he participates in it not once but twice? Then, Mr. Speaker, having given his second speech-and I will not describe his statements; I will not use harsh language-


Lionel Chevrier: No; do not do that. I would be highly embarrassed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, having made his second speech, the hon. gentleman makes the extraordinary statement that no one else should be allowed to speak at all. I find that sort of untenable position is typical of what he said during the course of his remarks this afternoon.
While I did not follow the detail of all that he said with regard to the C.B.C. strike in Montreal, Mr. Speaker, I should imagine that his contribution there was not particularly constructive, at least if it is measured by the sense or the lack of sense of his statement with regard to the lake Michigan-Chicago diversion. There he made a suggestion which I think even the hon. gentleman on reflection would realize is difficult, to say the least, to carry out because it is certainly difficult to contemplate how the international joint commission which has jurisdiction over boundary waters could be given jurisdiction to settle anything with relation to lake Michigan which is not included under the boundary waters treaty.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: How did the international joint commission get authority to deal with the question and make the report which I quoted a moment ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not familiar with the details, but I am advised that there was a reference for the purpose of an investigation and study but not for the purpose of settling any question. If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly, he would refer the matter to the international joint committee for settlement.
My intervention in the debate this afternoon gives me the opportunity to refer to those matters which the official opposition allege are matters that should be discussed as being of paramount importance. I find it difficult to understand the extraordinary suggestion that the debate be adjourned, because the debate gives them full opportunity to discuss this question of unemployment and the economic situation in which the country finds itself. I cannot avoid the conclusion that the reason my hon. friends are so anxious now to have this debate end is that they realize that they have debated some positions
384	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fulton and have put upon the record some statements and some alleged statistics which are so extraordinary and so far from the facts that they would like to have the debate ended so that no one could expose the nonsense which they have been talking. I shall analyse some of the claims made by my hon. friends opposite during the course of my remarks.
One thing I should like to emphasize at the outset is that from the beginning of the debate they have shown an extraordinary reluctance to accept their share of the responsibility for the situation with which the country is confronted. I refer to responsibility either with respect to what they did before they were dismissed from office or indeed any responsibility whatsoever with respect to suggesting what might be done now by way of dealing with the situation.
I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and his colleagues are annoyed when we remind them of it but it is something of which they require to be reminded. The Leader of the Opposition showed his annoyance in his reference to a speech that I delivered to the young Conservatives on January 10. But we take the view that the country should be reminded of where the responsibility for the situation properly lies. We do not say and never have said-and I did not say it in that speech-that the Liberal government deliberately created the recession. No one goes so far as that. But I said -and I repeat it-that when we took office in June of 1957 we found as our chief inheritance the recession which had started while my hon. friends opposite were in power.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nonsense.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said and I repeat that my hon. friends when they were in the government knew the recession was coming and did nothing about it. In fact, the action they did take served only to aggravate the causes of the recession that were then incipient. I shall have occasion to refer to this in more detail later. In assessing the responsibility for creating the recession and bringing it to the pitch it was before we were able to bring it under any degree of control, my hon friends budgeted for a substantial surplus in a year when there was an incipient recession.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Incipient?


Edmund Davie Fulton: And then they talk about cyclical or anti-cyclical budgeting. What they did in fact was to undertake measures that aggravated the recession.
I also said, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that we acted to deal with the recession as soon as we took office. We did not try to hide the recession or pretend it did not exist as our


predecessors did and had we not acted when we did and as energetically as we did the recession would have been much worse than it in fact became.
I also said and I repeat here that we do not claim to have completely mastered the situation or cured the recession. We have never made that claim. Unlike my hon. friends opposite we do not claim to be supermen. In the first place we know it takes more than the action of the government alone to deal with and master a recession. But we do claim with justification that the fact that the recession was brought to a climax- and indications are now that it is definitely receding-and the fact that it was halted as soon as it was are in large measure due to the energetic and vigorous actions of this government.
I shall be returning later to discuss the record of the actions that were taken by the government and actions that are still being taken and which, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has indicated, will continue to be taken to deal with these problems with which we admit the country is confronted. It is disappointing to say the least that when hon. gentlemen opposite are given as many opportunities as we have given them in this house they should decline to take advantage of them to let us have their views concerning what additional measures we might take to deal with the recession.


Maurice Bourget: We did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For the sake of argument let us assume that it is not the job of the official opposition in the house to make these suggestions. But there are other forums. There is the forum of radio and of television and of press conferences. Those are not the House of Commons. My friend, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), when given repeated opportunities on television to tell the nation how the Liberal party would solve the problem which members of that party say exist, displayed a coyness and shyness which are rather out of keeping with the hon. gentleman's normal mode of behaviour.
Before coming to the positive measures which are being taken to deal with the recession and unemployment I should like to deal with the situation as it is and to expose some of the criticisms and exaggerations that have been placed on the record and before the country by the official opposition because to deal with the problem it is necessary to understand it and know its extent and its causes and implications. From what they have said it is clear that my hon. friends neither understand it nor do they desire

to make an accurate assessment of the actual extent of the problems with which we are confronted.
I shall be dealing specifically with the criticisms and suggestions of both the Leader of the Opposition and more particularly the alleged statistics produced by my hon. friend the member for Essex East which were in large part, of course, fabrications pure and simple; and as fabrications-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman said that words which I used in this house were a fabrication.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not words, statistics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I submit, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the right to say that what I said was in error or inaccurate but he has no right to accuse any hon. member of having deliberately deceived this house and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Fraser:: He never said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for Essex East is too good a parliamentarian to really believe he can get away with that. I did not say he deceived the house.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You said they were
fabrications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Essex East has raised a question of privilege and I would be glad if the hon. member who has the floor would address himself to that before proceeding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friends opposite will permit me. I did not say the hon. member had deceived the house and indeed it could not be deceived by the extraordinary and nonsensical statistics which he put on the record. But what I do say, Mr. Speaker, is that in so far as they purported to be statistics they were fabrications and I shall demonstrate the truth of what I have said. There is nothing unparliamentary in that expression.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Wait until you find out
whether or not it is unparliamentary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the word
"fabrication" is a borderline word. If the hon. member had said they were "inventions" it perhaps would not have imputed motives or cast any reflection on the moral turpitude of the hon. member for Essex East. But in the word "fabrication" there is perhaps a 66968-9-25
The Address-Mr. Fulton suggestion of this and perhaps the minister would consider substituting another word.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to take advantage of your suggestion, wise and temperate as always, if I may, and substitute for the word "fabrication" the word "invention". With regard to these alleged statistics which my hon. friend has placed on the record-and here I will be careful because there are parliamentary rules and I make no assessment or imputation as to motive because to do so would I think be unparliamentary-I point out as a fact that whatever may have been the motive the effect of placing on the record and making speeches in the house which it is known will be reported in the newspapers has been one of exaggerating the seriousness of the situation and increasing to an unwarranted extent any feelings of uneasiness, alarm or concern that may exist.
We do not and never have criticized the opposition when they stick to facts. We do not resent its criticism when it is based on facts and particularly when it is constructive. We ourselves do not deny the situation with which the country is confronted. It deserves and is receiving the serious attention of this government. We admit it is serious and do not criticize the opposition for pointing out its seriousness. We do, however, criticize our hon. friends opposite for trying to pretend that the situation is worse than it is and for putting on the record inventions which are passed by the name of statistics and thus presenting an inaccurate and exaggerated case. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the fact that my hon. friends are driven to the resort of using figures and analyses which are not accurate, and which I must say it is difficult for me to believe they did not know were not accurate, provides a pretty accurate measure of the real seriousness with which they themselves regard the situation. The fact that in discussing it they are driven to exaggeration to make a case at all shows that they themselves realize the situation is not as bad as they are trying to make out.
Starting with some of the figures used by my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that he was guilty of a gross statistical miscalculation in his reference to the effect of the increase in the cost of living on the old age pension. His words on this subject are to be found at page 37 of Hansard of January 19:
In one year, Mr. Speaker, the old age pensioners have lost about $2 of the $9 increase granted them by this government, and soon that increase will all be gone.
The implication of that statement, of course, is that out of the $9 increase $2 has been lost.

The Address-Mr. Fulton We do not deny the seriousness of the increase in the cost of living. That increase in the year has been 2.6 per cent and on the basis of that percentage the loss out of $9 is some 23 cents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about the rest of
the $55 pension?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Leader of the Opposition
has been guilty of inaccuracy and miscalculation by the mere amount of approximately 1,000 per cent. Then there are other inaccuracies which he perpetrates and which he insists on repeating and which, of course, can only, as he knows, have the effect of getting into the newspapers.
Some of them make headlines-scare headlines-and the hon. gentleman is not entitled to resent it if we charge him with trying to scare the people. Just as his old age pension speech made a prominent news story, so did this one, reported in the Toronto Telegram of November 19, when he said the Prime Minister would reap the whirlwind in a billion dollar deficit. He repeated this assertion about a billion dollar deficit whereas in fact the deficit will be in the neighbourhood of seven hundred million dollars as reported by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming); serious enough, it is true, but not as serious as a billion dollar deficit would be.


Some hon. Members:: Wait and see.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman has in this case indulged in an inaccuracy of some $300 million, or in terms of percentage, an inaccuracy of 30 per cent.
But the Leader of the Opposition is just an amateur in this field, as we shall see by comparing the inaccuracy of his statistics with those of the hon. member for Essex East. This also must be said, that at least the Leader of the Opposition does not try to make out that someone else is responsible for the incorrect statistics that he puts on the record. He is big enough to claim his errors as his own. However, in the hon. gentleman from Essex East we have a most remarkable statistician. His is a practice born of long experience. He is perfectly at home among figures-so much so that he can use them with perfect ease in an attempt to prove that things are, which, in fact, are not. On a number of occasions in the speech he made in this house on January 22 we have evidence of that. This is the serious criticism which I make of the hon. gentleman: not only that he is inaccurate-because we can all be inaccurate, though not quite as inaccurate as the hon. gentleman-but that he has attempted to attribute his inaccuracies to the dominion bureau of statistics.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will have shared this thought with me, that after the Liberal leadership convention of a year ago we had all imagined that the hatchet was buried, that rivalries were discontinued and that all was sweetness and harmony in the Liberal camp. But now we find that is not so because apparently the hon. member for Essex East is determined not to be outdone by his leader either in the scope or the size of his inaccuracies or in the sources of his information. As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition made no attempt to suggest that his statistics were other than his own, inaccurate though they were. The hon. member for Essex East, however, not content merely with inaccuracy, has sought to give his statistics an authority which they do not in fact possess by attributing them to the dominion bureau of statistics, thus seeking to outdo his leader.
It is not difficult to find a number of examples in the speech which the hon. gentleman made on January 22. He was criticizing the Prime Minister for a statement he had made that in the year just ended Canadians had worked more, earned more, spent more and saved more than in any comparable year in the history of this country, a statement which in virtually every particular, as a general statement, is true. The hon. gentleman did not wish to accept it. He did not wish to accept the truth of anything which the Prime Minister had said, because he knew it would not fit in with the propaganda which the Liberals were trying to sell in the country. Accordingly, he tried to show that the statement was not true in a number of particulars. Here is one example of what he did. The hon. gentleman said, referring to the Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard on page 181:
Then the hon. gentleman made the statement that Canadians spent more. Let us see what the dominion bureau of statistics itself has to say about this:
"It may be noted that on a per capita basis consumer purchases in real terms showed a year to year decline in all categories of expenditure in the first nine months of 1958."
Then, missing some of the following sentences, he says:
The Prime Minister, with these figures of the dominion bureau as my authority, is consequently proven wrong again.
Here we have a very odd piece of statistical reasoning on the part of the hon. gentleman. The Prime Minister in his statement referred to spending-general spending-when he said that Canadians spent more. In seeking to refute that statement the hon. member for Essex East has made a selective quotation from the dominion bureau of statistics dealing exclusively with consumer spending and, having found there one sentence referring to a

decline in consumer spending, he says: "Therefore, on the basis of the dominion bureau of statistics, the Prime Minister is wrong."
Let us see what the dominion bureau of statistics did actually say. I have the document in front of me. The hon. gentleman from Essex East was very coy the other day; he would not give us any page references when we asked him for them, but I have the source of his information-the chart at the top of page 6 dealing with percentage changes in expenditure by value, volume and price. This shows that gross national expenditure increased in the nine months reviewed in 1958 as compared with the nine months under review in 1957 in all three categories of value, volume and price.
The hon. gentleman must therefore admit that this shows clearly that the Prime Minister's statement was perfectly accurate and that his attempt to prove otherwise, and the quotation he used, was one of the most artificially selective of any I have heard used in this house for such a purpose. Then, carried away by his apparent success in this one attempt, the hon. gentleman persisted several stages further in his statistical magic. On the occasion I have just cited he did use the actual words of the dominion bureau of statistics, and attributed them accurately to the bureau. However, carried away by his apparent success he then proceeded to work up his own facts and attribute them to the dominion bureau. Let us look at an example, because this is really an extraordinary piece of statistical manoeuvering on the part of the hon. gentleman. He attacked the Prime Minister for an alleged inaccuracy in connection with a statement he made that Canadians earned more, and then the hon. gentleman says this-and I am quoting from the bottom of page 180 and the top of page 181- in an attempt to prove the Prime Minister wrong or, rather, to convince the house that the Prime Minister was wrong:
The dominion bureau of statistics points out:
Real wages and salaries in 1958 have declined by 1.6 per cent. Moreover, national income at factor cost (that is the sum total of wages, salaries, farm income, corporation profits as well as other incomes) rose by 2 per cent in 1958 from $23.8 billion in 1957 to $24.3 billion in 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not alleged to be a quotation at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, I was asking the hon. gentleman whether I could have his source but he very coyly refused. This now appears in Hansard, and it was stated in the house to be something that the dominion bureau of statistics had pointed out.
66968-9-25J
The Address-Mr. Fulton


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no point of order before the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is for the Speaker to decide.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is saying that I have said that the bureau of statistics is the authority for my statement. What I said, as the hon. gentleman will find if he looks at page 180, was this:
Now let us examine the next statement, that Canadians earned more. The dominion bureau of statistics points out-
I did not say this was an actual quotation. It is an extract.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there is more to it than that both the hon. minister and the hon. member for Essex East who raised this point of privilege have read the actual words, so there can be no misunderstanding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; but, Mr. Speaker, with great deference-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The house will judge for itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the hon. gentleman is seeking to say-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think I have the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me explain mj question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member wish to raise a further question of privilege?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to state my question of privilege which, apparently, I did not state with the succinctness which I usually do. The hon. gentleman is saying that I had sought to attribute these words as directly coming from the bureau of statistics. What I did say, as the hon. gentleman will find in the speech, was that every statistic that I used came from the D.B.S. bulletins-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -or from the
national accounts, income and expenditure, and when there was a direct quotation I referred to the page. If the Minister of Justice does not understand what the daily bulletins are that certainly is not my fault.


George Harris Hees: Badly cornered.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the minister may proceed. It seems to me that what the hon. member is raising as a question of privilege is really an objection to what is stated, and
388	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fulton he wishes to give an explanation, which he can only do if the member who has the floor allows him to interrupt; otherwise, it should be done at the end of the speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman knows-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -allow a misinterpretation of my statement to go on record.


Mr. Speaker:: I have perhaps been too final if the hon. member wishes to comment, but I really have made my decision with respect to what the hon. member has said on this point; unless there is something new I hope the minister will be allowed to continue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the house will be able to judge for itself whether the hon. member purported to quote from the dominion bureau of statistics by the words that he used where he said:
The dominion bureau of statistics points out:
Then, we have a colon and then we have the form which Hansard uses when it is reproducing a quotation. My hon. friend knows perfectly well the small type which Hansard uses when it is reproducing quotations. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the impression which he created inevitably and inescapably is that he was purporting to quote from the dominion bureau of statistics. He said just now, "Oh, no, I did not mean to say I was quoting from the dominion bureau of statistics but only the fact that every figure was taken from the dominion bureau of statistics".


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to expose the hon. gentleman once more, because-and this is another part of my objection-the alleged quotation starts out with the words:
Real wages and salaries in 1958 have declined by 1.6 per cent.
I am informed that the dominion bureau of statistics never attempts to put out a figure on real wages and salaries because they say it cannot be done.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: You have not read them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It cannot be done accurately and anyone who compiles his own must take the responsibility-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Who told you that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -for that compilation. And that is exactly what the hon. gentleman


sought to avoid doing. He made the calculation and said, "This is what the dominion bureau of statistics said". Of course, Mr. Speaker, his calculation is completely wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not at this stage.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is fine. I did not think he would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The other example that I refer to, Mr. Speaker, is found at the bottom of the first column of page 181, where the hon. member for Essex East is attacking a quotation of the Prime Minister with regard to the total wages and salaries. I had better read the whole quotation. The hon. gentleman quotes the Prime Minister at page 59 of Hansard as having said:
The 1958 economic report predicted that total wages and salaries of Canadians would decline as compared with 1957 by 1.1 per cent. Instead of that, wages and salaries increased by 1.6 per cent or some $300 millions.
That is the quotation of the Prime Minister that the hon. gentleman quoted. Then, he continued:
The dominion bureau of statistics provides this conclusion:
Then, we find a colon in Hansard and then again there is, of course, the reproduction in small print in the insert fashion which Hansard uses when it is reproducing a quotation. Therefore, once more the hon. gentleman is creating the impression inevitably that he is quoting something that the dominion bureau of statistics said, and this is what he says the dominion bureau of statistics said:
On the average the consumer price index stood at 121.9 in 1957 and at 125.9 in 1958 which represents an increase of 3.2 per cent. This means that real wages and salaries-or the purchasing power of total wages and salaries-have declined by 1.6 per cent in 1958.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend say that the dominion bureau of statistics does not provide that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not only was my hon. friend guilty of gross inaccuracy in attempting to suggest that this came from the dominion bureau of statistics, which it did not, but the whole calculation is clearly and demonstrably in error.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a question of privilege?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The language which I used is clear and is to be found on page 181.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said:
The dominion bureau of statistics provides this conclusion:
Then follows the conclusion. There is nothing there to suggest that these particular comments are actually contained in the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murdo William Martin: -national accounts, but they are contained in the statistics provided by the dominion bureau of statistics. I raise a question of privilege. No hon. gentleman, the Minister of Justice or not, has the right by the use of words to imply that another hon. member has deliberately sought to deceive this house, and that is what the Minister of Justice is doing. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this house for 23 years-


An hon. Member:: You got away with it.


Murdo William Martin: -and there is no hon. member who can cast a reflection on my honour and get away with it.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposition that the
hon. member for Essex East states is perfectly correct and it is a proper matter of privilege if that is what has been done. As I see it, we are dealing with an interpretation of a page of Hansard which is before all members. If the hon. member states that he did not intend to give the impression that what appears as a quotation in Hansard was in fact a quotation from the dominion bureau of statistics, I am sure the house will accept his explanation but to raise it as a matter of privilege when we have the thing before us seems to me to be rather more in the nature of a disagreement with or a contradiction of what is being said. It should be raised, if at all, at the end of the speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He got caught, that is all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, of course, I was careful, I think you will realize, and I know my hon. friend will if he thinks of it, not to impute motives or intent in anything I said. I pointed out what the hon. gentleman in fact said and what the result of his saying it must be. I leave it to the house to draw its own conclusion from that point on.
The hon. gentleman has just furnished another interesting sidelight in the very implications of what he himself said in protesting. He said, "I did not say this was quoted from the dominion bureau of statistics; I said dominion bureau of statistics provides this conclusion".


Murdo William Martin: That is right.
The Address-Mr. Fulton


Edmund Davie Fulton: I point out the dominion bureau of statistics does not provide this conclusion; it is the hon. member for Essex East who provided it, and the conclusion is wrong and not borne out by the statistics put out by the dominion bureau of statistics, as I shall now show-


Murdo William Martin: You are wrong again.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in this passage in dispute. It looked as if it came from the dominion bureau of statistics, but now we have his admission that it did not come from the dominion bureau of statistics at all. He said:
On the average the consumer price index stood at 121.9 in 1957 and at 125.9 in 1958 which represents an increase of 3.2 per cent.
He said that the dominion bureau of statistics said that. Mr. Speaker, both the calculation and the statement are wrong. If you do the arithmetical calculation you will find that an increase from 121.9 to 125.1 represents a percentage increase of 2.6, not 3.2 as stated by the hon. gentleman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He got that from the Minister of Finance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said he got it from the dominion bureau of statistics.


Murdo William Martin: We say we got
that from the Minister of Finance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You see, Mr. Speaker, they are caught out in their trap and now both of them are trapped. The Leader of the Opposition has just said that the hon. member got that figure from the Minister of Finance but the hon. member said that he got that figure from the bureau of statistics.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Your figures.


Murdo William Martin: You are confused.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He said it this afternoon and he said it before as found in Hansard. The actual dominion bureau of statistics figure shows that there was a percentage increase in the cost of living of 2.6 per cent, not 3.2 per cent as used by the hon. statistician from Essex East.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He had better improve his arithmetic.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You see what has been happening, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentlemen, not content when they find that the facts show that the country's economic position is not so bad, have to manufacture facts and then attribute them to the dominion bureau of statistics. Let us see what the dominion bureau of statistics actually says on this point. What are the statistics that the bureau

The Address-Mr. Fulton has put out with regard to incomes and earnings in Canada in 1958? Here are the bureau's actual words. I quote from page 3 of the dominion bureau of statistics' publication, National Accounts, Income and Expenditure, third quarter, 1958. They say:
While national income has risen by about 2 per cent over the year, personal income has increased by 5 per cent and disposable income by more than 6 per cent.
Yet the hon. gentleman has the gall to say-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a different thing altogether.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that Canadians earned more in 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister is not equating earnings and personal income.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the effect of prices on these figures? My hon. friend tried to make out in his speech that they are all inflated by price increases-


John Whitney Pickersgill: So they are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and therefore they represent only a fictitious increase and not a real increase. Here is what the bureau has to say about the effect of prices of this increase in 1958 compared with 1957. I read from page 5:
It will be apparent that price factors were less conspicuous as an element of the value change in gross national product between 1958 and 1957 than in the preceding year. All components of the gross national product registered smaller year-to-year advances in 1958 than in 1957. The price of consumer goods and services showed a further rise of close to 3 per cent, a more moderate advance than in 1957.
So what the bureau says about this is that the effects of price increases were markedly less in 1958 than in 1957.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You do not understand it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does the bureau say about inflation? The hon. gentleman criticized the Prime Minister's remarks about inflation and had some interesting remarks of his own to make, all his own, not from the bureau of statistics. The dominion bureau of statistics had this to say about one aspect having an important bearing on inflation, as found on page 7:
Thus the rise in personal expenditure in the first three quarters of 1958 has fallen short of the rise in personal disposable income. The relatively high rate of personal saving is one of the notable developments of the year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, we spent less.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So we see Liberal efforts-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That just proves the opposite of what you said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -exemplified by the hon. member for Essex East and by the Leader of the Opposition himself, apparently determined to persuade the Canadian people that the situation is worse than it is, and when they find that the facts do not fit their theories, instead of changing their theories they try to change the facts. Hon. gentlemen remind us of the man who said, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts."


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is confused without the facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All they have succeeded in doing is confusing themselves. I do not believe they have confused the people of the country to the extent they would like to have done.
Contrasted with this, I think it is useful and appropriate that I should say a word or two about what the government has actually done and what it is continuing to do to meet the emergency situation which we inherited from the Liberal government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question before he leaves this topic?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My time is nearly up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sure he will be given extra time. Before he leaves this interesting part of his policy statement, will he deal with the unemployment statistics that his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), has given to parliament in the last few days?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will be glad to do that on another occasion but I do not have the time at my disposal this afternoon. The Minister of Labour has dealt authoritatively with these statistics. I am dealing with the discrepancies and inaccuracies of my hon. friend and I have a hard job compressing them into forty minutes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not wonder they would like to see a change in subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very weak. Pretty bad.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can understand why in our predecessors' time the then minister of trade and commerce seemed to grow greyer, older and more worried. He must have had a really desperate task to keep the dominion bureau of statistics under his control and to prevent it from sliding out from under his grasp and into that of his colleague from Essex East. Rather than the hon. member doing what he did on January 22, I suggest that he would

probably be better advised to set up his own statistical service and quote himself. At least he would always be entertaining. When we examine the record of what the government has been doing we find an interesting and effective contrast to the criticisms and inaccurate statements made by the opposition.
We inherited the recession in June of 1957. Within a matter of months we had put $150 million into housing and we are still continuing to put money into housing. Within a matter of a few more months we had made considerable cuts in taxes. Within a matter of months we had substantially increased welfare payments. At the first opportunity to present a full budget we budgeted deliberately for a deficit. We have instituted and are continuing these and other work-providing programs. In addition to the housing and public works expenditures, which are continuing, there are the special winter works program started this year and the renewal of the northern affairs program of expenditure and work in the parks which was started last winter. We took the 1957 economic outlook report to heart although the Liberals had ignored it.
We are still grappling effectively, vigorously and consistently with the problem of unemployment in Canada. The Prime Minister, unlike hon. gentlemen opposite, is not reluctant to say that he regards it as a primary obligation of the government. He has stated that the government regards it as its continuing obligation to deal with unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, go on. Let the minister proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Agreed. The minister is very entertaining.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful to the house. I am not going to impose upon the house. I have practically finished. The details of the program I have outlined can be filled in at another time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Give us that program.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That billion dollar program.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it might be interesting to deal with what amount of work some of these projects have created. This is an estimate prepared for me by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), and I am sure he would agree that it can only be described as an estimate. Nevertheless it is
The Address-Mr. Fulton the best estimate that we can produce. Some 36,750 national housing loans were taken up during 1958. The total of federal funds made available under these loans was $375 million. It is estimated that these federal housing loans provided around 92,000 man years of employment. This impressive total is made up of about 46,000 man years of on-site labour and the same amount of off-site labour. This, of course, relates only to the federal funds made available and does not take into account the tremendous flow of private mortgage funds that has been going into housing construction under the stimulation of the policies of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green). It has been estimated that the total number of men employed in the housing program generally is certainly, at a conservative estimate, at least 600,000.
In addition to housing loans, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been engaged in the construction of public housing and other buildings. The expenditure involved in these has amounted to over $30 million.
Then, other departments responsible for construction programs include the Department of Transport, and their program includes the development and maintenance of airports, the construction and maintenance of harbours, the St. Lawrence seaway and large expenditures by such crown corporations as the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. Well over $400 million of federal government expenditures have been made on works projects in this field during 1958. It is estimated that at least 80,000 man-years of employment, including both on-site and off-site work have resulted from these expenditures.
With respect to the Department of Public Works, it is estimated that all their normal expenditures during the year 1958 have meant employment over the course of a year for at least another 25,000 men, on-site and off-site. These statistics are in terms of man-years, Mr. Speaker, and this is an impressive total.
Then, the northern affairs and national resources program continued from last winter, it is estimated is providing employment on a continuous basis for at least 3,000 men to date. In so far as the special municipal winter works program is concerned, the latest estimate which my colleague the Minister of Labour has furnished me shows that it is expected for Canada as a whole there will be 1,086,895 man-days of work provided by that program to be initiated between December 1 and April 1.
I should like to mention others, but these are only some of the ways in which this

The Address-Mr. Fulton government is continuing its consistent and successful program in accordance with the promises made by the Prime Minister to combat the recession inherited from our predecessors, and which he said we would do our best to halt and take every measure at our disposal to see to it that during the time the recession continues no one suffers as a result of being unemployed. This is the first instalment of the government's attempt to implement that promise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) was kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to say he would answer my question when he concluded his remarks. My question is this: If, as the minister says, the recession was inherited from the previous administration and if the government discovered this inheritance in June when they took office, can the minister explain why his colleague the Minister of Labour said on December 10, 1957, as reported in the Montreal Star and never denied, that there is hardly an economist or student of the siuation who does not feel that the unemployment situation is merely temporary, and that given a brief breathing pause the natural buoyancy of the economy will assert itself? Why did the Prime Minister, at the federal-provincial conference, say that unemployment in 1954-55 was considerably greater than it was in 1957?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The statement the hon. gentleman has quoted from my colleague the Minister of Labour does not require any explanation because it is consistent with the facts. We have confidence in the buoyancy of the Canadian economy. We know that it will eventually work out of the mess we inherited from our predecessors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not say anything about any mess.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are acting accordingly. I should remind the hon. gentleman that the first step we took after taking office was to reduce the flow of immigration, by which action we have saved an accumulation of an extra 100,000 unemployed. We have also put into circulation, and at the disposal of the people of Canada, vastly increased social security benefits. These are two of the actions we took.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit another question? Did he not state in this house that all they did about immigration was to continue an order I had made in April, 1957?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I did not, because the order had not been made. We had to make it. My hon. friend had thought about it, but he had not done it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: have never followed John, but on this one occasion in the throne speech I am following Dave. I must admit this has been a rather amusing session, with so many statistics flying around. I think it is understandable why so many people are a little confused at the moment. They do not know whether the figures are lying or the liars are figuring. It is one or the other.
It is quite evident, also, that there has been a lot of political name-calling during this session in attempts to place responsibility. This reminds me of the story of two men who went out on a bender. It was a real drunk. When they woke up the next morning they found themselves in bed with a corpse between them. Fearing the consequences, they both dashed to the police station and blamed the other for homicide which was, of course, of no interest to the corpse at all. Basically, this is what has been going on since this house met, especially on the question of unemployment and right now the problem of the producers of the C.B.C.
Basically, we are not going to solve anything by even trying to find out who was responsible. The point is that there are certain circumstances extant in this country which require to be handled, and our responsibility, irrespective of party, government or opposition, is not to damn each other so much for the evils of the past, but to see if we cannot be good right now and in the future. I was interested in all the statistics put forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and all the others. But a man or a woman who is unemployed or on strike or locked out is not a statistic. He or she is a human being in need of something being done about their problem. I was most interested in the closing remarks of the Minister of Justice when he dealt once again, almost word for word, with the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made in the campaign of last year. The Prime Minister said that if he were elected no one would go without or suffer in this country.
The reason why we have to get up and speak on these matters so often, and perhaps be so repetitious, is that people are suffering and are hungry in Canada and the government has not done anything about that. Admittedly you can bring forth all these figures showing increased emloyment and increased income. Of course, this country is not static; it is growing. People are being born every day. People are going into the employment field every day. Immigrants are coming in, or they have been, by the thousands. We have what almost looks like

a paradox but is not, and that is employment going up at the same time as unemployment is going up. Of course, we are happy about the increase in employment.
What we want to know is what you are going to do about your promises to those who are unemployed. You admit that there are 749,000 who are asking for employment. Whether it is 100,000 or 749,000 I ask what about those who need that work? Last May- I have the actual dates here, May 12 of last year, May 28, July 9, July 12 of last year- I have all the Hansard quotes here-the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said-because they must have had some recognition of the dangers of unemployment and suffering this winter and spring -that they would introduce changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. They never did and we are still waiting for those changes.
But because they neglected their responsibilities, because they did not fulfil their promise made on all the dates I have given you last year, Mr. Speaker, there are thousands upon thousands in this country who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance, nor can they get work. The government say they take care of them. They go on welfare. What is welfare? In one of our provinces, it is about half of the amount they would receive were they eligible for unemployment insurance. Nobody on unemployment insurance is living in the lap of luxury. What do you do about those who have to depend upon welfare? I say this to the government. Why sit back so smug and holy about the fact that you are paying 50 per cent of starvation sustenance for those people who, because of your negligence, are not now covered by unemployment insurance and who have not jobs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Harold Edward Winch: Stop all this eyewash you are spouting all the time, recognize the situation and see what we can do about it on an emergency basis.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Harold Edward Winch: It is necessary for me to speak loud because of all the thickness over there on the government side which it is necessary to penetrate in order to reach understanding. Of course all hon. members can always tone down their volume, except me.
Not only was that matter forgotten, Mr. Speaker, but something else was forgotten. I refer to the domicile laws on welfare which are established by agreement between the federal government and the provinces and which vary from province to province. With men moving around, as they do, in order to 66968-9-26
The Address-Mr. Winch find employment-because they do not want charity-unless they come within the domicile regulations of a particular municipality in the province they cannot even get welfare. They are therefore doomed to a Conservative position of starving to death. Let me say that I am not being dramatic or melodramatic when I make that statement. To find confirmation, Mr. Speaker, all hon. members need to do is read their newspapers and look at the photographs in the newspapers of men collapsing from hunger in Winnipeg and Vancouver; something which we have not had for years in British Columbia. I refer to soup kitchens, with men lined up in queues for blocks for a handout of two sandwiches a day.


An hon. Member:: The Bennett days are back again.


Harold Edward Winch: We are not purveyors of gloom. We do not want to emphasize these things. What we say to the government is this. They said they would take care of these people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the point.


Harold Edward Winch: We are just asking you to take care of them on this short term emergency basis until you bring in those policies and those noble plans about which you told us that are going to solve for all time the problem of unemployment.
Time after time at this session the Prime Minister has appealed for co-operation. Let me say this to the hon. members on the government side of the house. As far as Vancouver is concerned, he has offers of co-operation right down the line from the trades and labour council, unemployment committees and so on. Before this house was called together elected members of all parties were called in to discuss the situation. The parks commissioners of Vancouver called in the elected members to talk over their problems. The Vancouver city council called in the representatives to talk over the situation and the problems. There was co-operation on the labour level, on the parks committee level and the municipal level, recognizing that the solution does not lie with one level of government but that because the federal government is the senior government, it is from there that the major direction and the major aid will have to come.
The other members from the city of Vancouver in this house can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that the city of Vancouver said this: If you give us a little bit more progressive aid, not just half the cost of labour on the particular works but half the cost, then within four weeks we will have project after project under way. I am convinced that if this government, instead of

The Address-Mr. Winch trying to allocate blame and say "It is not our fault", would recognize the problem and come forward with some emergency measures in the way of municipal assistance, special welfare assistance and change in the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to make the unemployed eligible for something as of right and not charity, they would get a spontaneous acceptance from the people and from the various levels of government. I can say that at least for the province I know best, namely the province of British Columbia.
When we speak of unemployment solutions, naturally we must think of production and trade. It has been somewhat of a disappointment to us in this group that so little has been said on the cabinet level as to Canada's position in world trade, the problems which we face in that area and just how we are going to meet the situation.
I was most pleased to read in the Globe and Mail of this morning a report under dateline of Washington, January 26, as follows:
Canadian Justice Minister Fulton is visiting his opposite number here this week for discussions on how to avoid in the future what Canadians consider attempts by Washington to make U.S. laws rather than Canadian laws applicable to Canada.
I know we certainly want to wish the minister well on that trip but I think that now is the time to emphasize how emphatic he must be when he visits Washington. There is not only a growing fear but a growing understanding that irrespective of what must have been a beautiful talk between the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower last year and the indications given to us that this problem of United States domination of Canadian companies was going to cease, that was just a lot of tommyrot because the situation has definitely not improved. As a matter of fact, it has worsened.
Not only do I take the position-and I do it personally, of course, from my reading-that nothing has been done whatsoever about the matter but evidence is now forthcoming to demonstrate that we are even more than ever dominated by the United States with respect to our goods produced in Canada, and to companies which are subsidiaries to those in the United States. There is no need to repeat what we all know of the motor car incident of last year with regard to sales to the peoples' republic of China. That was the first indication. Perhaps not too much emphasis should be placed on it but it is worthy of note. We receive information that Alcan, from the headquarters in Montreal, honestly admit that they turned down a sale to China at the same time they were laying off 620 men because of their fear of repercussions in their major markets in the United States. But the matter goes even beyond that.

I have a friend who is well known as a member of the bar association in Ontario and who last fall made a visit to Chungking. Whilst he was in Chungking he was entertained by the president of the chamber of commerce there and he watched freight being unloaded by hand from hundreds of junks on the waterfront. The president of the chamber of commerce told him that they were going to initiate plans to utilize conveyor belts for this unloading. Our esteemed friend from Canada informed the president of the chamber of commerce in Chungking that Canada produced conveyor belting of the highest quality, something which all hon. members know is true. When my friend returned to Canada or shortly thereafter he happened to visit the B. F. Goodrich plant. They made inquiries about his trip to China, being interested, and he told them about this opportunity of selling belting to Chungking. They were interested. But do you know what happened? Did that Canadian company get in touch with our legal friend in Ontario, with a catalogue and prices? Did they get in touch with the president of the chamber of commerce in Chungking? No. The next word my friend heard about the matter was when he received a letter dated January 13, 1959, a copy of which I have in my hand.
Akron 18, Ohio, U.S.A.
January 13, 1959
Mr. E. B. Jolliffe, Q.C.
Ill Richmond Street, West,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dear Sir:
Our Canadian company has forwarded your request for information on conveyor belting which in turn is to be furnished to the president of the chamber of commerce of Chungking, China. Under the present regulations of our government, we are prohibited from dealing with China, even to the extent of communicating with nationals of red China in any manner. While there are definite indications at the present time that this policy may be relaxed in the future, we are required to conform with the instructions of our government to the letter until such time as the regulations are changed.
We are indeed sorry that we are not able to supply you with the information desired. We will be most happy to work with you in providing information for other marketing areas not affected by such restrictions.
Yours very truly,
G. W. Hill
Industrial Products Sales Manager
The letter is written on the letterhead of the International B. F. Goodrich Corporation. Because of a law in the United States the B. F. Goodrich Company in Canada was not able to supply catalogues or quotations on non-strategic goods, for which an export permit is available in Canada, to a foreign market. Without fear or hesitation this government should now make it clear to the United

States that we in this country are not going to brook any continuation of this kind of interference. The government should speak in the interests of employment, Canadian trade and prosperity. If this type of thing does continue it is up to this government to introduce legislation that will enable us to control the exports of our own companies.
When we speak of trade we think of the remarks made three times this session by the Prime Minister about the horrible threat of an economic trade war on the part of the U.S.S.R. Of course there is a threat of this kind and no one with a modicum of common sense would deny it. Indeed, it was bound to come. On May 19 last I spoke in this house on that very question and asked the government what consideration it was giving to the matter at that time. Moreover, we know this is going to be a serious threat. We realize that whether we like it or not the U.S.S.R. can compete because it does not have the profit motive adding to the cost of the goods produced there. We all recognize this and are concerned about it and we certainly want to hear more from the government on this question.
I never have and never will profess to be an economist or a trade expert but as an hon. member of this house who takes seriously the responsibilities vested in him I want to make sure that the government gives proper attention to the question of trade and the implications of this threat to the development of trade throughout the world. Little has been said by the government as to what are the implications or what will be the position of Canada as an exporting nation because of the establishment of the European common market and the possible establishment of a wider free trade area. The countries of Europe for their own protection and development and with a view to raising their standards of living have, according to their own public statements, found it wise and necessary to enter into the European common market.
In addition to what I have been able to read on this subject I had the welcome opportunity of speaking with research men, economists and businessmen who have recently returned from Europe. They say that the results of this new plan are indeed staggering and only a few days ago the results were described to me by one man as being almost fantastic. He could foresee in Europe within a period of two or three years in the nine countries that are in the common market a condition that would almost rival the condition that obtains in the United States both in terms of production and standard of living.
66968-9-26J
The Address-Mr. Winch
Almost every publication that has come to my attention on this matter points out the probable dangers that exist for Canada unless we in this country are extremely careful. They indicate that Canada could be relegated to a position of being merely a supplier of raw materials and we would have to face greater competition than we face today in the export of manufactured goods. I wish to emphasize the importance of this because I intend to ask the government what attention is being paid to this development. What are the plans of this government in this respect? What plans does it have for the maintenance of Canadian production which is dependent upon exports?
As a matter of fact, in thinking about it this morning I arrived at a number of questions which I think we as hon. members of this house and in particular the members of the cabinet as representing the government of this country have to understand and answer. I listed them in this way.
Is the commonwealth disintegrating as a trading entity or is it likely so to do? Can Canada hold its United Kingdom markets and, if so, how? That question arises because irrespective of statistics we are losing out in many fields at the present time. If Canada cannot hold its United Kingdom markets, does this country have to face almost complete economic integration with the United States? What will be Canada's position in a few years as a result of the establishment of the European common market and the possible establishment of a wider free trade area? Another question of immediate importance is this. What will be the effect on Canada of the stiffer competition for investment capital as a result of corporations in Britain, the United States and other countries setting up subsidiary firms within the tariff wall of the European common market? It is obvious that other countries are moving in. Is Canada thinking about this? Is Canada prepared to take action in this respect?
Without stressing the importance of these questions at greater length may I say that we in this group believe these questions are of such vital concern that there should be an early indication at the cabinet level as to the thinking, planning and policies of the government. I know I am not stretching it too far when I say the future of Canada is at stake. We as elected members are in large part responsible by what we do here for what the future of our country is going to be in this respect.
I shall say just a few more words, Mr. Speaker, because we shall have other opportunities under motions, bills, on the budget,
396	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Winch in committee and when discussing the estimates to refer to other matters. But in view of the situation with regard to the C.B.C. I should like to say a few words on that question. I find it most difficult to understand the viewpoint of the government.
The C.B.C. is a public service. This is a crown corporation and parliament is ultimately responsible for its operations. We understand that the Prime Minister is thinking of reintroducing the bill of rights. Surely one of the basic rights which will be emphasized in that bill is the right of association and the right of collective bargaining, and surely we are not going to differentiate between different classes of citizens, saying that one group of people who have to work for their bread and butter should have the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining while another group of people in a different sphere, but also dependent on work for their bread and butter, should not have this right. It would not make sense. Producers have the right of association as well as anybody else. It may be that they are not mentioned in any specific act of this parliament, but what about it? That does not remove their rights; there is no law which says they cannot form an association. They have done so. Why should they not be recognized? I think it is deplorable that the government should not have shown some initiative in an attempt to reach a solution of this difficulty.
I know arguments can be raised about legality and illegality, jurisdiction and jurisprudence. But what about getting the job done instead of worrying so much about the dotting of an "i" or the crossing of a "t"? Do you, Mr. Speaker, know of anything in the law or constitution of Canada which says that the Prime Minister or members of the government cannot interest themselves in any problem which needs to be solved? Do you know of any law which says that no attempt must be made to bring people together? Because of the way in which this situation is developing, and because if something is not done in the near future this situation may lead almost to the wrecking of a great organization, I wish to add my appeal to those made by members who have already spoken urging the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour to do all they can to bring the present situation to a successful conclusion. In addition, I urge all hon. members here to do everything possible on their own initiative to achieve the same result in the spirit of co-operation about which one hears so much in this chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope I have not been too condemnatory in the course of my remarks, because I did not mean to be. It


is just because when this government faced the electorate it told the people that it knew the problem and had a solution to the problem. We commend the government for everything it has done, but we say that there are many thousands who still need employment, and countless people who are on the fringe of semi-starvation. We urge hon. gentlemen on the front benches opposite to use their power as a government and as a cabinet in order to introduce without delay constructive policies and measures which will lead to a better standard of living for those who need it today.


Mr. B. C. Thompson (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being repetitious I should like formally to add a word of commendation to you for the admirable manner in which you have presided over the deliberations of this house to date and to wish you continued success in the carrying out of the duties of your office.
My congratulations also to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) who so ably presented to the house the motion which is now under debate.
I personally was most pleased and encouraged at the spontaneous response which the remarks of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet on national unity evoked from hon. members in this chamber. However, I have since been disappointed to hear the remarks which have come from some of the members of the official opposition on the same subject. I cannot think that such remarks will promote national unity in Canada and I would hope that their attitude might change in the near future.
May I also extend a word of welcome to those members who have joined us in the house since the beginning of this session. I hope their stay in parliament will be a long and successful one.
I should like to turn now to the speech from the throne which contains a list of policies and actions to be approved by the House of Commons which I think are going to be of great benefit to Canada in the days to come. Much has been said in this debate so far on the subject of unemployment. Much has been said by the opposition which would lead us to believe that the country is on the verge of collapse economically. I wish the people of Canada could observe the faces of the opposition; how great a look of disappointment is registered thereon when the steady improvement in our economy is noted, and how great a look of delight, almost to the point of rapture, overcomes them when unemployment figures are quoted.

I do not propose to go into the figures again. They are all on record. No one denies that we have unemployment in Canada. No one denies that last winter the figures were higher than usual. No one can deny that the figures this winter are improving all the time as the result of government action, but we do and should deny that the picture in Canada is as bad as it is painted by the opposition. The picture which the opposition paints is not designed to suggest ways and means of improving the situation but is designed to spread fear and panic in the hearts and minds of the people of Canada.
What have the members of the opposition to offer by way of suggestion? Nothing. They criticize but do not come up with any ideas of their own. The fact of the matter is that they have no ideas, because everything has been done by this government which can be done within the realm of practicality and common sense. The actions which this government took in national housing, in tax reductions, in increased social security benefits, in increased unemployment insurance benefits, in a program of public works and in easing credit prevented the situation from being a great deal worse than it was and have contributed in large part to the recovery which we are experiencing today.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) goes back to 1957 and tries to explain what he would have done had he still been in power. The measures which he suggests would have been too late. The former government had its opportunity in early 1957 to forestall a recession and to alleviate its effects. They had the information and the advice of the economic experts upon which to make a decision. They had two courses to follow and they chose the wrong one. They chose to fight inflation and ignored the warning signs of recession and unemployment. When the Leader of the Opposition says what he would have done had he remained in power I can only say that his hindsight and that of his colleagues is obviously a great deal better than their foresight.
The truth of the matter is that when the present government assumed office in 1957 they inherited a multitude of problems created by the Liberal administration. Had these problems not been created the Liberals would not have been turned out of office. The people of Canada lost confidence in them and expressed themselves at the polls by turning them out. For the Leader of the Opposition to expect this government to have dealt with the accumulation of decisions and have solved the multitude of problems which were left to it at that time in the short space
The Address-Mr. Thompson of 19 months is the same as to expect someone to unravel a tangled skein of yarn in a matter of seconds. He could not do it and neither could anyone else.
Many references have been made to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) that as long as he is Prime Minister no one will suffer from unemployment. As usual, this statement has been misinterpreted by the opposition to have a meaning different from that which the Prime Minister intended. It is interpreted as a guarantee of 100 per cent employment, but any sensible person knows that that is not possible. What the Prime Minister obviously meant to any reasonable person is that he would emphasize and give priority to the fight against unemployment and do everything reasonable and practical to reduce unemployment and to alleviate the hardships of those who might be affected. This he has done and is doing.
In closing my remarks on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I, like the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith), would like to say with what interest I listened to the answers given to questions by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) at the press conference last week. I have never seen anyone work so hard to evade questions or perhaps I should say I have never seen anyone work so hard to answer questions. In spite of repeated questions he was unable to say what suggestions the opposition had or he himself had to improve the employment situation. His only answer was that the duty of the opposition is to criticize the policies and actions of the government. I must say that I was at a loss to know whether he had some ideas up his sleeve which he was just keeping to himself or whether he had no ideas at all and was just trying to cover up. As the time passed by I became inclined to the latter view.
Certainly, if the hon. member for Essex East has any ideas at all it is his duty to bring them before this house for consideration. The government has the responsibility to initiate whatever measures are deemed necessary, but every member has the duty to disclose any ideas which he might have to further the best interests of his country. If the opposition proposes to do nothing from now on except to criticize and not offer any alternative ideas, then I wish them good luck because I think they are going to be in opposition for a long time. I do not think that the people of Canada will allow any group to form a government which does not offer a reasonable and better alternative to the government of the day.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, last evening, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) suggested that the government close the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to try to solve, and as soon as possible, this important problem of unemployment. The reaction to his suggestion was complete silence. The government, as usual, is being indecisive and careless. Do the hon. Conservative members feel that the matter of unemployment is not urgent? Have they not yet found a way to settle this problem? We do not know. Dead silence is the keynote. Could it be that, in view of the importance of this problem, the legislation which is to be submitted to the house is not ready? We do not know. As I said earlier, the situation is always the same; we have a government of carelessness, indecision and confusion.
The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) has claimed that we made this proposal because we were short of arguments or suggestions. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that to study the matter of unemployment and try to solve as soon as possible this problem, which is certainly the most important problem facing us at the present time, was in itself an excellent suggestion. We put forward other excellent suggestions in the past, but, like the previous ones, the suggestion to close the debate on the address had no more effect than water on the back of a duck.
Mr. Speaker, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) so aptly put it this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: That is the third time
he said this.


Azellus Denis: I shall repeat it for a fourth time, and as in the case of Coca-Cola ads, perhaps you will end up by drinking it.
If the hon. Minister of Public Works is really deaf, he must still at least be endowed with eyesight. So if he is looking for excellent suggestions, and wants the country to continue prospering as it did under the Liberal government, all he needs to do is to read, reread, and indeed learn by heart, the masterful speech given by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Address-Mr. Denis Mr. Speaker, following the hon. members who spoke before me, I should like to pay tribute to the mover and supporter of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin). They acquitted themselves of their task in a wonderful way, in spite of the lack of interest of the subject they were talking about, I mean the speech from the throne, and the present government's achievements.
Most particularly, I should like to congratulate the one who supported the motion and who resides in my province. He did so in an agreeable and dignified way, a thing to which we had not been accustomed by our friends opposite. He is no doubt aware that, since the coming into power of the present government, French Canadians are not adequately represented in the cabinet. Undoubtedly, he also knows that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated in the province of Quebec: "Give me members and I shall give you ministers". Another promise which the present government did not fulfil.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the right hon. Prime Minister was waiting for the member for Montmagny-L'Islet who made so auspicious a debut in the house and who, so soon after his arrival rises way above his colleagues who, since the coming into power of the Conservatives, are feverishly emulating one another in the hope of being promoted ministers or parliamentary secretaries.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the magnificent speech made by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay). Since I was to speak just after him, I cannot comment on his speech, a speech which, incidentally, I shall sum up in few words. In fact, I shall sum it up in the few words of an hymn which we used to sing at college, an hymn which the hon. member for Roberval must know, since he attended college and university. Mr. Speaker, I should like to sing that hymn, but to avoid breaking the rules of the house, I shall simply quote the first words which very well represent the hon. member for Roberval: "All is vanity, falsehood and fragility".
I have also listened to one of the newcomers here, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan). He gave us a fine picture of his constituency, its beauties, its wealth, etc., for which we thank him.
However, towards the end of his speech, I think he missed a good opportunity to keep his mouth shut. In fact, he allowed himself to graze in the neighbour's field, whereas he could have grazed in his own. For instance 

he took the liberty of saying that when the Liberals were in office, contractors had bought stone from the United States. I shall quote his own words so as to preclude any rebuttal:
(Text):
The Liberals wasted a lot of money on importing stone all the way from Virginia when they could have used the finest building stone on the continent. They had so little pride in the products of Canada.
(Translation):
Well, his party has been in power since 1957 and it has announced loans; this is not surprising because since they have been in power they have done nothing but borrow money, and, later on, our descendants or our descendants' descendants will have to pay the shot.


Mr. Martel:: It is to meet your obligations.


Azellus Denis: In 1957, in a period of full unemployment, the present government announced the issue of savings bonds. I have here copies of the posters that were profusely distributed all over Canada.
The Conservative government too has been letting contracts, and giving work to foreigners, because at the bottom of this poster, I read this: "Printed in Great Britain". Here is the answer to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan). And to my hon. friends opposite, who are always fond of giving advice and suggestions, allow me to give this piece of advice: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."


Mr. Valade:: You gave away a billion dollars to England during the war.


Azellus Denis: Well, ladies ... It is the first time I refer to hon. ladies sitting in this house. I hope you will not be offended by this attitude; but the Conservatives are a bit jealous when they hear praise directed to others, even of the other sex.


Mr. Asselin:: You are jealous of our wives. (Text):


An hon. Member:: It's a good thing they're not on your side.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the carelessness, unconcern and instability of the Conservative government. I forgot to tell you also that they are past masters in inconsistency and contradiction.
I have here a statement made recently by the Prime Minister. He was blaming the Leader of the Opposition for describing Canada as a country with a dark future. He

The Address-Mr. Denis
added that this picture was contrary to the facts and with his customary self-complacency, stated that the Leader of the Opposition was not equal to his responsibilities as a leader. Well, the next minute that same leader of the Conservative government contradicts himself and admits that the Leader of the Opposition is right. In fact the Prime Minister said, about the Leader of the Opposition:
"He is not living up to his responsibilities at this time when the world situation is difficult and distressing".
And later on:
"When we think of the difficulties that face the free world in the form of an economic onslaught."
In the same breath he says that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong in blackening Canada's reputation and right afterwards he tells the Leader of the Opposition: "You were perfectly right."
Well, what did he use to do when he was in the opposition? I have here a report published by the dominion bureau of statistics. The figures I have go back to the time when the Liberal party came to power, up to the arrival of the Conservative party. Let me quote some figures relating to unemployment. There were 133,000 unemployed in December 1952, 193,000 in 1953, 252,000 in 1954, 200,000 in 1955, 188,000 in 1956, while in 1957, when our good friends came to power, there were 392,000. In 1958, they numbered 440,000.
Mr. Speaker, what did they do at the time we were administering the country, when there were two or three times fewer unemployed than we have today? They used to wail and lament, Mr. Speaker, and they acted like calamity howlers. Were they being truthful at that time? No, and yet now they criticize us for telling people the truth. Well is it not our right, and even our duty to tell the truth to the people of this country? It looks as if the Liberals do not have the same policy as the Conservatives.
I recall that, when they used to sit on the opposition side, these people used to paint gloomy pictures of the situation in Canada while the country was in full prosperity. They were making suggestions that they are not even considering today. On March 15, 1955, for instance, the hon. Mr. Drew and the present Prime Minister, asked the government to call a federal-provincial conference to settle this problem of unemployment. But what are they doing now that we have twice the number of unemployed we had then? They would stop us from criticizing the government. One would say, Mr. Speaker, that they are trying to impose closure which they had promised to abolish and which is still on the statute books; another forgotten promise!
When the minister made this statement, in March 1955, there were 403,000 jobless, and in March 1958, there were almost 600,000 unemployed, actually 597,000 jobless. If they were right in painting a dark picture of the situation in Canada at the time, all the more are we justified in describing it as it is to-day.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), among others, also asked for a federal-provincial conference in March 1955.
It is a shame, he said, that the present government should have let the problem get worse and become urgent, even critical, without any agreement being reached between the federal and provincial governments on the steps needed to solve the problem. The solution must be based on an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments.
And yet there were 403,000 unemployed at the time, while there were 597,000 in March 1958 and there is no question of calling a federal-provincial conference.
Another one who with a tearful voice pitied our fellow-citizens while we were living in a period of prosperity and who now denies us the right to tell the truth and criticize the present government is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough).
(Text):
-it is a matter of frightened men and women with cold bodies and hungry stomachs. It is a matter of fear which grips the hearts of working people who are probably employed themselves but see their neighbours idle and who ask themselves: when is it going to happen to me? Certainly, they say, we expect Canada to go ahead.
Of course there was a Liberal regime at that time.
Certain it is that Canada will thrive, but in the meantime what do we eat?
(Translation):
Those are the people, Mr. Speaker, who in good times were knell-tollers, prophets of doom and who would now prevent us from describing the situation as it is to-day. And they go even farther, Mr. Speaker. Not only do they want us to stop criticizing them now, but they anticipate on the future and they are preparing themselves to prevent us from criticizing things about which nothing has been said yet. In their "vision"-and you know, Mr. Speaker, they are somewhat visionary-they invented that we had chided them about their travels. I recall that the Prime Minister indicated in a speech that "some of my hon. friends had allegedly expressed doubts about the usefulness of my world tour." Yet, nobody had spoken about it before, for the simple reason that nobody knew anything about it. The only ones who knew anything about it were himself, his own friends and probably the Minister of Public
402	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Denis Works, who had to act in his place. X hope he is recompensed by the Prime Minister, for taking on those duties.
And speaking of the Prime Minister, has he reported on his trip? No. He discussed the trips made by his predecessors three or four years ago, but he made no mention of the trips made by most of his ministers who, at one point, were outside the country for a certain period of time and merely administered their affairs from abroad. This is so true that at one point a friend of mine remarked: "We have in Canada at this time a cabinet of Sputniks which revolves around the earth and is in the process of disintegrating. If the Prime Minister wishes to compare his trip with that of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, we have no objection to that. We have nothing against the Prime Minister and other ministers making trips at proper times. We do not object to this, provided that things are done according to law and to the prerogatives of parliament, which the Prime Minister treasures so highly. When the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent decided to go on a trip around the world, he asked for and received the assent of all parties in the house after he told them the reasons for the trip. He did as should be done in a democratic country. By contrast, the present Prime Minister left by the rear door, like a child who is afraid to be refused the permission to go.
We could have told him that, in our opinion, it was not to be a profitable trip for the country, that there was enough work to be done here and that it would be preferable to wait for a while, since a captain should not leave his ship when the sea is rough. And heaven knows we had problems to solve here: unemployment, inflation, the matter of freight rates, the increase of telephone rates, the matter of civil servant salaries, beside the embargo on our exports to the U.S.A., on oil, zinc and lead and so on. No, without saying a word to anybody about it, there goes the Prime Minister on a world trip. I say he could have waited.
When a farmer wants to travel, he does not leave his farm when it is time to plough or to harvest, he does not leave when grasshoppers are ruining his fields. This is what I am against.
I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister on having fraternized with other nations of the world, to get to know them better and to open new markets for us, even if we


have ambassadors in those countries. In my opinion, he did not bring us luck by his conduct.
We learned through radio and television that he had moments of leisure. He is entitled to them. But in his leisure hours, he did not have much luck. Indeed, we learned that he went on a tiger hunt. He was no credit to us unfortunately, because on his tiger hunt, he was not a good shot and failed to hit the target. And to think that Canadians have the reputation of being good shots and marksmen. You all remember the Royal 22nd Regiment, don't you?
We saw the picture of the Prime Minister decorated with flowers. That is nothing new for him. We had some here in Canada. If he wanted to be covered with flowers, all he had to do was wait for the budget speech, an occasion when all Conservative members wear blue flowers, free from government tax. We saw the Prime Minister pictured riding an elephant. We were glad to see that he was taking a rest after a tiring day. I am convinced however that he did not go there only to ride on an elephant or to see one. Indeed, he did not have to go that far to see one because we have right here in Canada the nicest white elephant in the world: the present government.
Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned this government's unconcern and vanity, but I did not speak of their inconsistencies or of the way they shirk responsibility. Just recently the producers' strike on the French network of the C.B.C. raised a problem. The government's reaction was a most striking example of the indecision and contradiction that characterizes a government that is marking time and does not know where to go, but is satisfied with its own vanity and its own complacency. The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) declared: We have nothing to do with the strike; the C.B.C. is an independent, autonomous body, we have nothing to do with that, I am not getting involved. A moment later, he stated that the strike was illegal. Now here is a flagrant case of contradiction, of which the Conservatives are so fond. A day or two later, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), who is a member of the same government, declared that the strike was legal and added: "We are watching the situation closely".
Since when, Mr. Speaker, has the cabinet stopped speaking with one voice in Canada? How can you govern when the government

is half yes and half no, when one minister holds a certain view on a particular matter while the others hold a different view? I think it would be well for the Prime Minister to decide whether a Conservative government must be made up of independent ministers who are for or against a thing according to their whims.
The hon. Prime Minister is raising the bill of rights in one hand and the C.B.C. ultimatum in the other.
He asks for suggestions. Why didn't the government follow the example set up by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, when the railroad employees threatened to go on strike in 1950? And yet, the Canadian National is a corporation independent of the crown as well as the C.B.C.; they are a national service as well as the C.B.C. What did Mr. St. Laurent do at that time? He wrote to both parties asking them to try to settle the dispute. He appointed a representative to attend their discussions and when it became evident that it was impossible to prevent the strike, he called parliament into session because he respected the rights and privileges of parliament and he proposed a measure in order to prevent the threatening railroad strike. The hon. Prime Minister wants suggestions, but the example was there. All he had to do was to follow in the footsteps of the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent. These are practical suggestions, but they are not easily accepted indeed because they come from the Liberal party and because the Conservatives are afraid that their opponents might get the whole credit for it.
Here is another contradiction, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes, the Conservatives say that unemployment does not exist, "recession is on the way out," and at other times, they proclaim: "Unemployment exists, but we inherited that from the Liberals, from the United States, from the Russians." The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) recently said in Toronto that if conditions were bad, if the country was faced with inflation, that was the public's own fault. That is one way of evading one's responsibilities. Now here is another contradiction on the part of the government. During the last election campaign, there was talk about a 15 per cent cut on our imports from the United States. Some time later, this was claimed to be no longer important and newspapers were accused of having made a mistake.
Was it not the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) who stated that the Bomarc installations were a secret thing, and soon afterwards he said that surveys were being made with a view to building them
The Address-Mr. Denis near North Bay or Macaza River, a locality situated in the constituency of my hon. friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche)? There, Mr. Speaker, you have irresponsibility, lack of logic and contradiction.
The CF-105 if necessary, but not necessarily the CF-105.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) whom I am very pleased to see now in his place and to whom I am thankful for listening to me with attention, asked for, while he was a member of the opposition, twice a day mail delivery. Since unemployment exists in the country, restoration of this service would give employment to many people. So what did the Postmaster General answer last Friday when he was asked if he was thinking of coming back to the two-a-day delivery? "Not for the time being".
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, our friends from Quebec blamed the Liberal party for voting $20 million for the Colombo plan. They claimed this was giving away our belongings to foreigners. Today, these same gentlemen are sitting in the House of Commons and none of them stood up to criticize what we had done. On the contrary, they raised the contribution to $50 million.
Still in the course of last election campaign, Union Nationale supporters all said that the $1 grant per capita to the universities was an encroachment upon autonomy. Now, the Conservative government raises that grant to $1.50 per capita and we say: "Long live autonomy!"
Some members of the cabinet said that O Canada is our national anthem; other ministers said that God Save the Queen is our national anthem. The rest say neither yes or no.
Some of our friends opposite would like to have a distinctive national flag.


An hon. Member:: In Montreal.


Azellus Denis: The present Prime Minister himself said: "I do not want any flag without the Union Jack."
Mr. Speaker, when a member delivers a speech, and especially in the House of Commons, he must remember that anyone may very well remember what he says. Here is what the Prime Minister said on November 13, 1945, as recorded on page 2089 of the official record:
On the other hand, X cannot see eye-to-eye-and my sentiments so carry me that X must be restrained when I say this-those who would deny
404	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Denis the union jack a permanent and prominent place on the flag of this country; and the place of honour on any flag is the upper quarter.
You see, he even goes into details.
I stand to-day where Mr. Bennett stood in 1938.
That is true. This is the same attitude as that of Mr. Bennett, in regard to the unemployment crisis, the national flag and our national anthem.
"Last year", says he, "there were 400,000 unemployed". To-day, there are 440,000 unemployed. Recession is on the way out. Let's all rejoice, Canadians; we are heading towards disaster, but much more slowly than last year.


An hon. Member:: Alleluia!


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, such statements remind me of a doctor who would say to his patient; "But, my dear boy, you are not ill, you have only 105 degrees of temperature!" But, the next day, when going back to take his patient's temperature, he says: "But, my dear boy, you are cured, you have only 105J degrees".


An hon. Member:: What a joke!


Azellus Denis: Here then, Mr. Speaker, are some contradictions and inconsistencies which I have selected among thousands. I cannot but condemn the present government, ever since it came into power.
Consequently, I shall gladly support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
(Text):
May I conclude by describing in three short statements the condition of affairs for which the government is responsible. The recession is going out-out of control. Inflation is going up-up into the sky. Our state of affairs is going down-down to hell.
Mr. Speaker, for the good of our beloved country and citizens I sincerely hope that in spite of the present government I turn out to be wrong. May I conclude, as a previous speaker a colleague on the Liberal side, has done, by repeating my leader's plea to the government to conclude this debate immediately and proceed at once with legislation to deal with the unemployment problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Azellus Denis: Why not listen? After it has been repeated a hundred times maybe you will understand a good suggestion. So long as this government persists in delaying action the opposition will play its part in this debate, but we are ready to have the vote now and get on with the nation's business.


(Translation):


Mr. C. E. Campeau (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in the congratulations previously offered to the hon. members who respectively moved and seconded the motion in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin).
I have been listening to my hon. friend and colleague from St. Denis (Mr. Denis), and this brought back to my mind-to use up the few minutes remaining before six o'clock-a joke I heard recently. It is about two friends who meet, and one says to the other: "Did you have the radio on last night? There was a speaker who talked and talked and talked on". When the friend inquired what had been the subject, he replied: "Well, he didn't say".
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne affords me the opportunity to express before this house the views of the constituents of St. James, whom I have the honour to represent in the Canadian parliament.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to stress the uniqueness of the constituency of St. James, located as it is in the very heart of the largest Canadian city. Without a doubt, there is no constituency more representative of urban development in Canada. Its dense population of workers and business people is deeply integrated into the economic, industrial and social life of the whole country.
We in St. James, Mr. Speaker, are sick and tired of these longwinded discussions on economic theories that would consider Canadian citizens as so many guinea pigs, theories that are constantly being negated by the facts. We hear talk of recession, inflation, deflation, and of countless other big words ending in "ion", words that are all too often used, Mr. Speaker, to conceal the user's ignorance of the hard facts.
There is one thing, however, that we in St. James, can readily understand, and it is the mechanical sounds of steam shovels and the rap of hammers, sounds that the Conservative government brought to life by authorizing, in the very heart of the constituency of St. James, the construction of the Jeanne Mance homes, which is the first project involving slum clearance and the construction of healthy low rent family dwellings ever to be undertaken in the province of Quebec, following an agreement between both governments, federal and provincial. Works representing more than $10 million are being carried out in St. James

constituency where slums will be replaced by 800 salubrious houses, and the federal government pays 75 per cent of the cost.
Mr. Speaker, what we understand also is the modernization which is going on in Montreal harbour, at a cost of $57 million, and for a large part, in St. James constituency. What we understand, Mr. Speaker, is the work initiated by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), to give to the Jacques Cartier bridge an additional lane and to speed up, as he said this morning, the construction of the Champlain bridge, which had been delayed until the Conservative government, these last few months, took decisive steps.
These things are real, Mr. Speaker; we understand them and we can see them with our own eyes. That is why we in St. James were so glad to hear of the measures outlined in the speech from the throne, particularly those relating to housing, the national development program to be carried out in cooperation with the provinces, emergency projects designed to alleviate unemployment, and particularly projects for the development and the proper use of our national resources and the growth of efficient industry based upon them.
We are proud of that program of national development, because it stresses a desire of growth which makes use of the natural resources with which Providence has so generously endowed our country. We have confidence in this vision of the future that the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker has held up to the people of Canada and which is worthy of the faith of the fathers of confederation, of those who thought, nearly a century ago, of a Canada "a mari usque ad mare". (Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Charles-Édouard Campeau: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak tonight, I would like to welcome the hon. members for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), for Springfield (Mr. Slogan) who sit with us for the first time and for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).
I also take this opportunity to express my satisfaction in seeing you again preside over the debates of the house with this sense of justice and logic and with this serene calm, this pleasant wit so typical of you.
The Address-Mr. Campeau
Before recess this afternoon, I had pointed out that we were proud of the national development program mentioned in the speech from the throne, because it expresses a will to expand similar to the one shown by the fathers of confederation when they wanted, almost a century ago, to make a Canada "a mari usque ad mare". In our opinion, it is in this respect that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has shown his profound understanding of Canada's basic mission as a nation, within the framework of confederation, by offering to all Canadians an opportunity to build by practical stages a Canada by and for all Canadians closely united in a development of which they are willing to pay the price in order that its immense benefits may be secured both for themselves and for their children. We are grateful to the right hon. Prime Minister for devoting all his energy to the realization of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's vision: "The twentieth century belongs to Canada".
Mr. Speaker, in connection with this national development policy based on the functional development of natural resources, I would like to stress the importance of physical and human capital as represented by urban development the most typical expression of which is the constituency of St. James.
The development of cities in Canada has been so rapid that it is now the source of a problem facing the whole Canadian people. More than 65 per cent of the Canadian population now live in the cities, towns or villages, and more than 36 per cent in major metropolitan areas. The Gordon commission foresees that during the next 25 years the urban population will reach 80 per cent of the total Canadian population. This urban expansion will affect more than 2,000 square miles of land and require an extra capital outlay of $4,100 billion for housing, educational and other institutions as well as municipal works.
Obviously this urban expansion requires a concentrated effort to achieve at all levels of government an effective co-ordination of the activities aiming at solving those urban problems which are more and more numerous, important and urgent.
More and more, public works undertaken by the federal government play a necessarily paramount role in the urban development throughout this country.
A realistic approach shows that it is expedient, indeed necessary, that federal

The Address-Mr. Campeau activities be organized so as to tie in with local and regional town planning. In the matter of housing, slum clearance, government buildings and other similar projects, individual projects can and should be mapped out so as to fit in the master plans worked out by the municipalities. Many public works, thus thought out and implemented, could meet federal needs while replacing or at least fitting in the local projects. This procedure could bring to the municipalities in most cases a much more substantial help than grants without giving rise to any constitutional issues. Thus local and regional town planning would be furthered as it has never been in the past.
It can be said without exaggeration that it would be proper to initiate research at the federal government level, in order to establish the relationship that could exist between federal projects on the one hand and municipal projects on the other, as foreseen in the planning schemes of the municipalities. These projects could replace or complete one another in the best interests of the municipalities.
It therefore appears essential and urgent that the national development program be drawn up in such a way as to provide positive help for urban development throughout the country, in fields where federal activity is already intense, such for example as those of natural resources, public works, transportation and communications, and of low cost and low rental housing. Such co-ordination must be achieved at the federal level in order to give practical aid to municipalities that are experiencing growing pains.
As an illustration, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the constituency of St. James, in the context of the Montreal area.
The National Housing Act, and the generous amounts placed at the disposal of builders in the last few months, thanks to the Conservative government, give hopes for a substantial improvement of housing conditions in the very heart of Montreal.
The example set by the Jeanne Mance home building project will certainly be followed by other similar schemes for slum clearance and low rental family dwellings. I wish to assure my constituents of St. James that we will spare no efforts to ensure that the renovation initiated in our constituency will be pursued actively in the future. At this point, I wish to thank my colleague, the

hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) who shared my efforts to secure for the eastern portion of the centre of the city, the benefits of the National Housing Act, and thus to bring forth in the eastern part of the city a development of real estate comparable to that enjoyed by the western portion of centre town.
The harbour is constantly improving and already the wharves are spreading towards the east of the island of Montreal, on the north shore while on the south shore, expansion projects are getting under way in the area of Varennes, Vercheres and Contrecoeur. We have reason to believe that, in the near future, there will be a bridge or a tunnel across Ste. Therese island to connect the harbour developments of the north shore with those of the south shore and to facilitate trading between both shores, while providing an easy access for the working population of the eastern part of the island of Montreal, to this colossal industry which is growing on the south shore and which needs this supply of labour to develop adequately.
The harbour development will require traffic and parking facilities that will have to be integrated with those of the city of Montreal. The harbour's commercial traffic already requires a speedway that could be connected with the multi-lane highway project recommended by the city of Montreal along the harbour, from Place Royale to Bonsecours church, and even further towards the extreme east.
Parking facilities urgently needed at the harbour, both for its employees and visitors who go there on business, could be developed in such a way as to meet on occasion the needs of neighbouring industries.
In the very near future, the development of jet planes will require a decentralization of airport services in Dorval. Consideration should be given right away to providing a functional area to this end, in view of the fact that the urban development of Montreal is rapidly reducing to nothing the great vacant spaces. In view of the intensive industrial development which is taking place in the Vercheres, Varennes and Contrecoeur area, the territory where Ste. Therese island is located should be seriously examined with a view to maintaining and intensifying the residential industrial and harbour development of that expanding area.
The utilization of railway rights of way for public transportation purposes would help to

solve rapidly a major problem facing the economic life of Montreal, and at the same time it would lighten the heavy burden of commuters' services provided by railway companies. The advantage of such a solution would be to fully utilize a capital already invested and to provide the public transportation problem with a solution which would certainly be the most economical and especially the most rapid.
Finally, the construction of public buildings, if their location is integrated in the overall city plan, is a substantial renovating factor, and a creator of real estate increment value which is of benefit to the whole area concerned. We believe that due to the intensive development of the Montreal area, a new concentration of federal services will become advisable in the near future. It would be logical to consider, to this end, the eastern part of central Montreal which would be very convenient for the setting up of an administrative centre. Such a measure, developed in accordance with a functional town-planning concept, would help eradicate slum areas, would provide a radical element of renovation and would encourage, on the part of private enterprise, large scale programs to the advantage of the whole eastern part of the island of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I speak on behalf of the citizens of St. James constituency in expressing our confidence in the future of Montreal, of the province of Quebec and of Canada.
We are not afraid of recessions, regressions and inflation. We do not allow ourselves to be frightened more than necessary by the prophets of doom who unconsciously interfere with the good name of their own national institutions. We are not happy with unemployment, but we don't enjoy either the abstract calculations of so-called experts who are ready to oiler solutions to any problem, remedies unable to withstand the dire laws of reality.
Once again, we prefer the measures initiated by the present government, the ones tending to increase the credits for housing, to eliminate railway crossings and other such measures, without mentioning again the ones I outlined a moment ago. We don't want to be stopped by a short sighted pessimism, generating fear, inaction and procrastination.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, our arms, our intelligences, our hearts, will be put actively to the service of our country, so that the difficult moments could give way to a continued growth and that our children could be proud of our achievements.
We believe in the greatness of Canada, and to follow in the footsteps of Macdonald
The Address-Mr. Tucker and Cartier, we want to set in the stone, brick and concrete, for the benefit of the following generations, an unlimited vision of the future of Canada.
(Text):


Mr, J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to add my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Their presentations reflected credit on themselves, their constituencies and this house. At this time I should also like to say that you, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the chairman of the committee of the whole have certainly carried out the duties of your respective offices in a dignified manner and in a way very acceptable to all parties in the house.
I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to be the Liberal representative for the riding of Trinity-Conception, Newfoundland, which riding takes in many settlements in Conception and Trinity bays. My riding has a population of approximately 58,000 and I intend to work in the interests of these people as long as I have the honour to represent them. The riding begins at Brigus, approximately 50 miles from St. John's, and goes north to cape Bonavista where John Cabot is said to have first sighted land when he discovered Newfoundland in 1497.
I regret to have to inform the house that there is much unemployment in my riding, as there is all over Newfoundland, and many Newfoundlanders have already stated that we are being treated as second-class Canadians. But I say now without fear of contradiction that we are just as good a type of Canadian as you will find in any other part of Canada.
We have been waiting for months for the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to make a statement on the McNair report respecting term 29 and Tories and Liberals alike in Newfoundland are expecting an upward revision based on this report. In term 29 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada there is written the consummation of the union of Newfoundland with Canada, the grand finale of the linking of two British dominions, the dominion of Newfoundland with the dominion of Canada, and as in the marriage ceremony one and one when joined together make one. So we now have one great dominion, the great dominion of Canada which stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic. As it is said that the twentieth century belongs to Canada, Canada is now called upon to act generously to her newly adopted child at a time when the ruling
408	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tucker government of Canada has the greatest number of elected representatives since the Dominion of Canada came into existence.
Newfoundland has been a province of Canada for the past ten years. Let us compare it with some of our other provinces, for example the maritime provinces. We will see how far behind any of these provinces Newfoundland stands today through no fault of her own but because we have so much time and progress to make up. Newfoundland will be far behind even the maritimes until the federal government of Canada meets its obligations to the latest adopted member of the Canadian family. In a province where road communications, schools, public buildings and other public services were so far behind the other provinces the Newfoundland government has done a tremendous job during the past ten years with the finances at its disposal. But the people have had to be taxed to help to get these public services and the government has gone into debt even to the extent of floating large loans which must eventually be repaid with interest.
Never before in the history of any nation or the government of any country was such an opportunity presented as is now facing the government of Canada to show its righteousness, its sense of justice and sense of welfare for its own family as in the case of Newfoundland. This is not a party measure, Mr. Speaker, where Conservatives, Liberals and C.C.F. can be divided on the issue. This is a case where all parties must combine to achieve a just and reasonable solution to the problem so that in the years that lie ahead Canadians yet unborn can refer to the legislation passed on this occasion with pride and respect because they will be able to say that when Canada and the government of Canada were weighed in the balance on this occasion in 1959 they met the issue fairly and squarely and were considerate and generous in their decision to award sufficient financial assistance to Newfoundland to carry on and to reach the standard attained by the maritime provinces in their public services.
This standard reached or hoped to be reached in the public service of Newfoundland must be accomplished without resorting to taxation more burdensome than that existing in the maritime provinces. This was only inserted to make up a number of minds because it is a recognized fact that the cost of living in Newfoundland is the highest in Canada. Taxes are tremendously high, even more burdensome than anywhere else in Canada.
I would suggest to the Prime Minister and to all parties in this parliament that they be generous toward Newfoundland in


reaching their decision. I should like to say that here and now there should be a clause inserted in the legislation to the effect that our decision and financial award should be reviewed again within a certain period of time so that the spirit as well as the letter of term 29 will be observed. Do not let it be said of us, as representatives of the people of Canada, that the province and people of Newfoundland came unto their own, and their own received them not, as is recorded in history in respect of Him who was born in a stable at Bethlehem. Let us not fail Newfoundland, and let us not discredit the great Dominion of Canada in this, the twentieth century, the century that the great Laurier said belonged to Canada.
Because of the failure of the fishery, a large majority of the fishermen in Newfoundland, through no fault of their own, did not get enough stamps to get unemployment insurance. We had in the Newfoundland cod fishery the worst crop failure in Canada. All Liberal members from Newfoundland join in strong representations to the Prime Minister that something should be done for these fishermen, something comparable with what the government did for the farmers in the west. All Newfoundland fishermen were disappointed when on Tuesday, January 20, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) told us that nothing could be done for our fishermen. On page 78 of Hansard for that date there was a supplementary question asked of the minister by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) as follows:
Did I understand the minister to say consideration is no longer being given to a reduction in the number of stamps required by fishermen for unemployment insurance?
The minister answered as follows:
I said, sir, no consideration is being given to reducing the 15 stamps that are required for seasonal benefits at the moment, and that includes everyone.
Newfoundland fishermen, work hard and long, from daylight to sunset. They worked a sufficient number of hours but they did not get enough fish to enable them to obtain sufficient stamps to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. This regulation is just not fair to our Newfoundland fishermen. I again appeal to the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter and to give these fishermen who are in great need the same consideration as was given to the farmers last September. Last year there were more men prosecuting the fishery than for a number of years, but still there were less fish caught than in previous years. There was less salt

fish produced than in any year on record. As a matter of fact, we had a decrease of 40 per cent in lightly salted fish and 35 per cent in heavily salted fish.
In addition to our salt fish industry we annually export to the United States of America approximately 60 million pounds of fresh frozen fish. In 1958 there were approximately 450 million pounds of fish caught, 100 million pounds less than in the previous year. A shortage of bait, the failure of the trawl and trap fisheries and stormy weather were amongst the -chief factors for the failure of the shore fisheries. The federal department has taken steps to have mobile bait units placed in a few fishing settlements. I urge the government to send more to Newfoundland because I am convinced that while these depots will not solve the main difficulties they will go a long way toward helping the fishermen.
At the present time it looks as if there will be more men prosecuting the fishery in 1959 than there have been for a number of years. I sincerely hope that their efforts will be amply repaid. For more than 100 years the cod trap, hook and line and trawls have been the methods of shore fishing in Newfoundland. We have now approximately 70,500 fishermen in 1,300 settlements along our 6,000 miles of rugged but picturesque coastline. It can be seen, therefore, that the fisheries still are, as they have been, one of our main industries and every effort should be made by this government to see that all measures are taken to protect and assist this most important industry which can and should be further developed. When we consider the nature of the inshore fishing, and the present system followed by our shore fishermen, we can see that salt fish will be produced mainly for many years to come.
I understand that for a number of years the building of fish stages has been under consideration, and recently the federal government approved of the construction of some 20 community fish stages in Newfoundland. It is estimated, I believe, the cost will be $500,000, and the sites selected are supposed to be in the areas most affected by the failure of the fishery in 1958. At the present time the fishermen have their own fish stages for landing their fish, their own storerooms for salting their fish and their own flakes for drying their fish. These community stages should be a great help in producing a more uniform quality of fish, and should enable our fishermen to operate more efficiently. I understand that two of these stages are to be built in the riding of Trinity-Conception in the near future. I hope that more will be built next year.
The Address-Mr. Tucker
I would strongly recommend that these community stages be erected in the late fall and early spring rather than during the winter because high seas and stormy weather make it practically impossible for the men to work and produce anything worth while for their efforts. Last year most of the bait that we had in our cold storage was sold to competitors, and we had to bring in bait.
Some 400,000 pounds of European squid were brought to Newfoundland. Steps should be taken to see that this does not happen again. Instead steps should be taken to see that all the cold storages are filled to capacity if and when bait of the species of caplin, squid, herring and mackerel are available. Reports of stocks should be presented weekly to the department concerned. The question of distribution of bait to our fishermen, in addition to the mobile units, should be given serious consideration and a trial period for bait distribution should be initiated. Further research should be continued with regard to the non-appearance of squid last year and a new method of catching bait should be studied.
In Newfoundland today we have another problem, namely that of our coastal fleet which is practically a thing of the past. Newfoundland is an island and coastal boats or freighters are and will be required to take provisions and supplies to many of our settlements. I think the time is now opportune for giving assistance in the matter of the building of schooners of from 100 gross tons to 200 gross tons for this important purpose, especially when we consider the fact that most of our coastal boats are nigh ready for the scrap heap and are not being replaced and supplemented at a sufficient pace to keep up the poor service now in existence, let alone improve it.
It is estimated that approximately $400,000 is spent annually by Newfoundland boat operators outside of Newfoundland. The lack of docking facilities and its effect upon efficiency and the cost of boat operations in Newfoundland requires immediate action. Dockyard facilities are badly needed to service ships, schooners, boats and longliners registered in Newfoundland. Last year I suggested-and I do so again-that docking facilities be established in Harbour Grace, Clarenville, St. Anthony, Corner Brook, Burin and Bay Bulls. The C.N.R. dock at St. John's is not able to handle the number of boats requiring its facilities, one reason being that it must, or at least it should, look after its own boats first.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) is said to have stated that reports from across the
410	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Tucker country revealed that the national winter employment program was providing jobs for many unemployed and that the winter works incentive program introduced by the federal government was meeting with co-operation from provincial and municipal authorities. That may be correct, Mr. Speaker, as to provinces on the mainland but it has not helped to solve the problem of unemployment in any way in Newfoundland. All provinces of Canada may differ from one another but Newfoundland differs more greatly than any other and her problems should receive special consideration.
Outside St. John's and Corner Brook there are in Newfoundland no municipalities in the sense that they exist on the mainland; and for most of Newfoundland there is no municipal organization in the province with the power or resources to carry out such works. In eastern Newfoundland some 17,500 persons were registered as unemployed with the unemployment insurance commission in St. John's on January 17, and I would say that almost as many more were unemployed and not registered, many of whom are excluded for many reasons. Of course, this figure does not include the lumbermen who are out of work because of labour disputes. I sincerely hope that the present strike will soon come to an end in order that the economy of Newfoundland may not be affected.
Mr. Speaker, freight rate increases are playing havoc in Newfoundland. Twelve increases have been granted in the past ten years, the same number of years that Newfoundland has been a province of Canada. These increases have helped to drive the cost of living for all Canadians to a high level; but for the Atlantic province they have driven it to a height that makes living for the residents of these provinces both burdensome and back breaking. For Newfoundland, still with its antiquated non-Canadian type railway, the last increase in freight rates has been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Is this the position the government took with regard to this last request from the railways for an increase and which the board of transport commissioners granted, because they chose to accept the lesser of two evils, refuse the increase and have a railway strike on their hands and face what they consider to be a national disaster by the tie-up of the railways? But what consideration did they give to the major part of Canadian citizens when they well knew that the granting of this latest raise in freight rates would affect every single Canadian from the Pacific


to the Atlantic and drive up to an unprecedented high the already burdensome cost of living?
The provinces, especially the maritimes, have long since requested the government to renew and revise the freight rate structure, but to date little has been done; and as I have already stated the continuation of increases in freight rates tends to make the mode of living that much harder in Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, this granting of freight rate increases is not the solution to the railway difficulties. This granting of freight rate increases is slowly but surely destroying the faith of the Canadian people in this government of ours. It is increasing beyond the point of endurance and acceptability the cost of living for our people. It is creating unemployment. It is forcing the federal government and the governments of the provinces to dispense social assistance beyond the expectations of even the wisest statesmen's dreams, for that would be the score in Canada in 1959.
Our hopes, our aspirations and our determination to make Canada a great nation cannot be achieved by transactions such as those we have witnessed. We must here and now find a better solution to the problems of our railway than by shifting the burden of its deficiency on to the shoulders of our already overtaxed people.
The provincial minister of the department of highways of Newfoundland recently stated that the total length of the highway from Port aux Basques to St. John's will be approximately 568 miles. Twenty-five miles of this is through the national park which is a federal responsibility. This leaves a distance of 542 miles to be built by the province of Newfoundland. Of this, 256 miles have already been built and are ready for paving. Thirty-five miles have been paved, leaving 286 miles to be built and a total of 508 miles to be paved.
The minister estimated the cost of building the highway would be $31,500,000 for the construction of 286 miles and $22,600,000 for the paving of 508 miles and $4,223,000 for the building or construction of 34 bridges making a grand total of $58,225,000 to be spent on roads. With the present agreement between the province and the federal government Newfoundland will have to spend $28,112,000. The minister further stated that Newfoundland has to build more miles of the trans-Canada highway per capita than any other province in Canada. He also said that when the present agreement expires in 1960 he feels a more realistic division of cost

should be agreed upon; otherwise the trans-Canada highway from St. John's to Vancouver will not be completed for at least another ten years.
I hope that the speech which I have just delivered will not have fallen on deaf ears but that the present government will give serious consideration to many of the problems of Newfoundland which because of many factors are unique. I should like to tell the government that we are not seeking something to which we are not entitled.
At this time I wish to repeat my leader's appeal to the government to conclude this debate immediately and proceed at once with legislation to deal with the unemployment problem. As long as the government persists in prolonging the debate and delaying action the Liberal party will take its part in the debate but we are ready to have the vote now and get on with the nation's business.


Mr. J. C. MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Provencher brought to the attention of this house in his masterful way the viewpoint, the problems and the aspirations of the western farmer. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet in that beautiful French language expressed very clearly not only the wish but the need for complete national unity of all those ethnic groups that make up our nation. I should like to express the thought that on March 31, 1958 in the general election held on that day one of the most forward steps in national unity since confederation was taken by the good people of Quebec when they sent to this house 50 Conservative members of the 75 who were elected from "la belle" province.
I could not let this opportunity pass, Mr. Speaker, without saying a few words about your person. I have had the privilege of sitting in this house in the 23rd parliament and, of course, in the first session of the 24th parliament under your chairmanship. I have been deeply impressed as I know all hon. members have been by your fairness, your great knowledge of procedure and especially by your keen sense of humour. In this debate it is permissible for an hon. member to discuss his constituency. I should like to follow that precedent and for a part of the time at my disposal this evening discuss the constituency of York-Sunbury, New Brunswick, a beautiful part of a beautiful province. For the past 36 years York-Sunbury has had only four members in this house and I should like to pay my tribute to their service.
The Address-Mr. MacRae
For 19 years our representative was the Hon. R. B. Hanson, minister of trade and commerce in the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and later leader of the official opposition. For a period of five years it was represented by the Hon. W. G. Clark, later lieutenant-governor of our province. From 1945 to 1947, following his return from war service, our representative was the Hon. H. F. G. Bridges as minister of fisheries. It was a great loss not only to his party and to the government of the day but to the country as a whole when the life of this able young man was cut short in 1947. From 1947 to 1957 York-Sunbury was represented by the Hon. Milton F. Gregg, V.C., whose portfolio for much of that time was that of labour. These hon. gentlemen represented York-Sunbury well and I am happy to be able to have this opportunity to pay this tribute to them.
The city of Fredericton is the largest centre in my constituency. Founded by the United Empire Loyalists in 1884 it is the seat of government for the province of New Brunswick. It has grown rapidly in the past dozen years, a condition which we hope to see continue. Nearby is the cotton milling town of Marysville. I would like to pause for just a moment at this point to express the thanks of the people of Marysville to the government for legislation passed in the previous session, the so-called anti-dumping legislation, which has made it possible for the major industry in this town to continue and to prosper. The textile industry as everyone knows is highly competitive. The legislation to which I have referred provides some degree of protection against the dumping of foreign textiles on the Canadian market which have been forcing our textile mills out of production. One year ago in this small mill there were 110 men and women employed. Today 200 are employed.
Fredericton is on the trans-Canada highway. A beautiful new bridge known as the Princess Margaret bridge will be officially opened this summer. Nearby, too, is the dominion experimental farm which is a credit to the Department of Agriculture and the government service as a whole. Within a few weeks construction of a new administration and science laboratory is to be commenced there costing in the neighbourhood of $1,750,000. Fredericton has its own municipal airport. However, the great expansion of the area has made the present facilities inadequate. Representations have been made to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) about this and I would ask his full co-operation which I am sure will be forthcoming in
412	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. MacRae giving consideration to the legitimate requests which have been made by the city administration.
York-Sunbury also has other communities of some importance, the railway centre of MacAdam and the Minto coal mining area. I share with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks) the honour of representing the fine people in this area. I was deeply distressed as I am sure all hon. members of the house were to hear that there are to be temporary lay-offs in the Nova Scotian coal fields.
The employment picture in Minto has been brighter this winter than for several years past. And while I am discussing unemployment I might mention that I took the opportunity this afternoon to check the employment figures in my constituency and I found that there are 300 fewer people unemployed today than there were a year ago.
Now I should like to tell the house for a few moments about Camp Gagetown. Here in York-Sunbury and Royal is located what is considered to be one of the finest and most modern military installations in the world. The camp area contains over 500 square miles of the finest military training country in Canada, comprising training ranges, general manoeuver areas and localities for exercises for almost all types of warfare from jungle to mountain fighting. Secondly, there is the administration of the camp, with its more than 100 beautiful and functional buildings. Thirdly, and adjacent, is the married quarters where 2,000 homes provide service men and their families with excellent accommodation. Construction of this camp was begun in 1953 and it was officially opened on July 1, 1958 by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes).
Beside the camp, where there was formerly only a small village known as Oro-mocto, there is growing a new city under a federal-provincial planning committee. Presently stationed at Camp Gagetown is the third Canadian infantry brigade group, a formation well-officered, well-manned and well-trained, and containing over 3,000 of Canada's finest soldiers. Camp Gagetown has had a marked effect on the economy of our province. It cost in the neighbourhood of $100 million to build. The annual payroll of servicemen and civilians is around $15 million. One example of its effect on our economy is the fact that in its central heating plant alone up to 300 tons of New Brunswick coal is burned every day in the winter time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the economic needs and aspirations of my province as a whole. During the past two
[Mr. MacRae. 1

years especially great strides have been made. The program of power development in the Atlantic provinces, which is part of the policy of this present government, is of vital importance. Without electric power readily available at reasonable cost industry cannot function. The bill passed in the twenty-third parliament to lend $30 million to New Brunswick for the Beechwood hydro development was hailed in all parts of the province. The assistance which was promised, and which will be given in due course, to promote thermal power development will be of inestimable value. I need hardly say that the equalization grants paid to New Brunswick and to the other Atlantic provinces have had a most beneficial effect on our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to give further consideration to the following measures to develop not only New Brunswick but the whole Atlantic area. First, federal capital assistance to develop our resources. Our region is rich in minerals and forests but without federal aid we cannot develop them to the advantage of our area and the rest of Canada. I was deeply interested, as I am sure all members from the maritimes were interested, in the particular clause from the speech from the throne which read as follows:
My government will continue in its economic policies to lay emphasis upon national development. My ministers believe that by the wise use of the resources with which nature has endowed this country, Canadians can achieve a continually rising standard of living. My government will therefore foster and encourage the proper development and use of these resources and the growth of efficient industry based upon them. Many projects for national development have already been put in hand; you will be asked to vote the supply necessary to continue these projects and to initiate others.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot have national development on its full scale unless every part of our nation is developed. There can be no second-class Canadians and there can be no second-class areas of Canada. I would urge our government to look towards the east. We in the maritimes, now as never before, require assistance on a grand scale to bring ourselves out of the financial doldrums in which we have found ourselves for nearly a century.
Our second request of the government is for a capital projects program which would provide federal assistance for provincial projects to enlarge the basic economy of our area. The Chignecto canal and the Prince Edward Island causeway are examples. We are proud, as all Canadians should be, of the magnificent St. Lawrence seaway, but one of the effects of the seaway could be to injure the great Atlantic all-year ports of Halifax and Saint John. We in the maritimes

also contributed to the building of the seaway. I would ask the government, through its appropriate minister, to press with vigour the investigation which is being conducted with regard to the Chignecto canal. We in the Atlantic provinces may again have to look to the sea for the shipment of the products of our region. The Chignecto canal should be of inestimable value from a transportation point of view.
Hon. members may remenber the former member for Westmorland making a very humorous suggestion-I think it was during the course of the twenty-third parliament- to the effect that both the canal project and the causeway project should be carried out at the same time by digging out the Chignecto canal and dumping the material into the strait to form the causeway. Unfortunately, the idea would not work.
Third, we would ask for a program of industrial decentralization. We note that as time goes on more and more industries are being concentrated in the central part of Canada, especially defence industries and crown corporations. We can well remember that during world war II very few defence industries were established in the maritime provinces. The minister of the Liberal government at that time made a statement in defence of this policy when he said: "After all, what would we do with them when the war is over?" In this day of nuclear warfare, dispersion is one of the basic principles of defence. We have the electric power and we can obtain more to turn the wheels of industry. We have the manpower-and it is good manpower-to staff the factories. All we need is a policy of decentralization which will locate those industries in the Atlantic region. I would ask our government to keep that in mind at all times.
Fourth, I would urge the government to implement a transportation policy which will provide the opportunity for our products to be carried to and sold in the markets of Canada at competitive prices. The recent increase in the freight rates of from 17 to 21 per cent was a crippling blow to us. There is an application pending for further increases which, if granted, could be the straw that could break the proverbial camel's back in our area. It is the long haul shippers of the Atlantic provinces who are hardest hit by the freight rate increase. With each increase it becomes harder for the Atlantic provinces to compete successfully in central Canadian markets. Each increase raises the price to both Atlantic region manufacturers and consumers of the goods and raw materials they import. A special committee of government is now studying this problem and legislation is
The Address-Mr. MacRae to be brought down at this session. I hope that the deliberations and the legislation will provide a solution, but no half way measures will serve here. Legislation will not be of help unless there is a formula to protect us from the ravages of future freight rate increases.
One of the most forward steps taken in the Atlantic area in the last few years to raise the standard of living in our region has been the creation of the Atlantic provinces economic council, usually referred to as APEC.
APEC was formed in September of 1954. Its whole purpose was the improvement of the economic status of the area. It cuts across all lines. It embodies all people in all walks of life. The only requirement of those who wish to belong to this organization is that they must want to really contribute to the growth of the Atlantic region. Some of the projects which they have successfully sponsored have been exhibitions of maritime products, area trade fairs and the opening of the Atlantic provinces office in London, England.
APEC is attempting to attract the interest of industry and trade bodies to the possibility of establishing in the Atlantic area branches, outlets and purchasing centres. Its main function at the moment is as a fact-finding organization and then to stimulate the people of the area into economic action on the basis of the facts that it makes available. A former president of APEC expresses it this way:
APEC's basic interest lies in a man with an idea, a government with a policy and an organization with a plan, all designed to produce economic betterment for the Atlantic region and for Canada as a nation.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, finally to discuss for a few moments an item in connection with our basic resource, namely our forests. New Brunswick, or most of its area, is covered with spruce and fir. I believe as an individual that we are not utilizing to its fullest extent the potential that is there. We know from experience what can happen when a resource is depleted through unwise use and exploitation. I had the opportunity recently of reading the brief presented by the Canadian lumbermen's association to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton). This body presented a number of extremely valuable recommendations, especially concerning research and I would urge the minister to have his officials thoroughly consider the recommendations of this association. While their proposals must of necessity be viewed from a national basis yet, as I said, because the forests of our province are its greatest asset, those proposals vitally affect us in New Brunswick-

The Address-Mr. Leduc
I have covered those points in connection with my constituency and my province which I wished to bring before the house at this time and in so doing have tried to emphasize the needs of the people whom I represent. May I sum up by saying that we believe- those of us who live in the Atlantic community-that we are entitled to the benefits of opportunity and security, which shall be no more, but shall certainly be no less, than all Canadians have the right to enjoy. I believe that this government, which has proven in fewer than two years to be one of the ablest administrations since confederation, will do everything in its power to see that this objective is attained.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I followed closely and with great interest the speeches of the different members who spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I noticed that all of them have commended you for the impartial manner in which you preside over the debates of the house.
Mr. Speaker, not only do I offer you my most sincere congratulations, but I wish that the government, and particularly the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), would implement the election promise that was made to the people of Canada, that of appointing a permanent Speaker. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a speech that the present Prime Minister made in Carman, Manitoba, on May 15, 1957, as reported in a Canadian press report in the Ottawa Journal:
(Text):
Mr. Diefenbaker's proposal on parliamentary change contained two points not previously stated in his campaign to date:
First, appointment of a permanent Speaker of the House of Commons in the British tradition, to remove him from "partisan politics".
His proposals on parliamentary changes were made here as he renewed his criticism of government actions during last year's bitter commons pipe line debate.
He said the government had made the Speaker a "party pawn" during the debate.
In the past the speakership had alternated in each parliament between English and French-speaking members.
"I believe that to preserve parliament both races would agree to putting the Speaker above party politics."
I fully agree with this statement, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that during this session, after the legislation is introduced to deal first of all with the unemployment situation, the government will bring in legislation to appoint Your Honour as permanent speaker.
I wish also to extend my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and the chairman of

the committee of the whole house. In the past they have performed their duties admirably.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to offer my congratulations to the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Fortin). They have both performed admirably the task they had been entrusted with. I also wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for his wonderful speech.
Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that, in my opinion, the two most important problems which are confronting the country at present are unemployment and inflation.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and I noticed that he had been rather unfair in his remarks.	He charged the
opposition with offering mere criticisms without submitting any constructive suggestion to alleviate this serious problem. I take exception to the words of the minister, and I would like to quote to this house what he said on January 22, 1959, as recorded on page 188 of Hansard. Here is what he said:
If we had from the members of the opposition the same co-operation and constructive and reasonable suggestions as we get from the provinces and the municipalities and organizations and individuals across this country who are endeavouring to co-operate with us to overcome and alleviate the situation, we would put thousands of people to work. But we are not getting that co-operation from the opposition. All we are getting is destructive criticism.
Well, Mr. Speaker, last year I made in this house some constructive and practical suggestions to solve the unemployment problem in my constituency. For the information of the minister and of other members let me read what I said in my speech of May 22, and I quote page 387 of Hansard:
The speech from the throne announces a vast program of public works throughout the country to help the unemployed. In studying it carefully,
I find that few of them will be carried out in my riding. The problem will not be solved until there is an agreement between the federal, provincial and municipal governments for the undertaking of realistic and useful works to create employment.
I would point out to the minister and to this house that I did not mention only winter works. I mentioned works that could be carried out any time in co-operation with the municipal and provincial governments.
I said:
Well, I am going to suggest works of federal responsibility which could be carried out in the riding of Gatineau. Public wharves could be built on some lakes and rivers. In the Gatineau district

the tourist industry ranks second in importance in the constituency. Thousands of tourists come there each year to spend their vacation, either to rest and admire the natural beauty of our lakes, forests and mountains, or for fishing and hunting. Vacationing attracts thousands of tourists, especially American tourists because part of the constituency is located in the area of the national capital, about 60 miles from the border of the most populous state of the United States, the state of New York. Those tourists complain that there are no public wharves on many lakes, which causes considerable difficulties. The government should start the construction of four wharves for which plans and estimates have been prepared by the Department of Public Works, that is: one on lake St. Marie, one at Maniwaki, one at Val des Bois, and one at Notre Dame de la Salette.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that since then I received an answer from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and that those four wharves have been refused.
The development of Gatineau park, the only national park in the province of Quebec, might be immediately carried out, which would give employment to hundreds of workless people. Incidentally, I would ask my colleagues in this house, and particularly hon. members from the province of Quebec, to visit Gatineau national park which is unique in the province.
As a matter of fact, it is the only national park in the province of Quebec.
The public park and beach which last year were given to the Federal District Commission by the town of Aylmer might also be developed right away and jobs be created for a great number of unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, I was told by the Federal District Commission that they had not enough money to develop that park. I hope that the government will make available to the new National Capital Commission the money required to develop that park in the beautiful city of Aylmer. I also said:
A vast program of public works to be pursued jointly with the provincial and municipal governments might also be launched.
As I said, the winter work program is not enough, and I submit the government does not make a sufficient contribution to the cost of these municipal projects.
There are roads to build and to improve, bridges to span and protecting walls to erect in order to prevent erosion . . . bridges-
Talking about bridges, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the bridge connecting Hull and Ottawa. It is the first time I have dealt with that subject on the floor of the house. It is an interprovincial bridge. The construction of that bridge does not concern only the federal government but also the provinces of Ontario and Quebec as well as the cities of Ottawa and Hull. I have read in the press that the premier of the province of Quebec had stated that if the
The Address-Mr. Leduc federal government wanted a new bridge between Hull and Ottawa it had but to build it at its own expense.
Mr. Speaker, here is my personal view on that matter, and I leave it with the government. In my opinion, the Quebec government is responsible for part of cost of building that bridge and it should pay its share. If it refuses, this government does not have to pay the share of that province, since the bridge connecting Hull and Ottawa serves not only the city of Hull but also the Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle ridings, as well as the south shore of the Ottawa river, while the people from Abitibi and north-western Quebec have to use it to get to the federal capital.
The province of Quebec has a responsibility and it should pay its own share, the same as it did for the Calumet island bridge. If the federal government backs up on that point, what will happen of the responsibility of the province of Quebec as far as the water pollution of the Ottawa river is concerned? The province of Ontario and the city of Ottawa are ridding the Ottawa river of the sewers discharging into it. On the other hand, on the Quebec side, the sewage of Aylmer, Deschenes, Hull, Gatineau Point and Gatineau Mills flows into the Ottawa river. How is it possible to solve the problem of water pollution in the Ottawa river if the city of Ottawa is the only one to take steps along these lines? The province of Quebec is responsible for the purifying on the Quebec side of the river. There are other bridges to be built. As my hon. friend the member for Carle-ton (Mr. Bell) mentioned, a bridge between Deschenes and Britannia is essential. The province of Quebec must face its responsibilities and the federal government, in my opinion, unless it intends to make a gift to the province of Quebec, should limit itself to paying its own share only.
Mr. Speaker, I read in the papers over the week-end that the members of the new national capital commission had been appointed. Unfortunately, I do not know personally all those who have been appointed on that commission. However, I would like to congratulate the government for having appointed General Kennedy as chairman of that commission. General Kennedy has done a tremendous job with that commission. I have no doubt that the new members of the commission will do a wonderful job of
416	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Leduc giving to the region a development plan worthy of our national capital. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Morin, of the city of Aylmer in my constituency, for having been appointed as a representative of all the municipalities of the province of Quebec on the national capital commission.
I have a few suggestions to make, Mr. Speaker, on the development of the Gatineau park, and I would like at the same time to tell you how happy I was last summer to read in the papers that the right hon. Prime Minister had accepted the house made available to him by the federal district commission on lake Harrington. I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister has been able to rest in that lovely site in my constituency. I know also that the constituents of Gatineau have been pleased to learn through the newspapers that Princess Margaret had spent a few days rest there. Incidentally, I am privileged for not only does the right hon. Prime Minister spend his summer vacation in my constituency, but the Leader of the Opposition also has his summer residence a few miles from Chelsea. As for you, Mr. Speaker, I know you have spent happy hours in Mr. Mackenzie King's former residence.
I said that I had a few suggestions to make with regard to the development of Gatineau park. You all know that the federal district commission is now building a driveway and preparing plans for the full development of that park. It seems to me that the commission should undertake at once the biological study of all lakes in the park and destroy any harmful fish. It would be important also to set up in Gatineau park a fish-breeding station and to stock all these lakes with fish, so that the development program should be complete and that the public might enjoy all the benefits it offers.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I listened to the speeches delivered by my hon. friends opposite, and I have noted that several of them had made a marvellous discovery. In fact, many of them did not know that there existed in Canada a housing act prior to the coming into power of our hon. friends. According to them, the National Housing Act was a revelation, especially as regards my friend from York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). Last year, more than 135,000 houses were built. I say to my hon. friend and to his colleagues that in 1955 the then Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. 

Winters, gave in Toronto the key to the thousandth house built under this plan. We had already built, in 1955, one million houses beside all those that had been built under the Veterans' Land Act, and beside all the other houses that had been built during the war to lodge the workers around the plants.
I congratulate the government for having made housing more readily available. But I ask the government: what have you done by way of housing for large families? What have you done to help families with five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 12 and 15 children?
What have you done? The answer is quite simple: nothing. You have done nothing whatsoever to help large families find suitable homes. And, Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the problem that faces a man who has a large family and is unemployed in this day and age. You are also aware that property owners dislike large families. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the government could easily make it possible for the heads of large families to own their own home. If there is a particular class of citizens that deserves sympathy and attention on the part of the government, surely it is that of the heads of large families. Are there any people who accept greater sacrifices for their country than those who raise a family of eight, nine, ten, twelve and even fifteen children?


Louis Fortin: They have had compensations.


Rodolphe Leduc: You say they have had compensations. Would you specify?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Gatineau?


Rodolphe Leduc: If the hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could he tell us how many children he has?


Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I will not mention the constituency of the hon. member, because I have too much respect for those who represented it previously-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You are not in Quebec city.


Rodolphe Leduc: If there is a group of citizens that is entitled to some attention from the government, surely it is the group that supplies the country with men and women to replace the dying generation. If the government really wanted to help large families, it could do so through family allowances. In

my opinion, family allowances, a social measure which was adopted by the Liberals and supported by certain Conservatives, are the ideal way to help large families. However, Mr. Speaker, keeping on the same subject, I have found one thing: reading through all the promises made by the present Prime Minister in the last two election campaigns, I find that he never mentioned that he would raise family allowances. He did mention that he would raise all pensions, but there is not a word, in his two volumes of promises, concerning an increase in family allowances.
Mr. Speaker, the government could very easily help large families. It might pass a bill providing that the rates of family allowances be doubled for families of five or six children or more. Such an increase would help men with a large family to build themselves a home so that their children might be housed properly.
Mr. Speaker, may I, for a few minutes, comment upon the great problem of unemployment. I discussed the same problem last year. The hon. members will probably applaud at my statement, and I am proud to make such a statement, to the effect that in my constituency, the unemployment situation is less severe this year than last year. And I am quite happy at this. However, certain cases are much more pitiful this year. Last year nearly all the unemployed could get, at least, the seasonal benefits, but this year, many unemployed have not been able to work long enough to accumulate at least 15 weeks of stamps. Today, they are without work and they cannot receive the benefits.
Mr. Speaker, before I close these remarks may I say that I listened with great interest to the speech the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) delivered last Tuesday, to that part especially where he said, and I quote from page 85 of Hansard:
I wonder where were these brave fighters for Liberalism when the dictates and pressures of Mr. C. D. Howe steamrolled certain measures through this house?
These words bring me to the matter of the closure rule that our hon. friends opposite were to abolish.
(Text):
I shall read from a report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 26 1957:
Mr. Diefenbaker reiterated his charge that the Liberal government has denied its responsibility to the people's elected representatives in parliament. Parliament had been "sorely wounded and robbed of its rights".
A Conservative government would abolish closure, the parliamentary device used last year to limit debate and permit passage by a government deadline of the controversial natural gas pipe line legislation. It would be abolished to prevent possible misuse in future.
The Address-Mr. Vivian (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to . . .
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: It seems rather an inopportune time to remind the hon. member that his time has expired but I am afraid I must do so.


Mr. Percy Vivian (Durham):: Mr. Speaker,
as the member of parliament for the historic county of Durham in the province of Ontario I rise at this very late hour to take part in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In doing so I wish to express admiration for and extend most hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), not only for their very able and most inspiring statements but also for their having been granted the signal honour of being the mover and seconder of this address.
Traditionally the gracious throne speech itself sets forth the intent of the government of the day with respect to its actions in the ensuing parliament and describes what it proposes to do for the people of the country. Although that is traditional I believe that on this occasion there is more than tradition involved. I feel that this particular throne speech does much more. The words of the gracious speech are quite clear to all those who wish to understand. These are the positive words of a government that knows the problems of the Canadian people and is taking effective steps to meet those problems. The government is doing for the people of the country the very best that it is possible to do at this time.
There has been criticism of all sorts from the opposition benches and in the particular instance of the criticism launched by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) the critical comment has been lengthy. Such comments, however, have not brought out anything of which the government is not aware, as far as I can determine, nor has it been of a type that could be considered constructive. I might also say it does not give to the Canadian people the impression that the Leader of the Opposition or his party could do anything better than is being done. In fact, in my opinion a great deal of the criticism has been woefully weak and although hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken at great length on a variety of topics some very important matters have been barely mentioned. I refer particularly to the subject of agriculture.
Agriculture is of the greatest importance to Canada as a whole and is of particular importance to large sections of our popula-

The Address-Mr. Vivian tion from coast to coast, not excluding the county of Durham. In contrast to the lack of constructive critical comment from the opposition benches this government has been prepared to state its recognition that while it has done a great deal for agriculture in the last 18 months a great deal more needs to be done to give the agriculturists, our farmers, a fairer share of the national income. In other words, much has been done to improve the lot of the farmer compared with what was done under the former Liberal regime but further steps are needed and some will now be taken.
I should like at this time to quote the intention of the government with respect to agriculture as expressed in the words of the speech from the throne:
Additional legislation in the field of agriculture will be recommended. A measure will be laid before you to institute a system of crop insurance in co-operation with such provinces as so desire. You will also be invited to make a comprehensive review and revision of the legislation concerning farm credit, in order that credit may be more effective in assisting in the development and maintenance of an efficient and prosperous agriculture.
Surely this is a real advance in what I consider to be the very long road that must be travelled before our farmers are really in receipt of their fair share of the national income, a goal which at least we on this side of the house hope will be attained.
While hon. gentlemen opposite did not refer to agriculture with any great frequency there were closely related matters which were touched upon superficially-and I gathered the impression in some instances, rather insincerely-and on the odd occasion in contradiction to the words of hon. gentlemen spoken other than in this house. However, much of the comment made by the Leader of Opposition has been and will be refuted by ministers of the crown when dealing with their own departments and by other hon. members in relation to their own constituencies. I shall, therefore, limit my observations on these criticisms to the comments I have made and comment favourably on certain intentions of the government as contained in the gracious speech.
One important reference in the throne speech was that to the commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal last September. I noted with interest the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on this subject and also what he said about a not altogether unrelated matter, that of

Canadian-United States relations. The speech from the throne contains the following words:
In response to suggestions put forward by my government, a commonwealth trade and economic conference was held in Montreal last September. This meeting, one of the most important in the history of the commonwealth, was attended by ministers representing the self-governing nations of the commonwealth and the countries now looking forward to obtaining full sovereignty. A large measure of agreement was reached on trade and economic matters. This has led to far-reaching decisions on the part of the United Kingdom and other countries to restore convertibility of their currencies and to remove restrictions on imports.
Mr. Speaker, this was not just another conference of the kind held frequently since the last war under the Liberal regime. This conference was probably the most carefully prepared one of its kind ever held, in the opinion of experts who have attended many of them. In the scope of its representation alone there was a breadth which had not been equalled, because there were delegates not only from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa but also from India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, the federation of Malaya and Nyasaland. In addition, a number of colonial territories were represented to the United Kingdom in an advisory capacity; Nigeria, the West Indies, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Hong Kong. Incidentally, this was the first conference at which new members of the commonwealth in Asia and Africa outnumbered the older members. The conference dealt with an unusually wide range of topics as it concerned itself with more than commonwealth inter-relations. Its themes included the role of an expanding commonwealth in an expanding world and, with this, there was a realization of the crucial role which the commonwealth is playing in fostering world economic prosperity and in promoting the progress of its less developed member countries.
In spite of the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), I submit that this was a conference unique in its assembly. There were other words used in the course of critical comment which I think have been overdone, and I refer to the somewhat quibbling attitude toward the words "led" and "foreshadowed". The fact remains that after long periods of discussion and consideration prior to this conference, currencies have been made convertible, and I suggest that a major contributing factor to this event and to other matters of great importance was the large measure of agreement which was reached at Montreal on the widest possible range of topics.

This conference, however, did not limit its interest to commonwealth co-operation but sought the participation of other countries. In section II of the report of the Montreal conference dealing with commodity problems and agriculture, paragraph 45 of the whole, it is stated, and I quote:
We recognize that, for the most part, effective action will require the participation of the important producing and consuming countries throughout the world.
Then I wish to underline the following, which is still part of the quotation:
It is our hope that countries outside the commonwealth will accept our objectives and be prepared to join with us in our work.
We know that two of the great powers outside the commonwealth are the Soviet union and the United States. What can be done with respect to trade relations with the Soviet union is a mystery, but it is certainly no secret that the co-operation of the United States is essential to the success of many of the commonwealth endeavours. I would point out that after the commonwealth conference an event happened in the second
The Address-Mr. Vivian committee of the United Nations during the thirteenth general assembly which is an example of improved relations not only with the commonwealth but with the United States, because at this point the Canadian delegation was able to obtain the full support of the delegation of the United States for the acceptance of language in a resolution on international commodity trade which went farther than the United States has ever been prepared to go before. This, I submit, is a real result, and it is only one example of the benefits which have flowed from the Montreal conference.
I do not understand, in the light of this and other examples, how the Leader of the Opposition can justify the position he took in minimizing the value of this last conference on trade and economic matters in Montreal.
On motion of Mr. Vivian the debate was adjourned.


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

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did the government instruct the board of transport commissioners to make a thorough investigation into the freight rate structure in April, 1948?
2.	If so, what were the terms of reference?
3.	Has the investigation taken place and have interim reports been made from time to time?
4.	If so, on what date and with reference to what category or classification of rates?
5.	When will the investigation be terminated?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	The board was directed to undertake a general freight rates investigation along the lines indicated in order in council P.C. 1487 dated April 7, 1948, subject to such special statutory provisions as affect freight rates. The order in council is reproduced in the interim report of the board to the governor in council dated March 25, 1955, tabled on May 3, 1955.
3.	Yes.
4.	Public hearings commenced in 1951 and have been held on numerous subsequent dates and are continuing. Interim reports to the governor in council were made by the board, dated respectively March 25, 1955, September 23, 1957 and December 22, 1958. The first report had reference to class rates and the freight classification in connection therewith, mileage commodity rates and specific commodity rates; the second report had reference to additional mileage commodity rates and the third report had reference to other mileage commodity rates and specific commodity rates.
5.	The investigation is being made jointly with the board's equalization of freight rates required by section 336 of the Railway Act. The board estimates that it will require two to three years to complete it.


TARIFF OF TOLLS, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Has an agreement been reached between Canada and the United States on the tariff of tolls to be charged on the seaway pursuant to the statute?
2.	If so, when will the announcement be made?
3.	Will the seaway authority or the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation be authorized to hear complaints from such tariff of tolls?
4.	Will the board of transport commissioners also have jurisdiction to hear such complaints against the toll structure?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. An announcement will be made when the final toll structure is announced simultaneously in Ottawa and Washington.


TARIFF OF TOLLS, ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY   PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did the tolls committee of the St. Lawrence seaway authority hold public hearings on the tariff of tolls and tolls structure to be imposed upon ships using the seaway?
2.	If so, were these hearings held jointly with the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, or severally?
3.	When and where were such hearings held?
4.	Have recommendations been made to the government as a result of such hearings?
5.	Will the tariff of tolls be amended?
6.	If not, what is the next step toward implementation of the toll structure?
7.	If a person finds himself aggrieved by the tolls or any portion thereof, before what body should he be heard for redress, and does an appeal lie from the decision of such body?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (^4inisfer of Transpori):
1.	Public hearings on a proposed tariff were held by the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
2.	Severally.
3.	The St. Lawrence seaway authority in Ottawa, August 6, 1958. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation in Washington, August 6, 1958.
4.	5, 6 and 7. Section 17 of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act includes provision for the establishment of tolls by agreement between Canada and the United States and, in the event of such agreement, tolls shall be charged by the authority in accordance with directions given by the governor in council. This subject is under consideration by the government.


PULPWOOD IMPORTS, PIGEON RIVER, ONT.
Mr. Fisher: 1 Did any pulpwood cross into Canada from the United States at Pigeon river, Ontario, during 1958?
2.	If so, who were the consigners, the consignees, what was the valuation of the total, what was the cordage of the total, and what person or company transported the wood over the border?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	It is not the policy of the government to reveal figures concerning the private business of individual firms and it is also contrary to the secrecy provisions of the Statistics Act to reveal this information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS FOREIGN POSTINGS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Were any employees of the department of External Affairs, other than foreign service officers, posted out of the country in 1958?
2.	If so, how many, in what job classifications, and to what places?
3.	How many employees, other than foreign service officers, were there in posts out of the country on January 1, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	In 1958, 165 employees other than foreign service officers were posted out of the country. A list of the job classification and place of posting is appended.
3.	449.
Location and Job Classification of Employees of the Department of External Affairs Posted Out of the Country in 1958 Accra: 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 1 stenographer
2.
Ankara: 2 security guards 1.
Athens: 1 clerk 3, 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 1 stenographer 2, 2 security guards 1.
Beirut: 1 clerk 4.
Belgrade:	1 stenographer 2, 2 security
guards 1.
Berne: 1 stenographer 2.
Bogota: 1 stenographer 2.
Bonn: 2 clerk 2, 2 stenographer 2, 1 technician 1.
Boston: 1 external affairs officer 2, 1 stenographer 2.
Brussels: 1 stenographer 2, 1 technician 1. Buenos Aires: 1 clerk 2.
Cairo: 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 2 teletypist IB,
1 security guard 1.
Caracas: 1 stenographer 2.
Canberra: 1 stenographer 2.
Chicago: 1 external affairs officer 1. Copenhagen: 1 stenographer 3.
Ciudad Trujillo: 1 stenographer 2. Djakarta: 1 stenographer 2.
Dublin: 1 stenographer 3.
Geneva: 2 stenographer 2, 1 clerk 2.
The Hague: 1 teletypist IB.
Hamburg: 1 external affairs officer 2. Havana: 1 stenographer 2.
Karachi: 1 external affairs officer 3, 1 stenographer 2.
Kuala Lumpur: 1 external affairs officer 3,
1 clerk 4, 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 1 stenographer 3.
Lisbon: 1 stenographer 3, 1 security guard 1. London: 1 external affairs officer 1, 1 clerk 4, 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 2 stenographer 3,
3 teletypist 2, 1 teletypist IB, 1 technician 3,
1 technician 2.
Los Angeles: 1 external affairs officer 5, 1 external affairs officer 2, 1 stenographer 2. Mexico City: 1 clerk 4.
Questions
Montevideo: 1 stenographer 2.
Moscow: 1 clerk 4, 1 clerk 2, 1 secretary to Executive.
New Delhi: 1 principal clerk, 1 clerk 4, 1 stenographer 2, 1 teletypist 2, 3 security guards 1, 1 technician 1.
New York (consulate general): 1 external affairs officer 3, 1 clerk 2, 2 stenographer 3, 1 stenographer 2, 1 confidential messenger.
New York (United Nations): 2 stenographer 2, 3 security guards 1.
Oslo: 1 stenographer 3.
Paris (embassy): 1 external affairs officer 4, 4 clerk 2, 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 2 stenographer 2, 3 teletypist IB, 1 security guard 1.
Paris (NAC): 1 external affairs officer 1, 1 clerk 2, 1 stenographer 3, 2 stenographer 2.
Port au Prince: 1 stenographer 3, 1 security guard 1.
Port of Spain: 1 clerk 2, 1 stenographer 2.
Prague: 1 stenographer 3.
Pretoria:	1 external affairs officer 6, 1
clerk 4 (secretarial), 1 stenographer 2.
Rio de Janeiro: 1 stenographer 2.
Rome: 1 principal clerk, 1 teletypist IB.
San Francisco: 1 clerk 4, 1 stenographer 2.
Sao Paulo: 1 external affairs officer 2.
Santiago: 1 stenographer 2.
Stockholm: 1 stenographer 2.
Tel Aviv: 1 clerk 3.
Teheran: 1 principal clerk.
Tokyo: 1 external affairs officer 1, 2 clerk 4, 1 clerk 2, 2 stenographer 2, 1 teletypist IB, 1 security guard 1.
Vienna: 1 clerk 3, 1 stenographer 2.
Warsaw: 1 principal clerk, 1 clerk 2, 1 stenographer 3, 1 stenographer 2.
Washington: 1 clerk 4, 1 clerk 3, 1 clerk 4 (secretarial), 2 stenographer 3, 3 stenographer 2, 1 teletypist 2, 1 teletypist IB, 1 security guard 1.
Wellington: 1 stenographer 2, 1 teletypist IB.
Hanoi: 1 stenographer 2.
Saigon: 1 external affairs officer 5, 2 principal clerk, 3 clerk 2, 1 stenographer 3, 3 stenographer 2.
Vientiane: 1 stenographer 2.
Phnom Penh: 1 clerk 2, 1 stenographer 2.


Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the total number of cold storage warehouses in Canada, and what cubic space is available?
2.	How many are used exclusively or in the main for (a) fish and fish products; (b) agricultural products; (c) general or variety of products?
3.	What cubic space is available for (a) freezing; (b) cooling?
4.	What was the percentage of occupancy of the space available for (a) fish and fish products; (b) agricultural products; (c) general or variety of products, for each of the months of 1958?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister
of Agriculture):
1.	3,068 cold storage warehouses in Canada containing 142,696,294 cubic feet of refrigerated space.
2.	(a) 249 warehouses storing in the main, fish and fish products, (b) 1,969 warehouses storing in the main, agricultural products, (c) 850 warehouses are classed as general, that is, storing all products.
3.	(a) 61,292,705 cubic feet of space for storage of frozen commodities in bulk, (b) 85,705,302 cubic feet of space for storage of fresh produce in bulk at temperatures above freezing.
4.	The dominion bureau of statistics do not require cold storage warehouses to report what percentage of the space is occupied. They do require, however, a statement of the quantities of certain goods in storage and this information is published in various forms, many of which are on a monthly basis. The Department of Agriculture receives voluntary confidential reports showing the percentage occupancy of warehouses which represent about one-third of the total available refrigerated space in Canada. These cold storages are located at various points throughout Canada and the information received indicates that cold storage occupancy on a national basis during 1958 ranged from 55 per cent to 88 per cent for "freezer" space and 48 per cent to 77 per cent for "cooler" space.
Note: Answers to 1, 2 and 3 are taken from "Directory of Cold Storage Warehouses in Canada", prepared by the Department of Agriculture and published in March 1958.


Mr. Macnaughlon: 1.	When will the St. Lawrence seaway open officially lor the passage of commercial vessels?
2.	Will there be 27 feet depth of water from Montreal to Port Colborne at the opening of navigation for commercial ships?
3.	When does the seaway authority intend issuing their final statement on tolls, particularly with reference to bulk cargos?
4.	When does the seaway authority intend to issue their circulars in explanation of and in connection with the regulations?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1 and 2. See statement by Minister of Transport, House of Commons debates, January 20, 1959, page 78.
3.	No statement is contemplated, pending international agreement and authorization of the tariff.
4.	In the near future, after informal discussions with shipping interests and approval of the regulations by the governor in council.


Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Did the board of transport commissioners make an order for the installation of protective signals at the Canadian National Railways level crossing (mileage 28.34) at the village of Kinburn? If so, on what date?
2.	What deadline date was established for compliance with the order?
3.	What was the reason for allowing such a period of time for compliance?
4.	What is the general practice of the board of transport commissioners in establishing dates for compliance with its orders respecting installation of protective signals?
5.	Have the protective signals at Kinburn been installed?
6.	If so, on what date?
7.	If not, when is it expected they will be installed?
8.	Has the attention of the board been drawn to a further serious accident at this crossing which might have been avoided if the signals had been installed?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes, board order No. 95405 of August 28, 1958.
2.	Six months from date of order referred to in (1).
3.	Usual practice which permits securing of necessary materials to instal protection ordered.
4.	Answered by (3).
5.	Board is advised that installation will be completed and put into operation by the Canadian National Railways within next week or ten days.
6.	Answered by (5).
7.	Answered by (5).
8.	The only accident occurring at this crossing and reported to the board since the issuing of board order No. 95405 of August 28, 1958 was a non-casualty accident on December 18, 1958.

Wednesday, January 28, 1959