1959-01-26

IMMIGRATION ACT


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-20, to amend the Immigration Act (jurisdiction of courts).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, by section 39 of the Immigration Act an appeal against a deportation order is restricted to Canadian citizens and to those domiciled in Canada only. The purpose of this bill is to make the right of that appeal available to everyone.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can explain to the house why the appointments to the national capital commission were not announced in the house, as indicated by him on January 16 would be done, with an explanation for the delay. I would like to ask him also whether he can explain why neither the mayor of Ottawa, the mayor of Hull, nor any representative of either corporation has been appointed to this commission.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, announcements such as these are not ordinarily made in the house. There was no reason whatsoever for not making them here.
So far as the latter part of the question is concerned, it was felt that in view of the fact that this commission represents the nation as a whole, the two municipalities in question should not be directly represented by their respective mayors.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the
Minister of Labour. Can the minister now say whether he is prepared, because of the continuation of the producers strike in Montreal, to invite the parties to the strike into his office to see whether the strike may not be settled? I ask the question, Mr. Speaker, particularly because of the action of the C.B.C. management in hiring 100 private police, according to newspaper reports.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I met with the representatives of the C.C.C.L. and one representative of the producers on Friday afternoon. No other action is contemplated at the moment.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Does this answer to the hon. member's question mean that notwithstanding section 56(1) of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the minister still proposes to take no action?


Michael Starr: No, it does not.


Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government still refuses to intervene in the dispute which is paralysing the French network of the C.B.C., and since the corporation is ultimately responsible to parliament, will the Prime Minister take the necessary steps to convene immediately the special committee on broadcasting for the purpose of hearing the parties to the dispute?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question, of
course, at this time is hypothetical. Any question of convening a meeting of a committee would, of course, have to await the termination of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to ask this additional question. Does the Prime Minister not consider that by virtue of the rules of the house the government may interrupt the debate at any time with the unanimous consent of the house to consider a matter of this kind?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any committee that was ever set up before the conclusion of the throne speech debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is no answer.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not any answer.


Mr. Pickersgill:: It has happened often.

Inquiries of the Ministry
TRADE	HEALTH AND WELFARE



DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-EXPORT OF CANADIAN FIGHTER PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is in a position to say whether Canadian jet or any other fighter planes have been or are being supplied to the Dominican Republic, and what steps are being taken to ensure that in any such export to the United States the planes will not reach a third country?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, no export permit for the planes in question has been issued.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has application been made?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Application was made and the export permit was not granted.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Does my hon. friend know whether or not the planes have been sent to the United States and will be sent on vicariously?


Gordon Minto Churchill: 1 have no knowledge that the planes have been sent to the United States.


Peter Francis Martin: Was the application refused?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The application was refused.


Mr. Harkness:: He has already told you that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No, he did not. He was very careful not to say that.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice; I hope that notification reached him in sufficient time. Will the minister tell the house whether he has received any opinions from Mr. F. O. Meighan, Q.C., regarding the prosecution of the B.C. Sugar Refining Company Ltd. and, if so, will he report to the house on the present status of this case?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: thank the hon. gentleman for sending me notice. I have to advise him that the case is still under discussion with counsel, and I am therefore unable to report to the house at the present time.



QUEBEC CITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received any offer from the provincial government of Quebec or other persons for the purchase of the immigration hospital in Quebec city?


Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No direct offer has been received. Consultations have been taking place, and when any further information is available I will be glad to inform the hon. member.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR RECONVENING TO DISCUSS FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister if he has received a letter from the premier of Saskatchewan asking the government to reconvene the federal-provincial conference to discuss fiscal matters, and if any reply has been made to any such letter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the premier of Saskatchewan, and I will ascertain the extent to which the requests in that letter are in accordance with the suggestions of the hon. gentleman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it the intention of the government to reconvene the federal-provincial conference?


John George Diefenbaker: When any decision is made an announcement will be made.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It was announced in Saturday's press that a four lane scenic highway is to be built between Boucherville and Caughna-waga on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river opposite Montreal, a large portion of which highway will pass over lands expropriated by the seaway authority. Is the minister aware of this, and did the province enter into an agreement with the seaway authority for the purpose of constructing a

road on this land, which it was announced not long ago would be used for park and recreational purposes?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. We have heard of this matter through the officials of the highway department of the province of Quebec. There has been no formal approach made to us by the province of Quebec, and I would think this would be a matter for discussion between the interested parties, the province of Quebec, the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the municipalities concerned.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General arising out of a telegram I have received. Is the minister giving consideration to the requests of the federated association of letter carriers and the Canadian postal employees association for salary adjustments to compensate for the increase in the cost of living, as well as the request for collective bargaining rights for postal employees?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Matters of that kind, Mr. Speaker, are not the responsibility of the Postmaster General but of the civil service commission, whose functions include recommendations on salary levels and changes in all branches of the civil service, as well as working conditions.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to press reports resulting from the joint meeting of the dominion marine association and lake shippers, which indicate that pilotage regulations will not be approved by either the American or Canadian governments in time for the opening of the shipping season, and also indicate that foreign and British ships will not be required to use pilots on the lakes to a greater extent than they do now. I wonder if the minister would comment on these reports and give us some indication as to when legislation may be considered in this house, and whether it will be before the opening of the shipping season.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: This matter has been under intensive consideration by the Department of Transport, and as it is a very detailed and complicated matter it is not one which can be answered at such a time as this. I would suggest to the hon. member that the time to ask this question and get an answer would be when the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act are before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I hope some time in the near future.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the federal government agreed to pay a part of the cost of a new bridge in the city of Prince Albert? If so, is this payment being made because the river there is navigable, is the proposed bridge an interprovincial one or is this part of the second trans-Canada highway? What is the principle underlying the agreement?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: I think this question should be directed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Erhart Regier: Would the other cabinet
minister reply?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Will the hon. member repeat the first part of his question?


Erhart Regier: Has the government agreed to pay part of the cost of a new bridge in Prince Albert? I should like to know, if it has, on what principle the grant is going to be paid. Is this an interprovincial bridge, or is it part of a new highway, or what?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I made this clear in the standing committee last year, but I shall repeat the answer. The bridge at Prince Albert is part of the roads to resources program in co-operation with the province.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 23, 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, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner
Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: At the
hour of adjournment on Friday, Mr. Speaker, I had commented with regard to the so-called march on Ottawa. I should like to comment on that a little further by issuing a personal warning to the officers of the farm union in western Canada to be very careful about becoming entangled in this march, because it is becoming political in nature. I say that because in the last two years when the farm unions of western Canada have come to Ottawa they have been well received by this government, in marked contrast to the manner in which they had been received by previous governments. I would think that it would be extremely dangerous for them to upset the confidence which they have already gained.
To comment further with regard to the agricultural situation I should like to say something with regard to the production of hogs. We all know that we are facing a pork surplus. I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture-and I hope he will give the matter consideration-that if there is necessity to lower the pork floor price, it should not be done but rather that commercial producers be excluded from that floor price. In other words I suggest that the support be made available to bona fide farmers only. I think this will do more than anything else to preserve our small farmers and family farms and to prevent vertical integration.
I should now like to make a few remarks with regard to the employment situation. First of all I should like to commend the Minister of Labour and the other members of the cabinet. Because of their actions and the actions of this government I can report to the house that unemployment in my constituency is at a minimum. It is less this winter than it has been in previous winters under the Liberal regime. This situation is a direct result of the action of this government, particularly with regard to housing. This has put to work this winter many hundreds of our loggers who would not otherwise have been employed, together with the action of the Minister of Labour in instituting the municipal work program. As you may have realized, Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta is a leading province in taking advantage of this program. I should like to say to the minister that this program is working out very well. I can say to him that he has put hundreds of men to work in my constituency alone.
I also commend the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the work program in Jasper park. It is getting some
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
vitally needed work done. It is not a relief program; it is a program for the development of our resources.
With regard to some of the speeches which have been made in this house by members of the opposition, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal in the early part of November. It is entitled "Playing Politics with Misery". The first paragraph of that editorial gives some figures which are not now relevant, but it goes on to state as follows:
The jobless totals include many unemployables, farmers and farmers' sons who register for other jobs as soon as harvest work is completed, persons changing jobs of their own volition, and so on.
While farm employment was down, employment in several other lines was higher. Non-farm employment was virtually at the same level as last year although, of course, Canada's working population is greater. On the prairies, persons with jobs totalled 1,641,000 which was 17,000 more than lest year but 6,000 fewer than September. Nevertheless, the picture of a substantial number of Canadians able and willing to work and unable to find jobs is not one to gloss over.
What must be deplored is the eagerness in certain quarters to play politics with the misfortune of thousands of feliow-Canadians. Stanley Knowles, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress and former C.C.F. member for parliament, was swift to demand that Prime Minister Diefenbaker break off his world tour and rush home to deal with the unemployment situation. Liberal Leader Pearson's position was little more creditable when he tried to create the impression that government policies are responsible for the unemployment total. He knows perfectly well that such is not the case.
Mr. Diefenbaker can do much more good by seeking markets for Canadian products abroad than by rushing home and calling a special session of parliament. However, his efforts and the efforts of everyone else in promoting trade will be worthless if industry and labour continue on their merry way pursuing policies that price our goods out of the world market and stoke the fires of inflation at home.
Socialists who never overlook a chance to exploit dislocations in the economy have a private motive. Their burning ambition is to destroy our free enterprise system. Those who are deceived thereby should know that if free enterprise is destroyed everything else free, including personal liberty, will be destroyed with it. Inflation does not disturb a socialist; he sees it as a means to hasten the overthrow of our system.
I think that editorial neatly sums up some of the speeches we have heard in this house regarding unemployment and the situation in Canada. We do need to have more insight shown by our labour union leaders, and, probably one of the reasons they have not time to show this insight is that they are becoming involved in politics and because they, like the farmers union leaders, can no longer speak for the rank and file. That is the important thing they should be considering at this time.
We do not only have to consider labour when we are asking ourselves how well a

job is done, but management also. We have too many large corporations whose management is topheavy. We ask labour to increase production when they want a raise in wages; we must also ask management to increase production before they receive an increase from investment. Indeed, if they are to maintain the benefits which they now receive they must show this country that they can produce more at less cost and with smaller executive power.
We have heard a great deal with regard to inflation. Inflation is not something which began last year or the year before. It has been going on for a long time, since even before the second world war. I think the basic explanation of inflation is that the cost of goods or services is above their actual value. As I say, this is nothing new; it has been going on for years, and one of the major causes of inflation, and particularly of its rapid increase over the past ten or twelve years, has been the extravagance and misspending of the former government. We in western Canada do not need to look at the printing bureau. We have our own printing bureaux in every one of our western constituencies. I have one in particular in Jasper park, where buildings were erected at fantastic prices and where roads were built at fantastic prices, roads which failed to stand up for even a limited period of years.
There is nothing wrong about government spending to create employment, and this will not cause inflation as long as we are diligent to ensure that value is received in return for this expenditure. This requires leadership, and I am sure the whole country agrees we now have that leadership under the present government.
I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the operation of the Canadian National Railways, because they are the vital link in my constituency. Here I point the finger at management, and at the failure of the management of the C.N.R. to use some imagination and initiative in order to establish that railway as a proper competitor of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When we talk about freight rates, rates upon which the whole of our economy in western Canada is based, this is the first thing we think of; and we ask ourselves, can management improve its competitive position? We think it could. We think more could and should be done by management to bring our freight rates into line. I think it is an admission of failure on the part of management when every time costs go up, they immediately go to the board of transport commissioners asking for an increase in freight rates. I know that some of the railroads in the United States made money during the past year and are now 66968-9-20
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner paying 4 per cent to their shareholders. We in western Canada were, of course, very happy at the assurance by the Prime Minister that the Crownsnest pass rates will not be altered. We depend on them for our livelihood.
Now I should like to make a few remarks on the oil and gas industry. If I may I should just like to note the very inaccurate statement made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) in this connection speaking in the debate last Wednesday, as recorded at page 166 of Hansard of January 21. The hon. member said:
Hon. members will also recall that about the same time, or shortly afterwards, the United States accommodated the Prime Minister by cutting off 15 per cent of our oil imports into the northwestern United States.
Mr. Speaker, that speech indicated that the Liberal party knows absolutely nothing about the oil industry in western Canada. We have heard that before in western Canada. Our friends in the Liberal party walked up and down our constituencies that produced the oil and said, "this government has now cut off 15 per cent of your exports," and so on.
This was not true. This is obviously inaccurate, for the simple reason that the exportation of oil into the United States does not depend on any government action but rather depends on available markets. We have today a world oil surplus. We have not been able to export to the United States even the amount of our allowable quota of oil, and never have we been able to do this. The hon. gentleman was completely wrong when he said there was any discrimination on the part of the Prime Minister or this government with respect to the exportation of oil.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal party is now so dead that it does not have the imagination or scope to know how big the oil industry is in western Canada or how much it can do for this country. I should like to cite a few figures concerning last year's oil operations in Alberta during a period of recession and in the face of a world oil surplus. The oil industry has confidence in the leadership of this government. To prove this I need only mention that those involved in the industry went ahead with exploration and the drilling of new wells. While our oil production was down 13 per cent last year our oil well completions were up. Total drilling footage was down 11 per cent but our total exploration expenses were up 7 per cent. For the education of hon. members opposite I should like to state that if a market for Canadian oil could be found we could wipe out our entire trade deficit with
298	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner the United States in one fell swoop. That is an indication of how big the industry is, and it is just starting.
The oil wells in my constituency produce well over 35 per cent of all the oil produced in Alberta, and new fields are now being developed. One of the largest gas wells in the world is located there from drilling which has recently taken place on the Little Berland river. The new areas known as Swan Hills and Virginia Hills are the hottest finds in western Canada. These are situated right at the top of my constituency. All these things will require imagination and initiative in enacting legislation that will enable the oil industry to develop. This is one of the major industries in Canada and one of the most significant developments in our economy.
At the extreme western end of my constituency, of course, there is Jasper national park. I wish to say a few words in this regard, because the change in government has meant a great change for the people living in this park. For the first time in history the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) visited the park, sat down with the people there and discussed with them their problems. That was never done before. The former minister under the old regime came out to Jasper but would not talk to the people there. He said he was not interested in the people but was worried about the bears.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is ridiculous.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for his attitude and the interest he expressed in the problems of those living in this park, because they do have problems. I should also like to remind him of the promise he made to establish a commission to study the question of municipal government in the national parks town sites in western Canada with a view to solving many of the problems presently confronting the people in those areas.
We cannot talk about Jasper national park without talking about the Yellowhead highway. We are very happy that in the near future, within three or four years, we will have a highway running through Jasper. I hope arrangements can be made with the government of British Columbia so the route from Kamloops to Yellowhead may be completed.
Before taking my seat I wish to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McPhillips) to the effect that the old age pension should be extended to old age pensioners living outside Canada. This is fair and just, in my opinion, and I trust the government will give this matter sympathetic consideration.


In conclusion may I say that we in Canada are on the verge of a great development. We need in this country the leadership of our Prime Minister. There is no room in Canada, in view of its challenging and progressive future, for speeches such as have been made by some hon. members of the opposition. We need imagination and initiative and young people who will develop our northland. Opportunities have never before existed in Canada to the extent that they now exist in our northwest, and they should constitute a compelling challenge to young Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to begin my remarks without extending the conventional-and perhaps a little bit more than the conventional

compliments to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It perhaps will not surprise anyone in the house if I address my observations first to the seconder, because I think all of us were curious to see what kind of person would succeed in the historic constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet the most promising Canadian of his race who has come into this house since the war, a man who is now giving to his province the kind of leadership many of us feel it has needed for a long time.
I think the hon. member who now has the honour to represent this constituency acquitted himself with distinction. I believe, too, we can say that he expressed the kind of sentiments one would have expected to hear expressed by the successor of Mr. Lesage.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to sincerely congratulate the hon. member, especially for having referred to national unity in the accents, even in the very words, of the greatest Canadian of our time, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
(Text):
The mover of the address comes from the province where I spent the greater part of my life. He is, like most Manitobans, competent and modest.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Those who stay there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Those are qualities we normally regard as being characteristics of Manitobans.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that why you had to leave?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But the hon. member for Provencher is a veteran of two parliaments. When I read in the newspapers that he was to be given the honour of moving the address this year I confess that I thought this was another example of the confusion of the

government, and that the Prime Minister had confused Provencher with Springfield; because it seemed to me almost unprecedented for a government, especially this early in a new parliament, to pass over all the members elected for the first time to this parliament, and pass over two members who had been elected at by-elections, and give to someone who was elected to a previous parliament, and who had spoken on a previous address, the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. But I confess, sir, that when I heard the hon. member for Springfield later in the address I realized that this was one case where the Prime Minister had not been confused.
I believe all of us on this side of the house, and I fancy most hon. members in this chamber, were a little disappointed that the Prime Minister had not seen fit to confer this signal honour upon the hon. lady who was recently elected in Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), and whom we are looking forward to hearing at an early stage in the debate. I may say, however, that it was no surprise to me, if to no one else, that the Prime Minister, even though he did go back to an earlier parliament in selecting the mover, did not ask the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) to move the address. Some of us doubtless remember the appeal the Prime Minister made to the constituents of the hon. member at a rally on May 4, 1947, at Campbellton. That was in 1947, sir, not 1948 or 1949.
Here are the Prime Minister's words as reported at that time:
Charlie Van Horne has made a contribution, has placed before the House of Commons problems peculiar to this province, and in particular to this historic constituency, worthy of the finest traditions of representation in the House of Commons.
1 count him as an exceptionally good friend of mine, one who throughout the period of time he has been in the House of Commons has been one for whom I have had the highest respect, and I simply end my remarks in this direction by saying I want you to send Charlie Van Horne back to the House of Commons. This party wants him.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but just for the record he is 10 years out on that, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the Prime Minister for noting my very slight statistical confusion which, I may say, cannot even begin to compare with the enormities of his statistical confusion, as pointed out by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) the other day. It was in 1957, sir, that this statement was made by the Prime Minister. But times have changed, sir, and we now see the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska perhaps not purged but so near 66968-9-204
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill the door that one more little push would put him out. And, sir, it does seem to me that it would not be surprising if the Prime Minister, like other leaders in other times, had a little list. The Prime Minister will remember Gilbert's little list of those who never would be missed, and I am sure that on the Prime Minister's little list Charlie's name heads all the rest.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman does himself an injustice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the Minister of Justice does the Prime Minister an injustice. I am sure the Prime Minister would miss me very much.
I must say, sir, that like the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, though perhaps I will speak in somewhat more moderate language than the hon. member habitually does, being a Manitoban in origin, I regard unemployment as a serious and continuing problem; and I agree, sir, with the Prime Minister before the election, not after the election, that unemployment is not a statistic and that it is a human problem and it is as a human problem that it should be treated. The unemployed do not want history from the Prime Minister or from anyone else; they want action, and they want the kind of action that was promised before March 31, 1958, of which we have seen very little evidence since. But, sir, I for one feel that if statistics are to be used they should be accurate. In telling us that more Canadians worked more in 1958 than in any previous year the Prime Minister was not accurate. It would be impossible when 23,000 fewer Canadians were employed on the average throughout that year for more Canadians to have worked more in 1958. As the Prime Minister said eloquently the other day, you cannot have it both ways.
Now, sir, I was not altogether surprised that the Prime Minister was a little careless about those statistics, because it is not the first time the Prime Minister has been a little careless about facts. The Prime Minister devoted a certain amount of rather flattering attention to me during the election campaign. He made a reference at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, which is reported in the Toronto Telegram of March 26 by Peter Dempson, and which I think it would be useful to have on the record for future reference. If I am inaccurate in any way I hope the Prime Minister will correct me at once. He said:
Mr. Pickersgill said we were raising old age pensions too high. He said if we boosted them any highest some pensioners would be receiving more than some who worked. "That is one of the silliest

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill stories that could have been made anywhere," the Prime Minister said, as the crowd clapped in glee. "It is almost the Pickersilliest."


George Harris Hees: That is the ultimate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can understand, sir, that such wit must have been irresistible and I think, sir, that no one is in a better position than the chief of the clan, Mac-Diefenbaker, to appreciate what an appropriate subject for subtle wit family names can be. I agree with the Prime Minister that this remark would have been the Pickersilliest if it had been true. But, sir, it bore no relation whatsoever to the facts. I should like to put the facts on record from Hansard of October 25, 1957, when I spoke in the debate on the Old Age Security Act amendment to which the Prime Minister referred at that time. I said at page 427:
I say at once, sir, I am going to support it. I am going to support it, but it does present a real problem for all of us-
And it still presents a real problem. I continued:
-who are conscientious representatives of constituents on the Atlantic seaboard. The effect of the legislation the government is now proposing will be-perhaps not for anyone more than myself and the hon. members for Burin-Burgeo and Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador to give to the retired adults in many of our communities larger incomes than those of the working members of their families who have to contribute through the sales tax towards the payment of these pensions.
Later on I added:
Some of us represent, as I do, constituencies where the fishery has been poor, where the income is going to be a great deal less than it was a year ago. I am not blaming the government for that but it is a fact, a fact which the government, if it professes to be equally interested in all Canadians in all parts of the country, should be just as much concerned about as they are about the plight of the old age pensioners or the plight of the wheat grower, because a fisherman can starve just as effectively as can a farmer. There are going to be a great many people in the eastern part of this country, fishermen and woodsworkers who are going to be much worse off this winter than many of the old age pensioners.
And if that was true for the winter of 1957-58, unhappily it seems likely to be even more true for the winter of 1958-59.
When I made that statement one or two hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house got up and said, "Why didn't you do something about it?" That, of course, was a very natural retort to which I really did not feel I could take any particular exception at that time. But I do not think, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, that it means very much 18 months later. Now, if incomes in the Atlantic provinces were low in relation to those in other parts of Canada when we left office in 1957-unhappily they were in many cases, although they were a


great deal higher than they had ever been before in the history of Canada-they are a good deal lower now in many sections of that community. That is perhaps not so for civil servants and members of the armed forces who, because they are concentrated in quite considerable numbers in some parts of the Atlantic provinces and have a national level of income, do help to bring up the total. But for many of the producers in the Atlantic provinces incomes have been substantially lower in 1958 than they were in 1957.
In no case can that have been much truer than it was in the case of the coal industry. The other day hon. members had their attention drawn to this advertisement which appeared in the Halifax Mail-Star inviting people to vote Conservative on June 10, 1957, and which said:
Your Progressive Conservative candidates are in favour of a coal policy that will increase coal production. Do a good turn for Nova Scotia. Turn out and vote Conservative on June 10th.
I am not going into a statistical analysis. I have the figures here as to how coal production was reduced in 1958 over 1957, and we know there are threats of very much more substantial reductions in the near future. Every reduction in the production of coal means a reduction in income for one of the basic industries of the province of Nova Scotia and, indeed, one of the industries also of the province of New Brunswick.
But it is not only in coal production that incomes and production have declined in the last year. This is also true of steel production. I have in my hand a communication which was addressed to the Leader of the Opposition by the united steelworkers of America on December 12, 1958. I am not going to take the time of the house or my own time to read it in full because there are a number of points I must make, but it drew attention to lay-offs in the steel plant at Sydney which had already taken place and more that were under way. There is no doubt whatsoever that in this field as well, incomes in the Atlantic provinces are certainly not going up; and if these lay-offs should reach any proportions then unfortunately incomes will go down.
The pulpwood figures have been drawn to the attention of the house on a good many occasions. We know that in the case of both pulpwood and newsprint, which are so important to the whole Atlantic seaboard of this country, incomes declined very substantially in the year 1958 over the year 1957.
But no hon. member would expect me to pay more attention, though I try to pay as much, to any other occupation than to the

plight of the fishermen. With respect to the fishery I certainly cannot indict the government in one regard, because I am not one of those who believe that even the confusion and indecision of the government are responsible for the fact that the codfish did not come to Newfoundland this past year. That was one of those of freaks of nature that we hope will not happen again. It was perhaps one of those misfortunes that sometimes coincide with Tory governments, but I certainly do not blame the government for it.
But, sir, what I do blame the government for very seriously is their failure to do anything about this situation. When the Minister of Labour was speaking the other day I asked him if I had not made a constructive suggestion about dealing with the plight of the fishermen on the east coast, which is certainly as bad as, if not worse than, that of the people of any other community in Canada at this time. The minister said that my suggestion had come too late. My suggestion was made on October 21, five days before the Prime Minister announced his municipal works program. If my suggestion on October 21, which in any case could not have been implemented until the first of December, was too late, what is the minister saying about the government's own winter works policy which was not announced until October 26? The minister convicts the government out of his own mouth, because the suggestion I made was a simple and practical one that could have been put into effect in 24 hours if the government had had a mind to do it, whereas the municipal works program required planning by municipalities after it was announced. Now, sir, whatever may be said about anything else the government may have done, there is nothing whatever to be said in defence of the lateness of that announcement.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member will permit a question, I wonder whether the hon. member would tell the house what his suggestion was to give employment to the people of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to come to that at the end of my speech, and I hope that some of the suggestions I will make then will have more appeal to the minister than the suggestion I made for dealing with this very serious human problem that the government pretended to be dealing with for three months and then suddenly told us they were doing nothing whatever about.


Michael Starr: I think the hon. member misunderstood my question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may have misunderstood the minister's question. If he would like to repeat it at the end of my
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill speech I would be delighted to reply to it then. On August 16, when the minister's estimates were before the house, I asked the minister to delay the passing of one of the items until he could bring in a report on the winter work program. He refused. I asked the Minister of Public Works, who was leading the house that day, and he refused. Finally the Prime Minister came in to the house to rescue the Minister of Labour from his confusion, and the hon. member for Laurier asked the Prime Minister if they would not hold up this one item. Such a request when made to us when we were in office was always acceded to, but they turned it down three times. They denied it three times. Why? Because they had no program, and did not have any program until two months later. Then, when they did produce a program, what was it? It was to pass the buck to the municipalities without any notice, and on the eve of the Prime Minister's departure from the country.
I come back again to the suggestion I made to the Prime Minister which he transmitted to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) on October 21. I am not going to outline what was in my letter. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Granger) put the text of that letter on Hansard the other day and that will suffice. But what I am going to do is quote three or four sentences from the statement the Prime Minister made in the house on August 30 last, when he came in and announced that $40 million was to be paid out of the treasury to the grain farmers of the west because there was a threatened crop failure in western Canada and because it was considered that grain prices and certain other factors made this desirable. As found on page 4345 of Hansard for August 30, 1958, the Prime Minister said:
Our concept of a national policy is based on the belief that the national welfare demands positive action to meet the basic causes of distress and maladjustment in particular industries and regions.
He also said, as found on page 4348:
What we are trying to do is establish a concept of national policy designed to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians . . . The immediate and long-term approach to the basic problems facing Canadian farmers is a recognition of the fact that the prosperity of Canada is indivisable and that a reasonably high and stable level of income in Canadian agriculture adds to the welfare of all Canadians.
It seems to me, sir, that if it is expedient, as this parliament agreed without dissent, to take $40 million out of the treasury in order to pay $200 to virtually every grain farmer in western Canada, it is surely equally incumbent upon any government which makes a profession such as the Prime Minister made

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill in that speech to do something for the fishermen, who through no fault of their own had a crop failure of such proportions that two-thirds of them, as the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador pointed out, had not enough stamps to qualify for unemployment insurance and were obliged to go on relief this winter.
The government has not seen fit to do anything whatever about this situation. I know the Minister of Labour would like to get up and remind me of the community stages. I know that one of the other ministers would like to tell me something about the roads to resources program. Of course we are always told about this municipal aid program.
As soon as I heard about the community stages I gave the government full credit for it, as the Minister of Fisheries well knows. Unhappily, here again the decision was reached so late and winter came so early that it is going to be very difficult to get many, if any, of these works started in time to provide winter work. I know the Department of Public Works is doing its utmost to get work started, and I have no criticism on that score. What I do criticize is that this program could just as well have been decided on last July or August as at the stage it was done. If it had been decided on then the materials could have been available on the sites and work could have proceeded.
I have no criticism of the roads to resources program but I hope the minister of northern affairs, when he speaks, will tell us how rapidly this program has been proceeding in the Atlantic provinces and how much progress has been made, because it does seem there has been a good deal of delay. However, that is a very good program so far as it goes, but it does not even begin to take care of this emergency problem about which I am speaking now.
In so far as municipal aid is concerned, it is almost totally useless in Newfoundland because of the nature of the municipal structure there. There are not municipalities of the character and kind that can take advantage of this municipal aid program.


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit me to say, sir, that we have made that program so flexible that where a province looks after the organized municipalities the public works department of that province can act as the contractor and we participate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Again, perhaps at some future time the minister would tell us how much it has been possible to accomplish under that provision. I have another point I should like to make in that connection. It is not merely that the fishermen have a serious problem in the Atlantic provinces,


but there is also a very, very serious problem indeed of general unemployment in the Atlantic provinces. It is much more serious than it is in the other parts of Canada. As the minister knows, the volume of employment has been declining as between this year and last, the volume of unemployment has gone up and the ratio of unemployed to employed is, unhappily, higher in the Atlantic provinces than it is elsewhere in Canada.


Michael Starr: For the information of the hon. gentleman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would make his own speech on his own time.


Michael Starr: There are 17,000 fewer in the Atlantic provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the minister is quoting the N.E.S. figures, which are the only ones he has for January. I know exactly what he is going to say. We know why the N.E.S. figures are away down in the eastern provinces. I shall tell the minister why. According to a clipping I have here from the Toronto Telegram the jobless figures do not jibe. No doubt the minister has read it, and it says that the officials are confused because from Ontario west the D.B.S. figures are lower than the N.E.S. figures and from Quebec east they are higher.


Michael Starr: They have always been that way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the minister why, and there is no difficulty about telling him. So many people in the eastern provinces cannot qualify for unemployment insurance that they do not believe it is worth while registering. Any hon. member on this side of the house or the other side of the house from the Atlantic provinces knows that quite well.


Michael Starr: The figure is only 1 per cent different from last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not wish to engage in a battle of statistics with the minister because I know the minister would like, as I would like, to do something about the problem instead of arguing about statistics.


Michael Starr: Well, do not mention them then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do urge the minister, if he is anxious to do something, to accept the suggestion I made on October 21, a suggestion of nothing less than plain justice for the people engaged in the oldest industry in Canada. I suggest he reconsider that recommendation and either carry it out or adopt something better.


Michael Starr: What was the suggestion?

The Address-Mr. Pickersgill


John Whitney Pickersgill: My suggestion was, as the minister knows quite well, that these fishermen who through no fault of their own do not have 15 stamps should be given enough stamps by the government to make 15, and that the cost of the insurance they would thereby earn should not be charged to the fund but charged direct to the government in the same way that the $40 million for the farmers was. If that is not simple justice and the obvious way to do it without upsetting the unemployment insurance scheme -well, if the minister can produce a better scheme, I would say at once it was better. However, he produces nothing. He just says no.
A moment ago the minister said that in provinces where the municipalities were not in a position to undertake the work themselves, provision had been made for allowing the provincial government to substitute itself for the municipalities. I am just going to make one point about that. In so far as Newfoundland is concerned, if the government had done what the legislature of Newfoundland unanimously asked them to do in a motion moved by the premier and seconded by the leader of the Conservative opposition in that assembly; if the government had paid the McNair award as every member of the opposition asked them to do last year, the provincial government would have been in a better position to cope with the problem than it is. We all know that today the premier of Newfoundland is seeing the Prime Minister.


Michael Starr: Why did he not use part of the $9 million they got from this government last spring?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister is meeting today with the premier of Newfoundland about this problem. I do not intend, sir, to say anything about it except to express the hope that the government will take early and favourable action on that request for the implementation of the constitution of Canada.
I should like, if I had the time, to go over the Atlantic charter that was produced by the Tory candidates at Moncton in May of 1957, and which I am sure is very much in the mind of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks). I should like to go over it point by point, and on some occasion during the session, if I can find the opportunity, I intend to do that. I am sure if I do not I can count on the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska reminding the government about it. I doubt if any other supporter of the government will do so. They want this Atlantic charter forgotten.
The situation is rather amusing, Mr. Speaker. The Tory party, like the United
Nations, has its Atlantic charter and, like the United Nations, it has a bill of rights. If the bill of rights is as empty as the Tory Atlantic charter for the Atlantic provinces has proved to be, it will not contain much for anyone.
I told the Minister of Labour that before I concluded I would have a few constructive suggestions to make, and I have a few. On October 21 last year I made a constructive suggestion which the minister apparently comprehended so little that he asked me to repeat it today. I sincerely hope that the government will act either on that suggestion or on some alternative that will help all the fishermen in all the settlements. I can tell the minister this. Welcome as the community stage may be in Twillingate, a community stage in Twillingate is of no help whatever to the fishermen in Fogo. That is the kind of situation we have all around the coast. In my riding we have seven community stages for which I thank the government sincerely; that is, there are seven community stages for about 200 settlements. That is not an adequate means of dealing with this problem of human suffering; and human suffering is involved.
The second constructive suggestion I have to repeat to the government is that they should act promptly to implement the recommendations of the McNair report, and do better than that. The third thing, about which I made some inquiry of the Minister of Agriculture the other day, is that they should treat pulpwood producers in the same way as other farmers are treated in this country. It seems to me that if a floor under sugar beets is justified, a floor under pulpwood is equally justified.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Have you not a provincial government down there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there would be any argument that the farmers producing pulpwood need help at least as much as those producing sugar beets.


Michael Starr: What is the provincial government doing about the matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course this suggestion would not apply so much in Newfoundland, as the hon. gentleman realizes, because in Newfoundland we do not have farmers to any extent and they do not produce much pulpwood. It is cut for the companies. This suggestion is therefore made in the interests of pulpwood farmers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The minister had better ask the provincial governments themselves what they are doing.


Michael Starr: The other provincial governments are doing their share.

The Address-Mr. Balcer


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister can ask the Tory provincial governments of those two provinces if he wishes to do so.


Mr. Morris:: Talk about Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must ask hon. members to give the hon. gentleman who has the floor the opportunity to make his speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the moment one on this side of the house attempts to make the kind of constructive suggestions the Minister of Labour asked for, there are constant interruptions.
The fourth suggestion I have to make is that the government should get ahead with the electricity program which was initiated by Mr. Harris and Mr. Lesage in the spring of 1957, and about which nothing has been done since this government has come into office. In addition, they should take such steps to change the legislation as are necessary to make it apply effectively to the province of Newfoundland, something which they refused and continued to refuse to do a year ago.
My final suggestion-and it is final, Mr. Speaker, because I notice that you, like I, are looking at the clock-is that the government should undertake at least 90 per cent of the cost of completing the trans-Canada highway in the four Atlantic provinces. I may say that is the part of the program of the Liberal party adopted at our convention, and we note that the Minister of Public Works is proposing to bring in legislation at this session respecting the trans-Canada highway. Because of the disparity in income, the lesser ability of the Atlantic provinces to pay their share of the cost of this road, and the urgent importance of effective transportation in those provinces, I believe this suggestion that 90 per cent of the cost of the trans-Canada highway in the Atlantic provinces be paid by the federal government, if adopted, would be a most constructive contribution not merely to the relief of unemployment but would provide an invaluable national asset to that part of Canada.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be words of congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, namely the distinguished hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson). Despite his youth he has become one of the leaders of the farm community in Canada. He is an expert, and he has given us a most instructive and constructive speech dealing with farming problems in Canada, and I want to congratulate him.


(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet, (Mr. Fortin) who gave us a sample of the speaking ability which contributed to his victory in that historic constituency, previously represented by a former Liberal minister, the one whom the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) referred to as one of the greatest leaders that Quebec had known since the war. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for concrete evidence of the value of that former Liberal minister as leader of a political party, since he does not seem too eager to occupy a seat in the Quebec legislature.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the new hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan) on his splendid victory. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). We are all glad to see him back in the house, and we wish him well. As to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), my congratulations go first of all to her electors who have been king enough to this House of Commons to send us such a charming colleague. All those who knew her distinguished late husband and all of us who know her father, the dean of this house, I am sure are extremely happy to see her in this chamber.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, ever since the beginning of this debate, our hon. friends opposite have been harping exclusively on unemployment, emergency cataclysm, economic depression and, with tears in their eyes, all gave vent to utterances of despair. Frankly, it sounded as if they were bewailing the decline of the Liberal party and the cataclysm which almost annihilated them on March 31 last, and the unemployment to which several of their former colleagues have been condemned as a consequence of the last general election. Mr. Speaker, we are all convinced that these airs of discouragement they are putting on, and the crocodile tears they are shedding are simply due to the fact that business is recovering so fast in Canada. It is a great disappointment to them that Canada is not bankrupt and that there are not a million or a million and a half unemployed in Canada; and if there were, we would hear them make happy speeches.


Lionel Chevrier: There are half a million of them.


Léon Balcer: The discouragement that
seems to grip them stems mainly from

the fact that the wheel has begun to turn, and that the tide of unemployment is now ebbing. Thus, Mr. Speaker, we saw that during the recent holiday season, retail sales throughout the country increased by 15 per cent over last year's figure. In fact, they were the highest ever recorded in this country's history.
That is a very good beginning, and it is certainly an indication that the recession is on the way out. As a matter of fact, Canadians, who are sensible people and have business sense, realized this fact and gave spectacular proof of it on March 31 last.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected on June 10 last, the situation was certainly not too bright. When we were sworn in on June 10, we were immediately made aware of the economic situation of the Canadian nation. Prior to June 10, the former government had pictured the situation in rosy colours, had failed to reveal that its economic advisers were predicting a recession and a wave of unemployment. Rather than to lose votes in the June 10 election, the Liberal government preferred to maintain its tight money policy, a policy that was driving small manufacturers and small businessmen to bankruptcy. They preferred to hang on to this tight money policy, rather than to tell the people the truth.
At a time when taxes were gripping the Canadian economy as in a vise, the Liberal government preferred to continue its policy of taxing to the limit. At a time when the people faced all kinds of economic difficulties because there was not enough money in circulation, the government of our hon. friends opposite continued to put the squeeze, preferring to accumulate surpluses.
Mr. Speaker, after being sworn in on 21 June last, we were able to read the reports of government economists and to become acquainted with the information held in the department of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). From that very moment, we knew that Canada was facing a recession, and that the winter of 1958-59 would be a period of severe unemployment.
Well, Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), we did not rest on our laurels. On the contrary, we faced the problem squarely, and took action where the urgency was greatest.
The first step was to revive the confidence of the Canadian people, because business had slowed down. Industrial construction had begun to slacken, and feelings of "recession", mainly of a psychological nature, were in evidence, as the people had lost confidence in the economic future of the country.
The Address-Mr. Balcer
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the first task was to restore people's confidence and this we decided to do by circulating more money. It was a matter of putting money into the people's hands.
The situation was the more difficult as a similar recession was also beginning to make itself felt in the United States. Now we know that by and large the Canadian economy is geared to that of the United States. Well, without waiting to see what they would do, the government, under the present Prime Minister, took the lead and through various measures decided to put money into the hands of the public.
The first social measure which we tackled was that of old age security. Admittedly, this was relatively easy because, under the former government, old age pensions had remained so long at $40 a month that anyone who had at all considered the problem, could realize that the situation called for immediate improvement. That is why we raised those pensions from $46 to $55 a month, always in order to put a little money in the pockets of those Canadian citizens, to restore their selfrespect and provide them with the bare minimum to face their obligations.
Later on, to relieve the economic squeeze crushing the people of Canada as a result of the former government's fiscal policy, we decided to cut taxes. We did cut them to the extent of $189 million, while the Liberals, barely a few months before, and in spite of the predictions made to them by their economists, preferred to keep on taxing to the utmost the Canadian people and thus accumulate surpluses.
Of course, at the previous session, the Liberal government had cut certain taxes, but always on some insignificant items, such as chewing gum.
Mr. Speaker, when we decided to cut taxes, we did so having in mind primarily low wage earners and large families. In this way we have made available to the public an amount of $189 million which was actually needed.
We also launched a vast construction program. As everybody knows, construction is one way to deal directly or indirectly, with recession and unemployment. Well, we gave Canada the strongest home building policy it ever had. We gave impetus to lagging construction. We made $750 million available to builders and breadwinners. We improved legislation to make it easier for home builders and owners to borrow and repay.

The Address-Mr. Balcer
Well, let us take a look at the results of this splendid policy. In 1957, 122,340 dwelling units were started whereas in 1958, not in the full year, but only during the first eleven months, there were 155,036 starts; as to housing completions, there were 117,283 in 1957 but 133,217 in the first eleven months of
1958.	This is an all-time record in the history of this country. Through these efforts, huge sums were put at the disposal of the Canadian people, so that now in January
1959,	we are beginning to see a decrease of unemployment and we can look forward to an early solution to this problem.
And all along, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) was extending unemployment insurance benefits and was launching a winter works project. This campaign launched throughout Canada has already started to give results and everywhere, in spite of our harsh winters, like this year when the temperature is often below zero and people in all parts of Canada have put up with heavy storms, we see that in cities, large or small, construction is in full swing, people are improving the inside of their homes, putting in basements, or partitions, or new roofs, etc.
Well, as a result of a campaign sponsored by the Department of Labour, it was found that construction is no more expensive in winter, and perhaps less so than in summer. This is why builders and contractors have now decided to build during the winter, to the benefit of all concerned.
We took the necessary steps. First we upped security payments, we reduced taxes and finally we made several hundred million dollars available for construction, not to mention our public works program, the largest ever undertaken in this country. We went ahead with these measures before our neighbours to the south had made up their minds to do anything about them. Right after we had adopted these measures, the American press came up with similar proposals; but we were the ones who had taken the lead. Of course, in the meantime, our hon. friends opposite were saying that it was not enough, that our legislation was coming too late, that it was not adequate, and so on.
Well, the Prime Minister decided to ask the people what they thought about it. As we all know, whenever, in the past, a general election was held under the Liberal administration, it was always held at the most favourable time of the year, when either the crops, employment or trade were at high levels. In the past, an election was always called either in June or in August, always
[Mr. Balcer.l
at a time when, according to past experience, unemployment was at its lowest level or the harvest in full swing.
Well, when faced with the criticism of our hon. friends opposite, the Prime Minister of Canada did not wait for the best time of the year as regards employment-he could have waited till June, July or even August, because, as we recall, during the winter session of 1958, the Liberals were not particularly anxious to face the people once again. After planning all the program I have outlined earlier, our Prime Minister decided to face the nation again and to ask the people whether they accepted our party, which had fulfilled its promises. Furthermore, he asked the population to support the great program that had been launched on June 21. That is why he made his decision right in the middle of winter, when seasonal unemployment was at its peak and just when Canada was experiencing a wave of unemployment such as it had never seen before. Well, the people showed its confidence in the government and the government has not failed them.
The government carried on its work. It has always endeavoured to restore confidence among the people. That is why at the present time our foreign trade, just like our domestic and retail trade are reaching an all-time high so that we can look forward to increased prosperity in the coming months.
The construction program is going ahead, and, as mentioned in the speech from the throne, it is the intention of the government to speed up this program by making additional hundreds of millions available to the public, to provide jobs for the people of Canada.
And since we are on the subject of housing, I believe the people of Canada are confident that under the present government, this upsurge in house building will continue. Besides, economists agree on that necessity, since, as we know, children born in the early war years-and, at that time, Canada had the highest birth rate in its history-will, in the course of the next three, four, five or six years, reach the age when they will want to settle down. They will require houses and so, we can expect this gigantic building effort in Canada to extend into the next five or ten years. Another encouraging feature, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that not only is house building on the increase but industrial building also, which, as we know

had so significantly decreased, to the detriment of our economy, that this decrease can be considered as one of the great factors of this recession.
Well, we are happy to note, right now, in this very month of January, that in 1959, industrial building in Canada will expand as never before.
Let us take a look, for instance, at the picture in my own province of Quebec. In a single area of the province, the British Aluminum Company will spend $175 million the Quebec North Shore will spend $100 million while the Cartier Mining will spend $250 million and the Quebec Hydro $42 million. In addition, grain elevators, to be built in Baie Comeau, will involve an expenditure of $18 million. And, Mr. Speaker, this applies to only one area of the province, the newest, the Ungava area. This industrial construction is no doubt a harbinger of a well-balanced prosperity in this country.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. minister allow me a question, at this point?


Léon Balcer: Certainly.


Lionel Chevrier: How is it then that, in spite of all that industrial construction, unemployment is more widespread in the province of Quebec than in any other province, except the maritimes?


Léon Balcer: This industrial construction is just starting out. For instance, the Cartier Mining contract has just been awarded and the Quebec Hydro works on the Manicagouan river have barely started. We are just on the threshold of this amazing development in this area of the province. Soon, two other railroads will be built alongside the line connecting Seven Islands and Schefferville. May I, incidentally, express the hope that the pleas of the hon. members for Charlevoix and Saguenay (Messrs. Asselin and LaRue) for the building of a railway between Murray Bay and Seven Islands by the Canadian National will soon be successful, so that this industrial empire may finally be connected with the rest of the country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this industrial progress I was mentioning a moment ago, in one area of the province of Quebec, will no doubt benefit all the rest of the province. In fact, I am happy to note that in the constituency
The Address-Mr. Balcer of Three Rivers, for instance, my own riding, the Canadian Iron Foundries will develop in a remarkable way during 1959. These people are planning a huge extension of their plant in Three Rivers. In addition, Mack Brothers will now be making trucks at Three Rivers, while the federal government is planning to build an airport there, and a technological institute is to be constructed by the provincial government at a cost of $3 million. Across the river, the Reynolds Aluminum Company plans to spend close to $4 million on an extension to its superb plant at Cap de la Madeleine.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are examples of the industrial upswing which is in evidence and which is anticipated in the spring of 1959. That is why I say that our hon. friends opposite have no reason to display such gloom, to worry as they do, because evidence of bright outlook can be seen throughout the country.
We also plan to expand the help being given to both home and industrial construction, and we propose to continue bringing before the house legislation which will be of greatest possible benefit to the Canadian people.
I am convinced that under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister, Canada faces an era of prosperity such as it has never known in all its history.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. minister allow me a question, before he resumes his chair? Since he chose to omit all reference to the dispute taking place in his own province, I would ask him why the government does not intervene in this dispute which is causing such damage-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -to the C.B.C. French network?


Léon Balcer: As I was saying only two or three days ago, Mr. Speaker, this is of course a very sad problem, which we earnestly hope will be settled soon. It is, however, a problem which concerns the management and employees of the C.B.C. Therefore, personally, I do not intend-


An hon. Member:: To defend-


Léon Balcer: -to become involved in
this problem any further at this time. I am convinced that the management of the C.B.C., the union members and the producers can certainly reach an agreement

The Address-Mr. Dumas without any intervention on the part of the Minister of Labour, or of myself, or of other members of the cabinet. Furthermore, the latest reports show great improvement in the situation. I am confident, therefore, that common sense will prevail and that the people of the province of Quebec will soon be able to enjoy the programs they deserve.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the hon. minister
believe the strike to be illegal, as stated by the Minister of National Revenue?


Mr. Dorion:: May I be allowed-


Lionel Chevrier: I have put a question to the hon. minister, and I am entitled to an answer.


Léon Balcer: I do not believe that the strike is illegal.


Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate, and if I have to criticize the government as it deserves I intend that my remarks shall be as constructive as possible.
I should like first to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, and tell you how we appreciate the manner in which you preside over the proceedings of this house. I should like also to convey our gratitude to the Deputy Speaker of this house (Mr. Sevigny). We congratulate him on his sense of justice and his kindness to the hon. members when he occupies the chair in your absence.
We are glad, also, to see that the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) has been re-elected as deputy chairman of committees of the whole; we want to give him the assurance that we will always gladly co-operate with him.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join all those who spoke before me to offer my sincere congratulations to the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin).
The hon. member for Provencher has launched the debate very well, and the member for Montmagny-L'Islet has amazed us by his maiden speech here. His friends from Quebec should note his stand and try to imitate him on many of the points he mentioned which are, in brief, the fundamentals of the Liberal policy in this house and in the whole country.
Last Monday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) made a remarkable speech. According to press comments and public

reaction, we see that he was quite right when he said that the government had shown almost a kind of genius in straying from the straight line to plunge into confusion, contradiction and wavering instability. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right also to say, last Monday, that the speech from the throne was more understandable for what it leaves out than for what it contains.
In my opinion, it is no exaggeration to say that the government, in outlining its legislative program for this session, has failed woefully by leaving out, and disregarding the three problems it was supposed to look into and which are of greatest concern to the Canadian people; unemployment, inflation, national defence, more particularly, air defence. Mr. Speaker, I shall not dwell on the latter subject. Our leader talked about it with authority. He stated the position of our party when he said that it is essential that we should be informed of all the aspects of the problem, either by parliamentary committee or by a sub-committee on estimates.
The Leader of the Opposition was right when he said last Monday that we have come to the crossroads in the field of defence and that, if we want to find a solution, we must give to this problem the best and most exhaustive consideration, since it is a matter of vital importance to the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we now face the problem of inflation and it is the responsibility of the government to take the necessary steps to stop the depreciation of our dollar, the rising cost of living and rising prices in all fields. Once again, the Leader of the Opposition had reason to criticize the government's failure to take action. We find nothing or, at least, very little, in the speech from the throne that could lead us to believe that the government intends to take the necessary and vigorous measures that will stop inflation. Inflation is detrimental to everybody. It is the main handicap to our country's economic development.
Increased costs of production are just about the most challenging problem at the present time, since Canadian producers are hardly able to meet foreign competition on world markets, indeed on the domestic market.
Of course, the responsibility for this does not lie at the door of the central government only. Provincial governments will also have

to reduce their expenditures, private enterprise will have to co-operate to a larger extent and all Canadians will have to do their share in helping to step up production. Even though this problem is not the sole responsibility of the federal government, it remains with them to take the lead and to implement the measures which are imperative.
At the annual general meeting of the Banque Canadienne Nationale, the president, Mr. St. Pierre, said at the end of his remarks on price inflation:
It is therefore imperative to resort forthwith to all possible means to control the erosion of currency which is threatening the welfare of our people and the future of Canada. It is the duty of the government to insure monetary stability through an adequate policy, and the first step in that direction is the elimination of the budgetary deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I now come to a problem which, in my opinion, is the most serious one at the present time, a problem which the Canadian people must face and which, in the words of His Eminence Cardinal Leger, is having many far-reaching consequences, and which the government must strive to solve: unemployment. It came to me as a surprise, Mr. Speaker, that the government hardly mentioned it in the speech from the throne. What is still more astonishing, is the fact that when a member on this side of the house deals with the problem, our hon. friends opposite get angry, charge us with spreading fear in the hearts of the Canadian people and with being unco-operative. They even go so far as to say that even though they have been responsible for managing the affairs of Canada for the past 18 months, the remarkable thing is that it behooves us, the opposition, to find the required solutions and to hand those solutions and suggestions over to them on a silver tray.
Mr. Speaker, there has been unemployment in the past and there will probably be some in the future. In the past, however, when there was unemployment, members who were then in the opposition did not fail to level harsh criticism at the government whose responsibility it was to remedy the situation. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with this difference that, during the years we were in power, we took all steps called for by existing conditions. As far as I am concerned, our honourable friends' tantrums leave me cold; moreover I am going to say that I quite intend to keep pleading in favour of my distressed fellow citizens.
The Address-Mr. Dumas
Some areas of Canada are more affected than others, nevertheless unemployment today is too widespread.
For example in my constituency there are too many workers who are out of a job. And what is more serious is the fact that in my riding as well as elsewhere, workers who have run out of regular and seasonal benefits find themselves in an unbearable predicament. In addition, those who get a temporary job but who will not be in a position to keep that job long enough to be entitled to benefits are in the same boat, and it is then that the situation becomes serious.
Mr. Speaker, there are people now who do not receive either regular or seasonal benefits and who live in small communities or in cities where other problems have come up.
For instance in my riding the people of two cities are hard-pressed because of the closing of industries which were operating there some time ago. Therefore civic authorities are quite unable to look after the unemployed who do not receive regular or seasonal benefits and who need something to live on. Of course, this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, I grant you. It may be that provincial authorities were remiss in their duty, but in cases like these, additional provision should be made to help out those people who have families to support.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention again to put all the blame on the government for the emergency which has been lasting for some time now. It would not be fair either to suggest that the government must bear the full responsibility for the recession which is felt with more or less intensity here as elsewhere. However, we are justified in criticizing the government policy. Unless evidence is forthcoming that constructive measures will be taken to remedy unemployment or to help those who have not the wherewithal to meet the needs of their families, we shall keep pressing the government and insist that steps be taken as soon as possible.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), in the course of this debate made a review of the measures taken by his government since June 10, 1957, and which were meant to promote employment and help the unemployed. At the time of that discussion, he showed great displeasure with the opposition's criticism. He does not appreciate the opposition pointing out the government's weak points.

The Address-Mr. Dumas
Well, Mr. Speaker, we criticize the government in the first place because of the exaggerated promises it made to obtain the popular vote. We also criticize it for having been so slow to take action once it had obtained power; we find fault with the government because most of the measures it did take have proven inadequate. We have protested, we are still protesting and we will go on protesting, against the weakness with which the government has tackled the job in hand, which was to create economic conditions conducive to higher employment throughout Canada.
You will recall that there was reference to great public works. We were given to understand that if the Conservative party came into power, a new public works program would be launched, whereas, in fact, the famous billion dollar program was merely the continuation and completion of projects undertaken by the former government, and we are still waiting for the government to announce that those major works will be undertaken in conjunction with the provinces and private industry. There was also a reference to a large scale plan to settle the far north, although the government must have known that, for the time being at least, such an undertaking was impracticable. That the government should pursue the airmapping work already started in the north, finish the aerial photography work in that area; do topographical, geological and other surveys of the more accessible areas; that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources should set up a development program for the future, well and good. We agree and have no objection whatever. But to claim that to speed up the country's development, we will have to leave unexplored and, of course, undeveloped thousands of square miles located more to the south, and go into an area where transportation is difficult, water power lacking and where for many reasons it will be extremely difficult to attract the necessary labour, that, Mr. Speaker, is quite another matter.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock, when the debate was adjourned, I was saying that the development program in northern 
Canada, as understood by the government, is not practical, at least for the time being; that it is a program which cannot, for instance, promote the nation's economy, and provide more jobs. For that reason, I said that, there again, the population has been somewhat misled. I said also that we would favour the idea of the government undertaking research projects of all kinds and preparing a program for the future, and that we are fully of the opinion that the Canadian north can be developed later, on a large scale.
That is why I say that, for the moment, if we wish to spur the country's economy, provide jobs, promote fuller development of our known natural resources which are located in easily accessible places, the government should turn its attention farther south, to easily accessible districts, such as the southern Yukon and the Northwest Territories, the northern areas of the western provinces, northern Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland, since there is there ample space where the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources could, by itself or in co-operation with the provinces, according as to whether the territories or the provinces are concerned, carry on their work.
This brings me to suggest another government project, that is the construction of access roads to put within easy reach the natural resources located more to the south, a project which naturally should be implemented in co-operation with the provinces.
In my opinion, such a project is in keeping with plain common sense; it is applicable, and if it were carried on with vigour, it could prove a practical way of providing more jobs and of spurring the economy throughout the country.
However, this access roads construction program has remained in abeyance, Mr. Speaker, because of the government's failure to call, as it should have done, a conference of parties interested in such a project.
It is true that there has been correspondence with the provincial authorities concerned. It is also true that last week it was announced in the press that possibly within a month, the province of Ontario will be signing an agreement with the federal government. However, as this method of communicating by letter with the provinces is much too slow and quite ineffective, and since it is important that at least a majority of the provinces agree to such a plan,

the government should have used other methods.
However, there is still time to correct the situation, and as the saying goes, better late than never. The government should first revise its plan so as to make it more flexible and less costly for the provinces. Then a conference of the provincial and federal ministers concerned should be called as soon as possible, and at such a conference the ministers might lay the foundations of such a plan and decide how to go ahead with it.
I should like to mention to the house, as an illustration, a development project which is just being started in our area, more specifically at lake Matagami, in the constituency of my good friend the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Martel).
Hardly more than a year ago, about one hundred miles north of the cities of Amos and Senneterre, a group of syndicated mining firms discovered a rich deposit of base metals, a few miles south of the great Matagami lake. The proven ore content of this deposit has since been established at 25 million tons, with a total value of over $600 million. Needless to say that immediately after this discovery, large numbers of mining firms invaded this area, with the result that there have been three other discoveries, also very substantial, of base metal deposits of still undetermined value.
The area can be reached only by air. Development, therefore is slow, difficult, and above all very costly. Fortunately, last fall, the firms involved reached an agreement with the provincial government, and the government is now building a winter road fifty miles long. There remains a distance of about 23 miles to be built by the mining firms. In a few days, Mr. Speaker, this road will be open to traffic.
This low-cost winter road will make it possible to develop an area where there is a great wealth in base metals. Of course, soon we will have to build a permanent hardsurfaced road and a railway branch line about 50 miles long that will be linked to the C.N.R. line between Senneterre and Lake St. John, via the Chibougamau region.
Incidentally, I want to remind the house that this latter railroad was built under the former government. It must be realized that the lake Matagami ore will provide much freight to this C.N.R. branch line and
The Address-Mr. Dumas that, in the near future, it will become one of the most profitable branch lines in Canada.
Everybody knows that in a few years, and I repeat, in a few years only, in no more than a decade, there will be a well organized population of more than 10,000 people in the Matagami area.
There is fertile land up there and, if the provincial government would take the trouble to do so, in a few years, it could surely settle 200 or 300 or even more farmers who could benefit from the proximity and development of this new industrial centre.
That is not all. This development, perhaps modest at the beginning, is bound to thrive, and I predict that in a few years, there will be many base metals mines in the Matagami area. It is one of the most promising mining areas of the province of Quebec and, perhaps, of the whole of Canada. Curiously enough, the soil of this region is also very rich. Because outcrops are few, prospecting is rather difficult. The overburden varies in thickness from a few feet to more than 300 feet.
So, it is not surprising that many people are inclined to say that this mining area should have been discovered long ago. Well, it is precisely because outcrops are few, and the overburden varies in depth from a few feet up to 300 feet, that these mineral deposits could not be discovered earlier. We had to use modern methods and to make geophysical, magnetic and electromagnetic surveys to locate these deposits and, today, we have to make expensive diamond borings to confirm the findings of these geophysical and electromagnetic surveys and to prove that there are really mineral deposits there.
Because of the richness of the soil in that area, Father Henri Cloutier predicted, as reported in an article entitled The Kingdom of Matagami, published in Relations of March 1947, the expansion that would take place some day in the Matagami lake district:
The Matagami lake basin, with its vast forests, waterways and lakes, is the greatest untapped reservoir of arable land remaining in Quebec; in other words, it is the only significant area available to us for the launching of a great and progressive enterprise. Suppose you are told to settle, in the shortest possible time and at the lowest cost, from 100,000 to 200,000 young people and families, overflow of old parishes-
One could say that they are now unemployed.

The Address

Mr. Dumas
-suppose you are also asked to provide for the prosperity of the 50,000 settlers who are now in Abitibi. The proposal is ambitious but reasonable, and it is imperative.
And then, Father Cloutier goes on to explain that all these people should be directed toward the Matagami lake district. A little farther down, he writes:
Is the present Abitibi an obstacle barring the real route to the north? Or is it a springboard from where we should start occupying the real important district, i.e. the kingdom of Matagami, and set up the capital, which cannot be set up elsewhere, since nature decided so?
Well, Mr. Speaker, this article clearly shows, in a few words, the importance of the Matagami lake district.
Here is an area where it would be possible to settle hundreds of thousands of people. The mere construction of a railroad will make it possible to develop rich ore deposits which, when mines go into operation at some future date, will provide employment for thousands of workers.
Why can't the federal government reach an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec for the construction, in the Matagami area, of a whole network of winter roads to make prospecting easier and less costly, and to speed up research in the entire area? Last year, a few hundred men found employment in the Matagami area. Yet, as I mentioned a moment ago, the only means of transport was by air. Knowing the cost of such transportation, and the difficulty of moving large groups of men by air, we find that now that there is a road, a winter road, more workers will be able to enter the area. Moreover, if a road-building program such as I have mentioned were rapidly carried out, I am sure that before 1960 over a thousand workers could find jobs in the Matagami area.
Why couldn't the federal government also do the same in the accessible parts of the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories, and the northern areas of the western provinces and Ontario, and in other parts of the province of Quebec, as well as in Labrador, in Newfoundland and in the maritimes?
Mr. Speaker, this program makes sense, but the federal government must show more daring. The government must convince the provinces that current unemployment has to be checked, and that this is one way to do it. There are many other ways of checking
[Mr. Dumas.1
unemployment. Perhaps it cannot be stopped completely, but surely there are means of improving the situation.
I recognize that a program such as I have described will not provide employment for hundreds of thousands of workers, but if this were done throughout the country-and there is no reason for not doing it-in the Yukon, for instance, in the Northwest Territories, in the southern part of those territories, in the Peace River district, in northern Manitoba, where the International Nickel Company is operating a nickel mine of unprecedented capacity, at Mohawk and Thompson lakes, -and there are indeed other lands or parts of land that may hold very rich mineral deposits; if all would co-operate and if the federal government would call a conference here, in Ottawa, of provincial ministers of mines and colonization-I mention provincial ministers of colonization because this is very important, particularly in the region like that of Matagami, where, for instance, the land is fertile-if we could have, side by side, the mining industry, the lumbering industry, and agriculture, we could be sure to make good. We would make good because those who would settle as farmers in this area could, in their spare time, find employment in the industry, because they would live close to large centres.
As I said earlier, in a few years we would have in the Matagami area, a community of some 10,000 people. Well, it means something to have such a large community. It is large enough to help 200 to 300 farmers to make a living. So, we should make a careful study of the situation and revise the methods used to this day, particularly in the field of colonization.
You cannot expect today to go up to a man and say: "You are going to settle in range so-and-so of such-and-such township; then, you will build your own log camp and you will clear the first acres". You can't do that. The government has the responsibility, today, of finding places in which to settle new farmers. The government should clear the first acres, build comfortable houses, where these people could live with a certain degree of satisfaction. Then, it would be much easier to sell them those lands at $5,000, $8,000 or $10,000, if necessary, on easy terms, than to give them the lands, in the form of tenancy tickets, at the low price of $10 or $15. Then many people would settle out

there, farm that land and make this particular region grow. This could be done everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the government should think things over and make arrangements so that we might start first by speeding up the development of easy-to-reach regions, where there are adequate natural resources for many years to come.
(Text):


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I wish first to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Second, your fine record as Speaker of this house has pleased everyone. As we all know, you bring honour to this parliament. I also wish to join with other hon. members in congratulating the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) has been a great help to me since I came to Ottawa, and I wish to thank him very much.
The House of Commons, I have been told, is big league, and it did not take long to establish who are the big leaguers. Your fame, Mr. Speaker, was known to me before I left the coast and now, having seen you work, I know why you have the admiration and respect of all parties. Before coming to Ottawa I thought of the House of Commons as being two rows of trenches separated by a no man's land. 1 admire your courage, Mr. Speaker, sitting as you do between the rows. I was of the opinion that a member never crossed this no man's land except to join another party. You can well imagine my amazement when I noticed members of the opposition going across from time to time and talking to the various ministers. However, that was last session; this session I have not seen it happen. There has certainly been a change somewhere along the line.
This being my first speech in the House of Commons I feel very much as I did when I first went solo in an aircraft, the difference being that now at least I shall not be hurt. The kindness of members of the House of Commons to a member making his first speech is traditional and, as in the case of the aircraft, if I keep my nose out of the dirt I will come to no harm.
1 wish now to pay tribute to two former members of this house who have passed away. I speak first of William Val Yacula.
The Address-Mr. Matthews In the short time I knew him I became aware of his many qualities, and I am confident that had he continued he would have contributed greatly to the welfare of Canada as an elected member of the House of Commons. He was a very friendly man, and I am pleased to say that in the very short time I knew him I was able to call him Val.
It was my good fortune last session to share an office with the late Edward Russell Lock-yer. Ed Lockyer was the type of man who should be elected to parliament. In Toronto he gave as much of his life as he could to the service of that city, being always active in performing such services as were for the advancement and betterment of his fellow Canadians. We can well understand why Ed was elected and, if he so wishes, I know he will be elected to the grand lodge above.
As hon. members know, I represent the constituency of Nanaimo, which is that central part of Vancouver island extending from Englishman river on the north to Cobble Hill on the south, including the beautiful gulf islands. As a candidate it is necessary that you become a salesman or, better still, a super salesman, and your first selling job is to sell yourself to the people of your constituency. Then, after you are elected you come to Ottawa and sell your constituency to your fellow members of parliament. I could do a real selling job among my colleagues in this chamber if it were possible to take them all by jet aircraft to beautiful Nanaimo and the islands. It would take about six hours to make the flight to Nanaimo.
Nanaimo is known as the gateway to Vancouver island, and all roads lead to this gateway. There are 21 ferry sailings daily to and from Nanaimo by the finest ferry ships in the world. In 1957 the ferry boats carried 1,710,934 passenger cars and 201,383 freight cars from Vancouver to Nanaimo, and in the same year 61,000 tourists registered at the chamber of commerce. Seven hundred and twenty-three foreign vessels and 3,471 coastal ships cleared Nanaimo in the same year.
It was very interesting during the recess to have the Minister of Fisheries in Nanaimo and to have the pleasure of spending a day with him looking over the wonderful biological station there. If any hon. member should have a mind to travel and see something of interest I would suggest that he visit this marvellous station. They have a model

The Address-Mr. Matthews there of Hecate strait. This is an exact model. The tides go in and out, and it all happens at the same hours as the tides in Hecate strait itself.
Anglo Canadian Timber Products operate a sizeable industry in Nanaimo and of course, as hon. members all know, MacMillan and Bloedel Ltd. have a tremendously big pulp mill there. Sometimes between 400 and 500 big fishing boats are in the harbour, and that sight in itself is certainly well worth seeing. We have two branches of the legion there, Canadian Legion No. 10 and Canadian Legion No. 256. I just mention these two facts in order to give hon. members some idea of the variety of industries and interests we have represented.
As to sports in Nanaimo, we have a famous team there which won quite a number of hockey championships, and it was two years ago in the Maple Leaf gardens that a Nanaimo team won the Mann cup for Canadian senior lacrosse. This is the first time the Mann cup has ever been won in the east by a western team though, to be honest about it, I must add that we did bring some very fine boys from the province of Ontario who like Nanaimo so well that they are living there, have their families there and intend to stay.
At this point I might mention that sport, to me, is a very important thing. I was pleased to hear recently that the John Labatt company under Mr. J. W. Murray are sponsoring that lacrosse team this year. If any big company in Canada wants to do a real service I would say that the sponsoring of good hockey teams, baseball teams and lacrosse teams is one of the finest forms of advertising and one of the best things they could do as Canadian firms.
We have a very nice ice rink in Nanaimo, and we have a curling rink, too. Anyone interested in curling should remember that we have eight rinks on Vancouver island and, as I said, we have one in Nanaimo. The fishing there is tremendous. I will not dwell on this, but I recommend anyone here to go out and try some of our fishing when the session is over.
I must thank the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Grills), who invited us to go over to the Hull arena yesterday to see the Belleville Macs play against the Hull senior team. It was very enjoyable, and I might mention that the coach of this Belleville team comes from New Westminster. Going back some years to the period when I had first a juvenile team and then a junior team, I can remember

that he was always a thorn in the side of our club at that time. I should like to wish Ike Hildebrand of the Macs team every luck in the world championship games.
Continuing this tour of my constituency, from Nanaimo I should like to take hon. members out by bus, if it were possible, on a tour of this beautiful country. They would call at the city of Ladysmith. I wish they could go from there into the logging camps and see the actual logging conditions, the tremendous diameters they take out, trees which are the finest and largest in the world. I might remark at this time that in my constituency they brought out a 225-foot Douglas fir spar tree, about five feet at the butt, as I remember. That was sent over to England, and hon. members can imagine that tremendous 16-ton spar tree going over to England. I would be very happy if we had one on the lawn in front of this building. They also have Canadian Legion No. 171 and the Comox Logging and Railway Company.
Leaving Ladysmith we would then go up to Cowichan lake and Honeymoon bay. Here you would find large scale logging operations and sawmills that would amaze you. If you were driving through here in the summer and had a fishing rod in your car you probably could not resist the temptation to do a little fishing, because it is a sportsman's paradise. At Cowichan lake there is Canadian Legion No. 210. At Honeymoon bay is situated the Western Forest Industries Limited and the Cowichan Copper Company. The latter produced ore amounting to $1,200,000 in 1958. There is also the Mayo Lumber Company at Honeymoon bay.
Leaving this area we would then go down to the beautiful city of Duncan, that will delight and interest all hon. members. I am sure you would find you would want to spend at least a day here examining the many historic points of interest. There is an Indian reservation nearby, and the famous Cowichan Indian sweaters come from here. There is a curling rink and a progressive chamber of commerce which does a splendid job. Hillcrest Lumber Company is situated here, and there is Canadian Legion No. 53.
Leaving Duncan we cut back to Crofton and go through the new and up to date pulp mill that was recently opened there by British Columbia Forest Products Limited, and then go on to Chemainus to inspect the large lumber mill and watch the workers cut Douglas fir and load cargo freighters with British Columbia lumber for all parts of the world. MacMillan and Bloedel Limited is also located there, and there is Canadian Legion No. 191.

We now come to a most exciting point in our tour, because we now return to Nanaimo where we board a power boat and take a cruise through the beautiful gulf islands. I am sure hon. members would enjoy the thrill provided by passing through Dodd narrows where the tide runs at from ten to twelve knots. In a small craft this makes the journey an exciting one. The international cruiser race is held practically every year commencing at Seattle and concluding at Nanaimo. There can be as many as 125 cruisers in the race, and many may reach the narrows at approximately the same time. It is very exciting to watch the small boats bobbing in the water like corks, almost brushing one another as they speed ahead. Few can resist the excitement the race provides.
As we continue our tour, Gabriola island will be on our left. This area was first settled by people who came from California and from England years ago. They are a fine and happy people. We then pass on to Galiano island and cross over to Mayne island, where we spend a few hours. Reluctantly we leave these pleasure spots and proceed to Saturna island for another interesting event, the annual lamb barbecue. A few years ago a small group of perhaps 25 people from cruisers that had come up from the United States and British Columbia met and held a lamb barbecue. It is now an annual event and the attendance has increased considerably. Games and various other activities are now associated with the barbecue, and it is a source of pleasure to many tourists. There is excellent fishing, and some fine summer resorts are located on the islands.
From Saturna we proceed to north and south Pender islands before docking at Ganges harbour, which is on the south end of Saltspring island. I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the modern hospital at Ganges harbour, and it is indeed a wonderful building. We then go to Bedwell harbour where commencing this summer a customs and excise office will be situated. Pleasure boats coming up from the United States will be able to dock there before cruising on. There are many fine things to see in this area including hotels, golf courses and ferries. I might add that as many as 800 or 900 pleasure boats pass through Nanaimo every year coming from various parts of the United States. The people of Ganges harbour are active and progressive. They have a branch of the Canadian Legion and a chamber of commerce. They do not hesitate to write me about their problems, and all hon. members appreciate it when their constituents acquaint them with their difficulties rather than allowing them to become the cause of unrest.
The Address-Mr. Matthews
It will be difficult to get you to leave any of these island beauty spots, but we must be on our way back and I know that all hon. gentlemen will want to return to Nanaimo and the island. And now permit me to tell you something about the people who live in this riding.
We have there our pioneers who helped build our country. We have war veterans who fought for our country. We also have young Canadians who are eager to build a better Canada. We also have a large number of industries, including our commercial fishing, our many logging camps and sawmills and at the present time two large pulp mills. We have loggers who can handle the largest timber and log the steepest grades of any loggers in the world. If I wanted practical advice on commercial fishing, logging, lumber milling, road building or power development, I could get it from men who not only know how to do it but who can do it. I have had a flow of letters from the people in my constituency demanding a humane method for the slaughter of animals. I assure them that this matter is of great concern to me and I will do all I can to support their appeal.
I should like to compliment the hon. member for Victoria for his stand with respect to the right of old age pensioners to receive their pension even after leaving Canada, and I will support this position. When a pension of any form is given it should be an earned pension. Canadian pensions given in the form of old age pensions or pensions to members of the civil service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the armed services are well earned pensions. All these people are shareholders in the building of Canada and are entitled to draw their dividends when they retire.
In the building of Canada a number of machines have come into being from time to time to assist in this work. As a boy I can remember the stone boats used on the farms. These were used to clear rocks from the land so it could be tilled and cultivated. It was a most useful article. There was also a machine called a fertilizer spreader and, of course, there was a seed spreader, probably created by Massey-Harris, and these too were useful inventions. When I walked up to the House of Commons just a week ago I saw a new machine on the street, a truck belonging to the public works department of the city of Ottawa. It had a chain drive from the rear wheel hub which when thrown into gear spread sand on the streets. It had a sign on the back that read "sand spreader". But I was to see another new machine that same day. It was a machine put out by a desperate group of left-overs, a new Liberal machine called a "gloom spreader". This machine,

The Address-Mr. Matthews so far as thinking Canadians are concerned, is about as effective in this day and age as the Wright brothers' first aircraft would be on a trip to the moon.
If we read back in history we find that all dictators in their attempts to conquer have used fear as their weapon. They used fear not only on the armies they were fighting but they carried as much fear and terror as they could to the civilian population. Even women and children were exposed to as much of this fear as could be directed their way. Any political party that attempts to take over and control Canada, using fear as a weapon, will only destroy itself. Fear has always been used as a weapon to kill faith. A party that destroys the faith of its own people also kills the faith of other countries, and that goes a long way toward causing a depression.
At this point I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for having visited so many countries on his tour. Other countries with which we trade and that wish to trade with us are watching and looking for good reasons to have faith in Canada. It is our duty and purpose to supply them with reasons for having faith in our great country.
It took no great vision, no great courage, for us to make this six-hour trip to Nanaimo; but when we think of the pioneers who came by ship, taking months to make the trip, when we think of the hardy people who came from eastern Canada across the country by wagon train or later by railway, with no hospitals, no unemployment insurance, nothing but their great faith, their courage and their desire to build a new Canada, I wonder how any of us can be uncertain about the future of Canada. In the descendants of those pioneer builders of our nation we still have men and women of faith, courage and ability; we still have a country second to none in national resources. All that the people have been waiting for is a government with vision and faith, and we all agree that on March 31, 1957, the voters of Canada supplied just that.
It should be the purpose of this government to get on with the job. Our pioneers, the builders of Canada, our senior citizens and our war veterans should receive more than just enough to live on. We know that the wage earners of Canada want these old people to have a good standard of living, and I will always work to achieve this end.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, it is very much of an ordeal for hon. members of the opposition to sit in this parliament, but to them I say "Be of good cheer". When you are old you will look back to these days and will be able proudly to say, "I sat in parliament when
[Mr. Matthews.}
Canada's greatest development took place under the leadership of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and the Progressive Conservative banner."


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment as amended; and to refresh the memories of hon. members, because of the diversity of topics discussed to date. I am going to read the amendment as amended by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue):
We respectfully affirm that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of contradictory and confused policies caused by the absence of social and economic planning, and their failure to provide agriculture with a fair share of the national income, and their further failure to take effective steps to combat inflation, no longer merit the confidence of this house.
Before proceeding, Mr. Speaker, I must say how much it delights me to have my old friend the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, (Mr. Rowe), our topnotch free-enterpriser, sit in his seat this afternoon to listen to the philosophy of the C.C.F.
I want to say that my remarks this afternoon will in particular be related to the absence of provision for economic and social planning in the throne speech, social and economic planning which we in this group think is essential to meet the needs of the unemployed in Canada, the needs of the farmers for markets and the instability that is in our economy at the present time.
We in this group give this government full credit for proposing certain measures that will be of value to Canadians and in some cases, as in the case of farmers, veterans and civil servants, of value to particular groups. However, I must emphasize this. We feel that the political medicine provided in the throne speech lacks the potency required to cure the ancient maladies of inflation, the growing unemployment and the lack of markets that particularly concern all Canadians at this time.
I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. We in this group do not profess to have all the wisdom and all the knowledge but we do think we have a sounder approach to our problems than that proposed by the other parties. We have sat and listened to the speeches of hon. members, and regardless of our differences in economic theory policies we recognize that members of this house, whatever their point of view, are making their contribution from their own particular point of view or lack of understanding and so on.
Speakers on the government benches or the opposition benches have used what I would term a welter of words to criticize one another, and it has been quite a skirmish

at times. The debate seems to oscillate these days between a lullaby and a baseball game. In our opinion the criticism of one another's policies on the whole has been somewhat superficial, and that is because there is no fundamental difference in approach to social and economic problems between the old parties. I think that is a correct statement. They are both parties supporting a so-called free enterprise system which no longer exists. However, I must say that a few speakers have recognized and mentioned the disease of unemployment, but they have failed to offer a remedy or, shall I say, a fundamental remedy. They have in each case-and I listened with interest on two or three occasions-presented their problem to the government only. They stopped short then with respect to offering or making some definitive and concrete proposals.
Both old-line parties proposed various degrees of tinkering with and patching up the present incorrectly termed free-enterprise system, which is more and more being revealed as the days go by-and I am sure the future will emphasize it-as nothing more or less than economic anarchy.
What is the situation we face today in this house? I am sure that hon. members here, when they speak on this question, are conscious of the unemployed and of the difficulties of the farmers, of the small businessmen and of other groups in our society. What is the situation we face in Canada some 14 years after the second world war, after one of the greatest and most prosperous periods in our history? We all know that there are approximately half a million unemployed in our country at this time, and a large surplus of unsold stocks of agricultural products and industrial commodities. While that condition exists in Canada at this time we all know that about half the people of the world go to bed hungry every night, and that great numbers are in need of the commodities which we have in such great supply. I think that is a fair statement of the situation.
I rise this afternoon particularly to emphasize the fact that the C.C.F. offers a constructive alternative to meet the present economic dilemma. We have mentioned our policies on many occasions in past years. We think that particularly on the throne speech we should re-emphasize our approach to the situation in view of the remarks we have made all throughout the years and their particular application to the present circumstances.
Our alternative to the policies offered by the government and the official opposition parties is known generally as democratic
The Address-Mr. Herridge socialism. I can see the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe beginning to blink already. In other words, that means a consciously planned economy with the consent and cooperation of the people of this country. We in this group believe we can have a planned economy and have all the basic freedoms we enjoy at this time.
I will come back later to policy, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the lack of confidence that is growing among business and industrial leaders in Canada, in the United States and in other countries at the present time over the effects of Soviet competition and competition from other countries. I am going to quote very briefly from the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, January 24. I think this is rather remarkable coming from people who resent government interference with free enterprise. They firmly believe in free enterprise. Very often they have criticized the aged, the ill and the disabled for requesting higher pensions in order to have a decent standard of living or some opportunity to enjoy national health insurance and things of that sort. They say, "Oh, oh, there they are again running to the government."
What are these people doing at this time? They are in a dilemma. These free enterprisers are running to the governments of their respective countries, as they have done in Canada before, to bail them out. The article is headed, "United States Business Worried by Soviet Competition", and reads as follows:
American business leaders are said to be giving serious consideration to the prospect that rapidly growing communist competition-
Fancy them being frightened of competition. Why, that is the basis of their whole lives but they are frightened of it now.
-in world trade markets might result in the fairly near future in the government moving into a field hitherto regarded as sacred to private enterprise. The research institute of America, a private organization which claims contacts in the communist world as well as in high level United States circles, has circulated among United States business leaders a "report to management"-
Always to management, not to the people.
-which claims Washington already is considering some sort of government take-over in the foreign trade field.
Then there is the heading, "Figures Cause Dismay."
The report, which contains statistics from Russia and communist China indicating that the two big communist powers are rapidly overtaking the United States in almost every production field, says the surge in the east has caused "particular dismay" in Washington with the result that "senior United States officials have been seriously considering how to make politically acceptable"-

The Address-Mr. Herridge That means acceptable to the business strata of the community.
-"the establishment of a government foreign trade monopoly"-
My goodness, Mr. Speaker, we have advocated that in this house for a number of years and it was anathema to the Conservative and Liberal parties. It was an invasion of free enterprise. However, these gentlemen, who are now in a dismayed state of mind, are going to suggest a government foreign trade monopoly.
-"which might be able to compete"

"Might".
-"with the communist monopolies on something approaching equal terms. It is not too much to say that continuance of communist economic growth and the increase of 'unfair' communist price competition"-
Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, how certain business elements in this country opposed the resale price maintenance act as it interfered with what they termed fair competition?
-"could cause the end of private enterprise in international trade in the years immediately ahead."
What a disaster!
Soviet goals in the current seven-year plan would surpass the United States in most economic fields by 1965, the report says. Even if Russia fell far short of these goals it "would nonetheless develop into a much more formidable competitor in world markets than it is now."
The economic advances would be over and above the production and development of weapons in the military field in which, the report concedes, "the Russians are clearly ahead of the United States."
So they admit they are ahead of them in a military sense and overtaking them rapidly in an economic sense. Then follows the headings, "Red China Menace."
Red China's transformation, however, is regarded as even more portentous than that of Russia. "Peiping's staggering goal", the United States leaders are told, "is nothing less than the transformation of China's primitive economy into a modern industrial heavyweight capable of competing with either or both the Soviet union and the United States within ten years."
The entire report, with one exception, is one of pessimism for the future of business in the western world. The exception is the "underlying possibility" that Russia might be forced into seeking an alliance with the west because of fear of "the surging Far Eastern threat of military and economic dominance."
As usual they are hoping that some quarrel between some people or nations will provide the answer to their difficulties. I am serious about this, Mr. Speaker. We continually talk of free enterprise in Canada. In that connection I want to quote a sentence or two from an editorial that appeared in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, January 22. We must not forget that generally speaking the Globe and Mail supports the policies of the government of the day, and it is a paper I read with 
a great deal of interest. This is what I find in one editorial in the Globe and Mail in our free enterprise Canada:
This newspaper's quest for facts was occasioned by increasing evidence that Canada was being negotiated into economic as well as military servitude to the United States.
I think there is a great deal of validity to that statement. What further evidence do we want than the refusal of Alcan to sell aluminum to China after receiving an export permit from the government? Does that company accept no responsibility to Canada as a whole? Does it accept no responsibility to its employees? It refuses this opportunity to trade. For what reason? Because it is contrary to the policies of the United States state department. We are being influenced from that direction. They do that while hundreds of their own employees are unemployed and seeking work.
As I proceed with my argument let me emphasize once again the fact that we in the C.C.F. are strongly opposed to the political dictatorship of communism and the economic dictatorship of monopoly capitalism, the type of dictatorship in North America which is providing increasing evidence that Canada is being negotiated into economic as well as military servitude to the United States.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. offers a democratic alternative policy based on a study and knowledge of Canadian history, Canadian psychology and the present circumstances. We propose a dual or mixed economy based on constitutional and parliamentary procedures. We believe that there are these two great forces in the world and that a clash will inevitably result in the days to come between what I might term the extreme right and the extreme left in politics and economics unless we take some middle course and utilize our intelligence, our constitution and our parliamentary procedures to find another program that will give us the results we seek.
First of all I might mention that we in the C.C.F. recognize that the satisfactory development of a dual or mixed planned economy in Canada rests essentially on co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. That is essential. Otherwise we will not have the success that is necessary. It is up to the leaders of the federal and provincial governments to forgo their petty political differences and their wish at times to gain political advantage for the welfare of the Canadian people as a whole in the development of such a policy as we propose.
When I refer to a mixed or dual economy I mean exactly that. We believe that we have got to have the conscious planning that will provide an opportunity for the development

of public enterprise in the federal, provincial and municipal fields according to the circumstances of the time and to the advantage of the Canadian people as a whole. We believe in a great expansion of co-operative ownership and the development of the co-operative philosophy. There is nothing like the experience of working in a co-operative movement, whether it is a producers' co-operative, a consumers' co-operative or a credit union, to give one a good understanding of the administrative principles of democracy. I think it is good groundwork for anyone seeking to serve in the political field.
We in this group also believe that there is a tremendous opportunity for what we would term legitimate private enterprise. We mean private enterprise where a genuine element of competition comes into play, where the consumer is protected by a measure of genuine competition and where the enterprise, whether industrial, engaged in distribution or in service, is rendering a necessary service to the community.
Sometimes I am criticized by some of my socialist friends for taking the stand to which I am about to refer. I do not mean the group behind me. I am thinking of persons whose views are more doctrinaire in some respects. There is a distinction to be made between the effect of foreign investment in a country and internal investment. Foreign investment means that at the end of the year there is an export of capital from Canada and a net loss of total wealth to the Canadian people. Canadian investment, local or community investment, means that an industry through operations carried on, perhaps not directly in line with our philosophy and theories, results in no net loss to Canada in wealth because the profits are re-invested in our country. There is, therefore, no drain on, shall I say, our total wealth by Canadian ownership.
Now, I want to emphasize this. While we have been criticized for emphasizing the need for planning, I must say that planning is something which is essential in a modern society. What we are concerned about is that we do not have the planning as a result of the corporate state, but that we have planning by the people and for the people. It is for that reason we are concerned about developments in our country. I should like to quote from a letter which I read in the Globe and Mail. I see the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) is rather amused at my reading the Globe and Mail so frequently, but there is a very thoughtful approach to the present situation in this letter. I quote in part from this letter to the Globe and Mail of Saturday, January 24:
The Address-Mr. Herridge
The real reason for the development of the new system of state-aided enterprise, which we are now enjoying, is the basic fact that production has overwhelmed the old order where supply and demand could indeed exert its influence.
That is one reason why we are not overcoming inflation. There are certain rigidities in our economy today as a result of price control and as a result of wages that do not permit the law of supply and demand to work as usual. It is not possible for anybody today to correct the price situation by lowering the workers' wages.
What we now witness is a frantic effort on the part of government to maintain private enterprise and at the same time nullify the effects of competition, which was the heart of the private enterprise system.
Obviously it is absurd to speak of free enterprise in this context, but it doesn't appear to have deterred anyone. None of our major political parties have faced up to this truth, nor has there been any concern with the inevitability of changes in our political and economic pattern as a result of this dichotomy.
Free enterprise has gone not because of the actions of wicked radicals, but because the inherent imbalance of capitalist production and the growing technology that accompanied it have forced upon the state a set of what first appeared to the politicians as a series of ad hoc measures designed to relieve immediate crises, but which now show themselves to be permanent in their nature. Production outpaces consumption at such a rate and brings with it such dangerous social implications that the state is forced to step in and take up the surplus. But. of course, this sort of "solution" can only be temporary.
It is therefore not hard to envision that, because of the deficits incurred by the new system of state-aided enterprise, and the psychological effects of the stored surpluses that nobody knows how to get rid of, plus the growing unemployment, the state will move into its next stage-control of prices and production in a manner that will ensure a high rate of profit to the larger units of production, and the control of labour to ensure such profit. That is to say, free enterprise having already ended, and our existing system of state-aided enterprise being only a temporary botch of things, it is inevitable that the corporate state must move into the saddle in an attempt to restore order. In the U.S. first, of course, but we will follow in the usual way.
Some of us may not be enthused over this prospect, but that is the logic of events.
He is quite right; that is the logic of events, in our opinion, unless we are willing to accept very soon some planning based, on democratic procedures. As I said before, co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal governments is essential for success in developing a planned economy.
I am just going to outline what I consider to be one or two of the essential steps. I have not the time to deal with this subject very fully. I do feel that, first of all, we must make sure of our raw materials. We say one of the first steps is a national policy for the conservation and development of natural resources, as a result of co-operation between all levels of government. There is

The Address-Mr. Herridge no use having fiscal policies or other good legislation without having your natural resources conserved and developed, having in mind the need for a constant flow of wealth to meet the needs of the increasing population, and future generations.
What is the present situation? So far as the development of resources in Canada is concerned, it is chaotic, it is wasteful and it is irresponsible. I shall demonstrate why. I would cite the proposals of the government of British Columbia for the development of the Rocky mountain trench, which comprises about one-tenth of the area of British Columbia, by international financiers whose interest is purely profit. They have no interest in the people of British Columbia. Mr. Wenner-Gren came, said how do you do, goodbye, and went away. What would happen with that development? From our point of view, it is an improper development, a wasteful development, that could damage the possibilities for public hydro development on the Columbia. This hydro development would supply the power required in British Columbia for some years to come. It could affect adversely the established mining and lumbering industries in British Columbia.
At the present time we have lead, zinc and other mines closed down for lack of markets. There are sawmills closed down for lack of markets, as well as sawmills operating under great difficulties because of low prices and competition. However, the plans are for this group of financiers to move into British Columbia to develop the Rocky mountain trench, without any concern about the damage it might do to British Columbia's economy. This development would be under monopoly control and would damage the possibility of a sound development of the Columbia river with its hydro resources, and this would constitute a threat to the incomes, to the employment and to the lives of thousands of employees who are working in other industries in the other developed parts of British Columbia. We say that is completely chaotic and irresponsible, development of resources.
Let us look at the expansion in other fields. There is a declining world market in nickel and other metals, and this has been obvious for the last two or three years. While that state of affairs exists, we have the unnecessary expansion and development of nickel, lead and zinc mines, as well as some other metals, without any sense of social responsibility for the welfare of Canadians as a whole or the industries concerned. Some of these activities are entirely unrelated to the welfare of Canadians, having in mind only one thing,

the profits possible from mining or, in some cases, a rise in the value of the stocks.
What other illustrations do we find? What about the closing of the coal mines in Canada without any consultation with the federal or provincial governments? Why did they close the coal mines in Fernie last year? They are owned by a United States corporation. This corporation did not close the coal mines because they were losing money in their total operations. They had mines at Fernie and other points. The corporation closed these mines because they wanted to maintain the rate of profit. Was there any concern for the Canadian communities, the Canadian businessmen or the employees? There was none. Without any consultation with this government or the government of British Columbia, they exercised their judgment in their own interests.
What about the coal mines in Nova Scotia? I listened, I think it was Friday, to the two speeches made by two members from Nova Scotia concerning the closing of the coal mines at Springhill by Dosco, which I understand is now owned by Avro. I was very sympathetic to what they had to say. Before proceeding, I want to say that we in this group heartily support them in their efforts to get something done for these courageous miners who have suffered so much, and whose reward for that suffering is unemployment.
I now want to quote the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) as reported in Hansard because it is obvious that these members have witnessed the effects of an unplanned economy and of the irresponsibilities of large corporations at this time. As reported at page 278 of Hansard, this is what the hon. member for Cumberland has to say in part:
Here is a company with 40 subsidiaries. Yet they cannot find anything, so they say, that they can place in this town that has these courageous men. What kind of company is this that would have this feeling and yet go into our area and tell us that they are going to make our future better? If this is the way in which they make our future better, I do not want any part of it.
We congratulate the hon. member for sticking up for the people he represents. We realize that he is a member of the Progressive Conservative party giving expression to the fact that he recognizes that this large corporation does not think of the employees and the people of Springhill first but that it thinks of the total rate of profit first.
I should also like to quote from the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) as reported at page 286 of Hansard of Friday, January 23 as follows:
This gigantic corporation has the future destiny of Nova Scotians in the palm of its hand.

Not the government of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, but this gigantic corporation.
It is gigantic. It appears that the more gigantic a corporation becomes, the more ruthless it can be.
We have said that on this side of the house for a good number of years, and a great deal of displeasure was expressed on the other side of the house on occasion. Members thought we were exaggerating. This is a Progressive Conservative member giving expression to his opinion of the delinquencies of large corporations. He says this:
It appears that the more gigantic a corporation becomes, the more ruthless it can be. I am sure that all members in this house and all Canadians who contribute through taxation to the development of industry are awaiting the answers to these and many other questions.
I may say that so are a good many people in Canada. May I give just one concluding illustration of the chaotic way in which other services are carried on without any sense of responsibility to the nation as a whole by capitalist interests. This has not to do with the development of natural resources but with our railway transportation. What about the action of the C.P.R. with respect to the reduction of its passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway to one Budd car twice a week? Here is the C.P.R., the parent company of Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company which has made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits which have benefited the C.P.R. This Kettle Valley line of the company, because of the large tonnage it hauls from Consolidated Mining and Smelting company's mines and plants, is an extremely profitable line. Regardless of the needs and wishes of 100,000 people who live in southeastern British Columbia and who produce the wealth of that country which provides the business for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the company reduced the passenger railway service to twice a week with one Budd car.
What are the people asking for? All they are asking for is that there be attached to this Budd car a sleeping car for the older people and mothers with children and a cafe car so that they can get something satisfactory to eat while on the way to Vancouver or to the interior. That is all they are asking. What has happened? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) went to see Mr. Crump, the president of the Canadian Pacific railway. Mr. Crump said no. Who is in control of this country, Mr. Speaker, so far as transportation is concerned? Is it the government of Canada or is it Mr. Crump? We do not believe in that sort of thing. I can say this, Mr. Speaker: when a C.C.F. government gets into office, that sort of situation will be remedied quickly.
The Address-Mr. Herridge


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: An hon. member says "dictatorship". That is his conception. Dictatorship, from his point of view, is the will of the people expressed through parliament rather than through the president of the C.P.R.
In connection with this necessity for a national policy for the development of natural resources, may I say this. I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has indicated some interest in this question throughout the years and more particularly recently, as well as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) . I have heard rumours of the possibility of a national conference on conservation being called some time in the future. However, I make this suggestion. I hope that conference will be arranged as soon as possible because I think it is basic. Mistakes can be made in the monetary system and mistakes can be made in the building of structures but when serious mistakes are made in the management of our natural resources they cannot be easily remedied or if they are remedied it can only be done over a long period of time, at a great expense. In the meantime I suggest that surveys, including land use maps, are essential and I suggest that they should be undertaken immediately.
We have the forest inventory in Canada fairly well completed. I understand that we have a fairly accurate survey of our hydro resources. We now need a survey of our land resources and land use maps. This government and the preceding government or the people of Canada, shall I say, have provided land use maps for the people of Pakistan and the people of Ceylon, I believe, under the Colombo plan, and rightly so. If we can do that for these distant countries, surely we can get to work now on these surveys which are so necessary, to the end that when the conference is called it will have the basic information needed to formulate policy. I urge that these land use surveys be carried out at the first opportunity.
Before going on to another aspect of our program, I wish to say this. We hear about the untimely development of natural resources which we criticize, or development purely at the whim of large corporations or the waste in development because of the desire to get into operation as quickly as possible. What do we consider to be a planned expansion of our natural resources? We in this group say that the planned expansion of the economy and its natural resources in a stable manner should be sufficient to absorb the increasing labour force which results from the birth

The Address-Mr. Herridge rate and from immigration as a result of a planned policy in that respect. We would much prefer to see a steady, and stable development of our resources rather than the boom and bust which exists in capitalist society and which in many cases leaves the people who have produced the wealth to suffer afterward.
We also believe that we need a planned fiscal system and planned credit policies to meet the requirements of planned production and development of resources. I am not going into that matter at length this afternoon, but I am just going to say this. The people all across Canada are concerned with inflation, which is another word for the increase in the cost of living. Particularly is this so of the lower income people, those on pensions and incomes of that type and also business people. Nothing can erode the stability of a country faster than continuing inflation. That lack of stability prevents enterprise, saving, investment in houses and all things of that type. I am just going to deal briefly with what are the causes of inflation. One of our members later in this debate will give to the house our policy with respect to meeting the present inflationary situation.
First of all may I say that the inflation after the war without a doubt was caused by accumulated savings during the war coming into the market shortly after the war was completed. I suppose the next serious inflationary period was at the time of the Korean war which provided a scramble for materials, commodities and services. Another factor causing inflation which we must not forget is the large expenditures on defence, a nonproductive activity. Billions and billions of dollars have been poured into defence expenditures which are non-productive or non-wealth-producing. The people who are receiving incomes from defences production are also making claims on the production of the productive workers, and that has had an inflationary effect on the economy since the second world war.
Then, further, we have the wasteful and unplanned development of resources, a scramble for material for industrial requirements and services in our unplanned development, with companies competing against each other for their requirements and services. Another factor has been the increase in speculation in land values because these values have been increasing as a result of the actions of governments, whether federal or provincial, and because of developments which have been taking place in society. Certain people were able to foresee these things, or to have information about them, and to speculate in land values. That is another reason for inflation.


Finally-and I am only able to mention a few of these causes, the large increase in government expenditure has naturally had a bearing on the inflationary trend. It is a very complicated situation, particularly in an unplanned economy, and it cannot be solved without some correlation of our economic activities and planning.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired, and I am only about half way through. However, we say that a national investment board is desirable in order to direct funds into socially valuable projects. I wish to say in this respect-and I am not suggesting we support the form of the government in question-that we may have something to learn from events in Yugoslavia since the end of the second world war. Yugoslavia is a country which has a population of about the same size as Canada. The postwar government inherited a war-devastated land whose forests and mineral wealth were owned by international financiers. With all their difficulties-and I might explain that the Yugoslav economy is somewhat more flexible than the Soviet-that government was able to produce an economy in which there is not one iota of inflation, and in which there has been no inflation for years, and under which not one Yugoslav citizen who is able to work need be unemployed. Again, I am not suggesting we should accept the Yugoslav political philosophy, but it is evident that this government has made great strides in planning.
I suggest we have something to learn from these people in this respect. Let us get some of their experience tacked on to our natural wealth and to our intelligence and our free institutions. With co-operation we can build in this country the planned economy which is required to give our people the living conditions and stability they seek at this time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have participated in a debate in reply to the speech from the throne, which gives me an opportunity to pay my compliments to the mover of the address, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and to the seconder, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin).
I think the house has recognized the calibre and the future potential of these two young members. The thoughtfulness of the hon. member for Provencher and the honesty of his ideas are reassuring to the agricultural industry all across Canada. I think we recognize that the point of view of agriculture when expressed through him will always

receive a mature presentation in this house. The Canadianism which ran through the speech of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet will, I think, give rise to a corresponding faith and inspiration in all parts of Canada.
Speaking of the amendment put forward by the C.C.F. group, I have noticed that one of the characteristics was the friendliness displayed between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the house leader of the C.C.F. group. This friendliness has intrigued me. When I think of the support given to the Leader of the Opposition by the house leader of the C.C.F. group some days ago my mind went back to some of the speeches made by that hon. gentleman when he was back in the west, and I would advise the Leader of the Opposition that he should beware: the things that are said by the C.C.F. leader in the house are not always the same as the things he says when he is out in the country. I have a clipping here dated Thursday, November 27, from the Regina Leader-Post. I will not read it all, but this is a taste of the type of thing we have to bear. This is a report of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) speaking in Regina, and this is what the paper said:
In his criticism of the Liberal party he attacked Liberal leader Lester Pearson saying "Mike Pearson isn't taking the Liberal party anywhere, because Mike Pearson himself doesn't know where he is going."
I have sympathy with the leader of the C.C.F. group here because I know it is not a very pleasant thing to have a crown prince lurking in the background, particularly when the heir apparent is advising labour unions to go out and get all they can, regardless of the consequences to the rank and file of those labour unions, and regardless of the consequences to the Canadian consumer or to Canadians in general. I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia realizes the predicament he is in. I think he knows that a King Richard on a crusade can be very unhappy with a King John conspiring in the background.
The political peregrinations of the C.C.F. house leader before the session opened carried him to many places and saw him make many strange remarks. One of those places was Springfield, and I know the house will be interested in some of the comments made on that occasion in connection with the byelection. I have here the Winnipeg Free Press of December 11, 1958, from which I intend to read certain extracts to the house so that we may understand precisely what goes on in the west between sessions and be able to compare it with what happens here. This is the quotation:
66968-9-214
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton
Federal reinforcements re-entered the Springfield byelection battle on the C.C.F. front here Wednesday in the person of Hazen Argue, and the party's house leader promptly opened a vicious attack on the Tories for not keeping election promises-
Noting that certain western farm organizations were considering a march on Ottawa to demand deficiency payments, Mr. Argue said there was a more effective way to show the government it had done wrong.
"You can do that by electing Jake Schulz," he stated. "Politicians are deaf to many things, especially delegations, but if you vote for Jake they will hear the ballots drop as far away as Ottawa-"
The speaker also slammed the Conservatives for the "galloping inflation" which has reduced the value of the dollar to 45 cents in terms of what it would buy in 1939.
I hope the C.C.F. leader was incorrectly reported, since to accuse the government of making such a mess of things that it has reduced the value of the dollar to 45 cents in a year and a half is getting into the realm of slight exaggeration. I suggest to the hon. member that if he intends to use this as a political weapon he had better have a talk with Mr. Knowles before he starts speaking about inflation, because Mr. Knowles believes that a little bit of inflation is a good thing. He is going to need some advice from the hon. member for Assiniboia, as I say-but do not let him give it to us in the west because, unfortunately, we know the situation too well. I should think we could all deduce from this that the hon. member for Assiniboia and the aspiring crown prince in the wings are riding off in two different directions.
There is something more in this article in which I think the house would be interested. These are remarks of the candidate in the riding of Springfield, a former hon. member of this house, Mr. Jake Schulz. I wish to place this portion of the article on the record:
The candidate, recalling his defeat in the last election, likened that election to the hula hoop craze. It took a strong mind "to resist the barrage of Diefenbaker propaganda."
But there s no Diefenbaker hula hoop campaigns" this time, said Mr. Schulz. They can't get to the people this time, it's too cold. And when people are left alone they will do the right thing.
"The right thing," he aded, "is to vote for me." If you elect a Conservative you will be endorsing the government's policy.
Mr. Speaker, it was cold in Springfield. Several blizzards during the period of the campaign forced the cancellation of many meetings including those of the premier of Saskatchewan. On election day, when daylight came, the temperature was 24 degrees below zero, according to my information. On election evening when the ballots were counted the C.C.F. ran third. The C.C.F. candidate who had won the seat in 1957 ran third in 1958. The people of Springfield did speak and Canada heard them.
324	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton
Springfield is a representative riding having a large farm population combined with a large urban population. In the constituency there are trappers, farmers, miners and people in many other occupations. The Liberals threw in their first team and the C.C.F. had at least one member of parliament there during the period of the campaign, or rather a former member of parliament from Saskatchewan. The government was represented there by brief visits from four cabinet ministers. Because Winnipeg is a C.B.C. serviced city, television could not be used. All parties were faced with the same 30 inches of snow, blocked roads, high winds; it was a fair fight. It could not be considered a Conservative constituency by tradition. In 1957 only 1700 people voted Conservative. Springfield was won because of the policy of the Diefenbaker government. Although traditionally Liberal, that seat was won by the Conservative party because of its agricultural policy and its development policy.
I also noticed that the house leader of the C.C.F. visited another town in that constituency and this time he discussed freight rates. His first move was to make a statement of government policy. Let me read a press clipping from the Winnipeg Tribune of December 12, 1958:
"The federal government will announce through the Hon. Gordon Churchill on Friday in Beausejour action equivalent to lowering the recent 17 per cent freight rate boost to 10 per cent'', Mr. Argue said.
I have often wondered where some of these stories appear from and I think we have established a source. This should be a lesson to the hon. member for Assiniboia. On at least two occasions since the change of government he has attempted to anticipate government policy and by so doing he does not build up for himself a reputation for accuracy.


Hazen Robert Argue: I had some faith in you. I thought you were better than you are.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Let us read some additional comments in his speech as reported in the Tribune:
-the C.C.F. leader said that any change in the present freight rate structure will come because of the Springfield by-election. "Springfield has more influence on the government than the eight provinces combined that protested the freight rate increase", Mr. Argue said.
Well, Springfield spoke and we know the answer. I do not know what the impact on the government will be, as a result of the C.C.F. candidate running third there, but I do know the people of western Canada are very glad and grateful that the present


Prime Minister is in power when it comes to the matter of discrimination on freight rates that the Liberals allowed and refused to correct in their long period of office. I believe that Canadians generally will be pleased at the Prime Minister's statements about the statutory Crowsnest pass rates. I trust that this will put an end to the rumours, innuendoes and distortions that have mysteriously sprung up all over the west in the last few months.
Another interesting example of contradictions and confusion in the ranks of the opposition lies in their statements on the disposal of surplus wheat. Everyone remembers the strong opinions held by the hon. member for Assiniboia about the necessity of disposing of our surplus wheat. Yet I find in an article in the Kingston Whig Standard of December 10, 1958, over a Canadian Press by-line, the following statement attributed to the C.C.F. house leader:
But I think it would be misusing the general overall purpose of the Colombo plan if we use it as a means of getting rid of surplus wheat.
This is most unusual, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister made it very clear last August 30 how the Conservative party was adding a third dimension to the Colombo plan. The house leader of the C.C.F. rose in his place and, as reported at page 4351 of Hansard of that date, said:
"We, in the C.C.F., have asked for a surplus wheat disposal program for many years."
He made no mention of criticism with respect to adding this third dimension to the Colombo plan. He does not refer to it as an additional means of getting rid of surplus wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: Those statements are not contradictory. If the hon. gentleman will permit me to do so I will explain it to him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You will have to explain it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to obtain the permission of the minister to ask a question he may do so but he cannot interrupt the minister in the course of his remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might say a word at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member-


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to ask the minister a question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister not know that there is a difference between making gifts under the Colombo plan-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must repeat once again to the hon. member that if he wishes to ask the minister a question he may do so with permission from the speaker who has the floor but he cannot make a speech at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would remind you that the minister sat down in his seat when I asked permission.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes he did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I might point out to the hon. gentleman that I took my seat when I observed Mr. Speaker on his feet.
Regarding the question of the Colombo plan I know as well as any hon. member of the house the various components that make up the Colombo plan, the technical and economic assistance as well as the aid of other types. What I was saying was that last summer, on August 30, when the Prime Minister added a third dimension to the two previous dimensions of the Colombo plan there was no opposition in this house from the C.C.F. or anyone else as far as I can ascertain and yet we have statements appearing in the press that seem to indicate that the C.C.F. party through the person of its house leader is casting doubts on the use of this third dimension of the Colombo plan to help those people who so desperately need help and at the same time dispose of our surplus wheat.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon.
gentleman will have ample opportunity in future debates to make his position clear. I am simply saying that when I read these statements in the press I reached the conclusions I have mentioned.
We as a government through the leadership of the Prime Minister are trying to put vigour into Canada's efforts to dispose of wheat abroad. The Prime Minister was in India, Pakistan and other commonwealth countries discussing, among the other important things he discussed, the disposal of our surplus wheat. At the same time that this was going on we have the leader of the C.C.F. house party squawking in public gatherings in western Canada that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was hunting tigers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Was he not?
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And assuming thereby that the people would think that he was wasting his time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Was he not?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would ask the hon. member for Assiniboia not to take my word for it that he was not wasting his time but to read an editorial in the January 22 issue of the Western Producer; two long columns of approval of what the Prime Minister is doing for Canada, not only in the realm of world peace but also in the realm of getting rid of some of our surplus products.
Everything I have said adds up to only one thing. These angry squawks, these incorrect predictions, these wild statements, these contradictory opinions expressed by the leader of the C.C.F. party in this house and across the country add nothing to the body of constructive thought in Canada. It is his failure, and his party's failure, to refrain from irresponsible actions that are causing the difficulties that the party is having today.
I hold in my hand a copy of the Gallup poll and I do not want to -


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the most attention I have had in years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -fill the record up too much. However, I will just point out-


Hazen Robert Argue: The greatest compliment I have had in many years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -that in July in western Canada the C.C.F. support was shown as 19 per cent. In October, as the hon. member for Assiniboia got his campaign rolling in western Canada, it dropped to 17 per cent. Then, on January 14, the date of this poll, it was down to 16 per cent. Naturally, as politicians, we want him to go up and down the country making those irresponsible statements because it destroys the party. But I might point out before I go on that the Liberals are dropping in the west, too. They have dropped two points in the last two months and we have gone up three points.


Mr. Robichaud:: What about the maritimes?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will let the hon. member for Gloucester look after the maritimes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is doing it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not the
only one who shares these views about the C.C.F. I have here the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, for May, 1958, which contains an extract from the minutes of the C.C.F. national council. This

The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton is a statement by one of the very top C.C.F. leaders, according to this account. Let the house listen to what a very top C.C.F. leader says is the cause of the C.C.F. failure. I am quoting:
"We have to look very realistically over the period of the last 10 or 15 years and recognize that we have lost ground. The best indication of our weakness is that the old line parties are no longer afraid of us. The average person on the street doesn't keep backing a fighter who has been knocked out five or six times in a row and has no prospects of ever becoming champion. You have to have a party that looks as though it is going somewhere, a party that is increasing its prestige and its strength and frankly I don't think we are."


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the minister a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Leave it to the end of my speech.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister give the date of the quotation, not the date of the article?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The date of the quotation is 1956.


Mr. Drysdale:: Still going down.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am not accusing the hon. member for Assiniboia of being knocked out five or six times or of being punch drunk, but I am saying that he would do a service to his country and to agriculture in particular if he would make an effort to be more consistent and more responsible, and I know he can do it. I hold in my hand an article from the Winnipeg Tribune of November 28, 1958, in which the hon. member proposed a bill of rights for agriculture consisting of 12 points. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, that the great majority of farmers in western Canada could support almost every point of this 12-point program. It is a constructive program; it is a thoughtful program and if the hon. member really believed it he would walk across the floor of this house and support the government, because almost every point, except one, is part and parcel of the national agricultural policy of this government.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is on both sides in his own argument.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to be kind; I always like to find some good in every one. In the house on Friday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) told us about a quotation from a former member of this house who has now turned author, a man by the name of Right Hon. James G. Gardiner. He quoted from this new author's published articles the fact that the Conservatives were setting agricultural prices too high. The minister then went on to remind the house that the hon. member for Assiniboia was saying

that we were putting them too low. And he said he would leave it to the house to judge between the two statements. I am saying that from what I have already said the people of western Canada have also judged, if the Gallup poll is any indication, and if the election of last March was any indication.
I would like to put on the record for the first time some of the figures which show the thinking in my own province of Saskatchewan. I can do this with some feeling. In 1953, the P.C. vote was 43,677; the Liberal vote was 133,495; the C.C.F. vote was 156,306; others were 20,605; and a total of 317,000 people turned out to vote. Many thought there was no chance of defeating the Liberal government. Some stayed at home; others voted C.C.F. and for other splinter parties. But, in 1957 a change is noted: 90,359 voted P.C.; 118,282 voted Liberal. That was a drop of about 15,000. The C.C.F. dropped to 140,293 and others received 41,292; but this time more turned out, 390,000.
The next spring, 1958, 205,452, 52 per cent, voted P.C.; the Liberals dropped further to 78,124, 19 per cent; the C.C.F. continued their avalanche downward to 112,800; and others were decimated, 2,349, or one per cent. In that winter election 398,000 people in Saskatchewan turned out. Surely, this is some evidence of a tremendous demonstration that something had been wrong and that the people had faith in the Conservative party led by John Diefenbaker, that he would help us do something about it.
For years we had sought for a comprehensive farm program in the west because we knew this was necessary to get at the basic troubles of agriculture. On Friday the house heard the Minister of Agriculture describe the progress to date in that program. I think there is reason, Mr. Speaker, why we held Springfield and why our vote is still going up in western Canada.
I was very pleased myself to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell the house how this year the cost to the farmers rose one per cent but that the gross income rose 10 per cent. This trend of rising costs and declining revenues has been checked; at least we are ahead a little bit. I do know, looking at the figures of Saskatchewan and the prairie provinces generally, that the impact of this government's policies has been most pronounced in the prairies. I could recite to this house not only the impact of the housing program, the impact of the start of the work on the dam, the impact of the northern roads, the impact of the new discoveries in oil and gas, the impact of the potash industry, the impact of all the cattle we are producing, which are up nearly 170,000 head in the last

two years, but the effect of the stabilization prices is giving peace of mind to the farmers of the west for the first time. But all this reciting would not destroy the fact that we know and western Canadians know that the task is not yet completed. Therefore, to assume that we are satisfied with this gain of 10 per cent in the gross revenue or nine per cent in the net is not to prematurely measure this government.
We are pledged to a policy of bringing to the people engaged in agriculture all across the country, not only in the west, a fair share of the national income. To that policy we will remain dedicated and we will keep working with the idea that year by year this thing will pick up and we will be able to give these people, who have borne such a heavy load in this country's growth, their reasonable, fair share in the years to come.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am waiting until the end of my speech for all questions. I do not intend to dwell much longer on the C.C.F. but there is one personal matter I should like to clear up once and for all. The hon. member for Assiniboia stated once last session and again this session that I had stood for deficiency payments during the election campaign. Last Monday I stood up and repudiated this suggestion and said that I would speak at greater length upon it. For the sake of the record I should like the house to judge the truth of this whole matter. I am going to read the actual words I used at Grenfell, Saskatchewan, on February 22, 1958, when speaking at my nominating convention. Because of the television cameras, the radio equipment and all the reporters in front of me I spoke from a prepared text. This is what I actually said:
"Representations have been made by the wheat pools 2nd the Canadian federation of agriculture to the federal government concerning deficiency payments on western grains. This matter is now being considered. However, we would be very unwilling to support any proposal where 80 per cent of the money went into the hands of 25 per cent of the farmers. Our minds are completely open and we are willing to meet the challenge to provide a fair share of the national income to agriculture."
Those are the words from the prepared text. Here are the words of the Canadian Press dispatch, and I ask the house to compare them:
"As for deficiency payments, the matter is being considered. However, we would be very reluctant to support any proposal where 80 per cent of the money went into the hands of 5 per cent of the farmers."
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton
I think the statement in the Canadian Press dispatch is a fair one, but much better evidence than that is the fact that all across Saskatchewan during the campaign I was distinctly conscious that C.C.F. candidates throughout western Canada used this Canadian Press statement and other similar statements in other places. As late as March 28 the premier of Saskatchewan, speaking in the same town of Grenfell, castigated me over a provincial-wide radio hook-up for having made a speech of that nature. I simply say that the people of the west knew fully what our stand was. Our minds were open. We were considering the matter but I did put it very clearly that we would be most reluctant to do anything whereby 80 per cent of the money would go into the hands of 25 per cent of the farmers. I think there was a very clear understanding by the people of the west as to where I stood on this matter.
In fairness to the hon. member for Assiniboia, I think he knows that I know that he based his remarks on a newspaper clipping which I have seen but perhaps he should have read all the other newspaper articles in which were listed the whole series of problems to which the government was giving consideration. If you read the statement in the light of all the other statements I think it can be said that the people of Saskatchewan fully understood the issue.
In my final ten minutes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn to a subject which will be of never-ending interest to Canadians. I refer to the government's "national development program". Recently I have noticed hints in the newspapers that the vision is fading and is growing dim. I am not going to bother to read these statements. All I am going to do is to state flatly that as far as the government is concerned exactly the opposite is true. Never has the government been so busy as it is at the present moment in pushing forward its plans and programs that comprise the first stages in our blueprint of a plan to build a nation of 50 million to 100 million pmple. The first phase of the development program can be divided into three main parts.
The first of these is delineation of resources. In this country we have no Paley report but through the Borden commission, through our roads to resources program, through research and through a new motivation in our drive north we are making rapid progress on this first part of our development program.
The second part of the "national development program," dealing with the development of power and the things that go with it in the Atlantic provinces, in the prairies and in British Columbia, is moving satisfactorily.
328	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. A. Hamilton
The third part of the development program is conservation, and I think the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) can join with me in everything I say from now on. On no subject has more been written than on conservation but on no subject has there been less done at the federal level. However, at long last the wheels have begun to turn. On November 17 last representatives of the ten provinces met with me and my colleagues to lay the plans for a national conservation conference in 1960. All of us recognized the unlimited scope of the problem and the need to establish desirable conservation programs across Canada.
Within the next two months the provinces will present statements of what they are doing and the gaps that they see in a desirable conservation program. From then on the machinery will begin to roll. I think it would be preferable, Mr. Speaker, rather than giving the details at this time, to say that I will make myself available in the standing committee to go into the details of this operation. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay West about land use maps in the national parks and all across Canada, may I say that that is one of the proposals we have already offered to the provinces as part of an over-all program in
1960.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Good.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is my firm conviction that the provincial governments and the federal government can co-operate to formulate the principles under which governments, conservation districts, private organizations and universities can operate. I feel that in 1960 we may have begun a program of conservation and resource management unparalleled in this country and equal in importance in my mind to the contributions made by Theodore Roosevelt to the United States nearly 60 years ago.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since the opening phases of the national development program, as announced by the Prime Mini|ter almost a year ago, are now well in hand, I think that it would be of interest if I gave the house some indication of the research projects and activities of the government leading to greater and broader knowledge and better organization of our national development program. Under the leadership of the national research council we have embarked on a study of long range transmission of electrical power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was begun about four years ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The accomplishments of Russia, Sweden and of one of our


own Canadian companies in developing high voltage transmission lines have not passed unnoticed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was that not begun about four years ago?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It does not require too much thought to realize the direction in which the government's program is heading. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that the scientific committee of privy council had not met for many years until this government took office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course that is not true, and you know it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I know what the records show.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But you are wholly inaccurate. Understandable but inevitable exaggeration.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have been inaccurate all afternoon.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would not let the hon. member lead me into the position where I could tell him what actually went on in the last few years.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Say what you think. This is the place.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My department has worked out a five year program of accelerating forest research, both basic and applied. The first stages of this go into operation in 1959-60. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys has worked out a program of building new hydrographic ships and the improvement of existing ships that should result in five years in a doubling of the effort in this field in which we are very far behind in our governmental responsibilities. Plans are also being prepared by the department that should result in the doubling of activities in the geological and geophysical services to this country.
Last year the house approved a vote to move material to Resolute Bay in order that our research program on oceanography and geophysical survey, as well as other forms of research, could be undertaken this year, that is in March 1959, in the Queen Elizabeth islands in the Arctic. I should like to tell members of the house that it seems fitting that the bases used in this program rest on islands named after Borden and Meighen, members of a government which nearly 50 years ago authorized Stefansson's expedition.
The Department of Transport is studying the matter of atomic icebreakers and atomic submarines. Both the national research

council and the department of northern affairs are accelerating experimental work on better and cheaper housing for northern areas. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the pulp and paper institute, with government assistance, are working on new techniques for sewage disposal.
Atomic Energy of Canada, in co-operation with the provincial government of Ontario, has started a large scale multimillion dollar program on development of large and medium-sized atomic plants.
It is the hope of our department that, in co-operation with Atomic Emergy of Canada and a Canadian electrical company, we will be able to work out the difficulties of building a nuclear power plant for use in the far north. We hope that this plant will provide not only economic heat and power for northern communities, but will also become another Canadian product available to the markets of the world. This private company, which is a subsidiary of a United States company, should be congratulated for entering into a research program in co-operation with the federal government which should enable us to produce a competitive Canadian product and better nuclear plants in the future.
Research by itself is not enough. There must be careful direction and co-ordination over all areas at the executive and administrative levels. The government has taken action to provide this direction and co-ordination. In addition, there has had to be some reorganization of government departments. The Department of Agriculture has already announced its reorganization with a special division for research activities. My department has completed a major internal reorganization which I shall outline, if I get the opportunity, to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters.
In the last session, Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the necessity of effective occupation in the north. I think hon. members will approve of a short report in this field. There are now increasing numbers of Canadian weather stations in the north. These are very important to our plans for improving communications by sea and air to our northern islands.	The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has announced plans for taking over four airfields on our northern coast. This will mean increased convenience to geological parties operating in these northern areas. Canadian companies supplied all the western D.E.W. line stations in 1958, and in 1959 it is expected that all D.E.W. line stations will be supplied by Canadian agencies. Last Monday the government announced the taking over of operational control of the D.E.W. line.
The Address-Mr. McWilliam


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


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Following the time-honoured
custom, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think they did credit to themselves and to their constituencies. I am sure all members of this house are pleased that you, Mr. Speaker, are still with us. We were all disturbed over the rumour that your splendid services might be lost to this house as a result of appointment in another field of the public service of Canada. This other field of the public service has suffered a loss by you remaining here, but we have gained.
The speech from the throne covers many measures to come before this house. However, until those items are presented in legislative form little, if any, detailed information is available to the members of the opposition. The first words in the throne speech advised us of the forthcoming visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. This announcement was welcomed with the greatest of pleasure by all Canadians. The itinerary for the Queen's visit has now been released. While it is realized that all sections of Canada cannot be visited by Her Majesty, it seems only reasonable to expect that in so far as possible the itinerary will include places which the Queen did not visit on her last tour. The itinerary for New Brunswick follows the same course as was followed during the last visit.
Once again, it is found that Her Majesty will not visit the north or northeast part of the province. The citizens of Northumber-land-Miramichi had high hopes they would be given the honour and privilege of welcoming the Queen and her consort. It was hoped the tour would include a motor trip from Fredericton down through the beautiful Miramichi valley to the towns of Newcastle and Chatham, or, as an alternative, a flight by air to the Chatham R.C.A.F. station with the opportunity of a stop-over at government house in South Nelson, the residence of the Hon. J. L. O'Brien, New Brunswick's lieutenant governor, the Queen's representative in our province.
Your efforts, Mr. Speaker, toward putting an end to the reading of speeches are commendable. In the past efforts have failed to bring about the desired result. It is understood and agreed by all parties that this restriction will come into effect following the throne speech debate. This may prove to be a handicap to many members for a time, but in the end it will result in better debates,
330	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McWilliam even if the choice of words and phraseology suffers somewhat. These efforts toward eliminating the reading of speeches will be watched with keen interest. The results, if achieved, will take time. The use of notes will have to be clearly defined, as the use of copious notes borders closely on the reading of a speech. I am sure all members are anxious to co-operate. However, some latitude will have to be given at the outset, with restrictions being progressively more strictly applied as the session moves forward. If this is not done, many members will be timid about taking part in debate. No doubt this restriction will shorten the length of the debates, but it will not take away any worthwhile contributions.
Two serious problems face Canada today, unemployment and inflation. Despite the statement that unemployment has passed the peak, indications point to serious unemployment during 1959. This is particularly true of the Atlantic provinces. Inflation is also a most serious problem. Despite the statement of a member of the government that inflation and unemployment will have no serious effect on our economy in 1959, I am sure the majority of Canadians do not share that feeling.
Unemployment has been the topic of many Conservative members speaking in this debate as well as of opposition members. Members of all parties from all sections of Canada have called upon the government to take action to combat rising unemployment. Responsible civic organizations and other levels of government across Canada have also called upon the government to take action to combat unemployment. Government action to date has failed to bring about any worthwhile results. For government spokesmen to say that unemployment is on the decline is a misrepresentation of the actual situation. Figures can be twisted around to make the situation look better or worse than it actually is. I doubt that any one would conscientiously say that unemployment is not a serious problem and that the future looks bright. The fast-depleting unemployment insurance fund is proof of the seriousness of the situation, and this depletion of the fund does not show the full impact of unemployment.
The state of unemployment is particularly true in the Atlantic provinces where unemployment figures are rising rapidly to new all-time high records. The official forecasts for March for the maritimes present a bleak picture, based on the continuing loss of markets in mining, forest products and fishing.
Grave concern is felt in the maritime provinces over the plan to keep the St. Lawrence river open on a year-round basis for the


export and import of commodities by water to and from Canada particularly during the winter months. If this plan is put into operation the maritime ports will suffer and serious adverse effects will follow for the economy of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in particular and the maritimes in general. I join with other individuals and groups in protesting against action that will adversely affect our maritime winter ports. If Canada is to survive as a nation of distributed wealth, a plan of "live and let live" must be followed.
Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for a report on the study of the feasibility of a causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This survey was started by the Liberal government in 1956 and the people of these provinces are looking for an interim report in view of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on February 5, 1958-almost a year ago-when he said that the federal government had ordered an immediate engineering study of this project. We wait patiently for an interim report on this matter.
As to the Chignecto canal, the survey was promised and possibly it was started but apparently it bogged down because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), when asked for a report on this project in this house on Friday last, refused to give one. I am not going to spell out the many advantages that could have been derived from the construction of the Chignecto canal-they have been placed on the record many times in the past- over the years since it was a firm commitment at the time of confederation.
Most of the maritime members of both parties are on record in favour of the early survey and construction of this Chignecto canal. Maritime municipalities, city and town councils, have made representations, for the construction of the Chignecto canal and have urged that the pledge of confederation be honoured as a vital asset to the economy of the maritimes. The need of the Chignecto canal has been recognized in the maritimes over the years. The need is much greater now with the construction of a large oil refinery now under way at Saint John. Proof of the much talked about "aid to the maritimes program" could become a reality by the undertaking of this project.
Since the bill of rights was introduced at the last session, many qualified groups across Canada have expressed the opinion that, desirable as a bill of rights might be, there is no particular rush for the passing of this bill at this session. These groups contend that further study should be given by both houses of parliament at this session, when an exacting

study which the legislation deserves can be given with a view to improving the proposed legislation and at which time representations can be heard from interested groups before a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
I turn now to a matter that has caused a good deal of concern and, may I say, a good deal of criticism in the constituency I represent and in all of northeast New Brunswick. At the present time in the constituency which I represent television reception ranges from black-out to snow flurries to rolling pictures to fair reception under ideal conditions. This television service is received from privately owned stations located at Moncton and Saint John. The reason for the poor reception is the fact that these stations are upwards of 100 miles distant. The northeast counties of the province, namely Gloucester and Restigouche, are without television services owing to being an even greater distance away from the stations.
The people of the area which I represent have no quarrel with the privately owned stations with regard to the television reception. On the contrary, they appreciate the programs they are able to receive when conditions are good. They realize that the giving of service to that part of the country, owing to its location and other features, is the responsibility of the C.B.C. The people of Northumberland-Miramichi and the people of northeast New Brunswick feel that they are entitled to their share of the C.B.C. publicly-owned television services. Most Canadians enjoy good C.B.C. television or are located within areas adequately covered by privately-owned stations. Many Canadians have a choice of four or more channels.
Previous requests to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan)-the spokesman for the C.B.C. in parliament-and to the C.B.C. board of governors for C.B.C. television services for northeast New Brunswick have failed to bring about the desired result. The northeast part of New Brunswick can readily be served by the C.B.C. from its system on the west side of the province. There is no good reason why a C.B.C. satellite or repeater or translator, whatever it may be called, cannot be erected on the high ground at the county boundary line between Northumberland and Gloucester counties and be hooked up with the C.B.C. system on the west side of the province. This hook-up would provide good reception in northeast and eastern New Brunswick, an area with a heavy density of population which is now quite without television reception except in the fringe areas where reception is not constant.
66968-9-22J
The Address-Mr. McWilliam
I wish now to say a few words with regard to the fishing industry and in particular in connection with fishing on the east coast of Canada. Fishing, as I am sure every hon. member knows, is very important to large sections of the Atlantic provinces, and in this regard problems are mounting almost daily. The most serious aspect of these problems in the Atlantic fisheries is the future of our markets. Newfoundland has a most serious problem in this regard. The Department of Fisheries is striving to improve the lot of our fishermen by research and other methods. What is causing so much distress in the industry is the lack of markets and the loss of former markets. This has jeopardized our position in the traditional fish markets. Markets for Atlantic fish products must be recovered and new ones opened up if the industry is to survive.
The Miramichi fishing industry remains, on the whole, fairly steady. Catches of the different species of fish fluctuate, however, and the economy of fishing villages and of the Miramichi fishing industry has its ups and downs. Most of the products are in the delicacy class and a ready market is found for them. The problem is the lack of quantity, which makes conservation measures of prime importance for the future. Public attention was focused on the Miramichi area last year when lobster poachers became very aggressive and in one instance resorted to the use of firearms to scare off protection officers. Illegal fishing, and in particular tactics employed to scare off protection officers are condemned by the vast majority of fishermen who are law abiding citizens, who work the hardest for the smallest remuneration, and who realize that illegal fishing has serious effects on future stocks, a factor which subsequently affects the livelihood of all those engaged in the various phases of the industry.
On previous occasions I have requested the Department of Fisheries to provide a series of talks to fishing groups in their respective localities augmented by the showing of films, slides and charts in order to emphasize the importance of conservation and the drastic results of illegal fishing, and to impress upon fishermen the dangers of taking undersized fish, in particular fish that are necessary for propagation.
Although an educational program would bring about splendid results there will always be a few men who will fish illegally. It is necessary, therefore, to maintain active and progressive protection measures in order to protect the industry and safeguard the livelihood of law abiding fishermen. More aggressive measures should be taken against purchasers of illegal fish. If the outlets where illegal fish are sold are put out of business

The Address-Mr. Lahaye illegal fishing on a large scale will be eliminated, particularly in the lobster fishing industry.
A request has been made by the Miramichi salmon drifters association for a change in the drift net fishing season dates. The minister has informed me that the matter will be referred to the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee. Other representations have been made from time to time by the Miramichi commercial fishing association and the Miramichi salmon association incorporated. All aspects of Miramichi salmon fishing should receive exhaustive study by the co-ordinating committee before the committee makes its annual recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) with regard to bringing about mutual agreement on the fishing dates among the three groups, namely the drifters, the set netters and sport fishermen.
Fishing facilities on the Miramichi river are, on the whole, fairly adequate. There are, however, a number of small fishing areas which lack adequate facilities and I trust these will be provided in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I have said on former occasions in this house: the status of the Department of Fisheries should be raised and additional moneys provided so that the department may do the things that are necessary to be done in order to bring the Atlantic fishing industry into its proper perspective so that it can fully promote the industry which is so vital to the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
In conclusion, I urge the government to put into effect now a plan of action designed to ease the recession and to bring back the stability of the Canadian dollar. Whatever action is required, drastic though it may be, the Canadian people look to this government to measure up to the task, while the people, for their part, are prepared to do whatever is necessary to safeguard the future of Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Lahaye (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings of apprehension and pride that I accept the responsibility of speaking for the first time in the House of Commons.
Like those who spoke before me, may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I admire the dignity and the competence with which you are conducting the proceedings of this house and which give them the sober character that becomes the highest chamber of this country.


May I congratulate also the deputy speaker (Mr. Sevigny) as well as the deputy chairman of committees of the whole (Mr. Rea).
I feel bound to refer to the last by-election which brought new members to this house. I congratulate those new members, particularly the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), who adds to this house a new note of brightness. On this point, I recall the particularly pleasant remark of one of my predecessors here, now president of the legislative council of the province of Quebec, the hon. Jean Louis Baribeau, who used to say that "an assembly without women, is like a garden without flowers", a statement I am pleased to endorse at this time.
I want to congratulate particularly the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson). I listened to his speech very carefully, because he is a western farmer. Being a farmer myself, I was particularly interested. He said that western Canada faces a very serious problem, perhaps the most serious of all, that of wheat. I was glad to see that this year, the Conservative government has succeeded in exporting more wheat than ever before. This is a proof of the government's efficiency. I rejoice with the western farmer about that.
Nor did I fail to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of his remarks, the hon. member referred to problems which are similar to those of the eastern farmers. I take this opportunity to say that, for the first time, and in an efficient way, a government has shown concern for the eastern farmers of Canada. We had been used in the past to consider agriculture as a western business. I am glad that active consideration is being given to the benefit of the Canadian western farmers, but I am now much happier to note that the government now concerns itself with the problems of all Canadian farmers, both of western and eastern Canada.
May I merely mention, as evidence of that, the magnificent bill introduced last year, that is, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which helped the eastern farmers-those small farmers still operating a family farm-to face the future with a little confidence and to stop being the victims of that uncertainty which had always been their lot under previous regimes.
As soon as the Conservative government came into power in 1957, I had the opportunity and pleasure of being part of the Quebec delegation which had come to meet those of the other provinces, and ask the

newly-elected government-in fact, it was so recently elected, at the time, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) was still only acting minister-to do something to stop the dumping of poultry, and more particularly of turkeys, on the Canadian market. The situation was such that in the fall of 1956, Canadian producers had to sell at a loss on a dwindling market. I am happy to state that from then on, the Conservative government began to concern itself with the plight of Canadian poultry breeders and that, right away, we obtained from the ministers who met us on that occasion

I attended the meeting as the representative of the turkey breeders of the province of Quebec and also, if I may be allowed to mention this, as president of the biggest and best turkey hatchery in Quebec province, the Batiscan hatchery-as I was saying, we immediately obtained the establishment of a control over imports of turkey meat from the United States. As a matter of fact, I think it was the following day that a cabinet order settled the situation, with the following results: while we had imported 6,500,000 pounds of turkey and chicken meat from the United States in 1957, the figure for 1958, following establishment of this control and despite certain protests to the Minister of Agriculture, was only 167,000 pounds of old turkey meat suitable for soup, and about 300,000 pounds of roasting turkey. Those were the imports made up to last October.
This shows the difference, Mr. Speaker between the situation existing in 1957, when our imports reached 6J million pounds of turkey meat, and the situation in 1958, when the figure was kept down to about 500,000 pounds. Here is a case of action to improve agricultural conditions in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, to assess improvements that have occurred in the agricultural field, I think it can still be useful to review the situation previously obtaining. I shall not go back very far, but it is a historical fact that at the end of the Korean war, we, the farmers of the province of Quebec, felt at the time

that was in 1950-51-that our income could compare quite favourably with that of other classes of society. We then sold beef at 40 to 50 cents a pound, pork at about 50 cents a pound, and milk at $3.50 a hundredweight, which made the situation normal. Later on, agricultural conditions in the province kept deteriorating, reaching a period where milk sold at $2 and a few cents per hundred-weight. The price of pork fell to
The Address-Mr. Lahaye 22 or 23 cents a pound, which was the minimum price at the time, and beef fell as low as 20 cents a pound.
This drop in prices made the farmer's situation absolutely unbearable, and forced farmers' sons to leave home. These young farmers, the very life blood and future of our country, were moving to the cities.
Hog prices, at the time, fluctuated to an extent that I would describe as indecent, if I may be pardoned the phrase. Some farmers were buying hogs 4 to 5 weeks old, when prices were running between 35 and 40 cents, in the hope of selling them at the same price; but, when the time came to sell them, prices had dropped to 23 cents, with disastrous results for many of our breeders. Such was the situation facing our farmers when the government of the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker came to power. At present, the price of hogs is at a minimum, I'll grant you that. This is understandable, since hog breeding has developed in an extraordinary way in Canada. Therefore, we are glad that prices have remained stable and that the United States are there to absorb our surpluses in that field. The situation will probably remain the same with minimum prices, for we must necessarily face the situation as it is now. We are glad that prices remain reasonably fair, because at the present time the United States are still importing our surplus quantities.
With regard to an important point referred to the other day by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) when he spoke of what he called... vertical integration-I apologize for having hesitated over that word -I fully agree with his remarks.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulties we are experiencing in the sale of pork, and which seem to be extending to poultry as well, are the result of the purchasing policies of certain firms, but mainly stem from the fact that certain firms dealing in feeds strongly insist that farmers get organized to practise what is termed speculative raising.
Mr. Speaker, I caution our farmers against this danger, and urge them to retain their independence. I would hate to see our agricultural class play into the hands of firms that are more concerned with their own interests than with the interests of our farmers. I urge our farmers to remain free, and should they decide to go into speculative raising, I remind them that this represents an initial
334	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lahaye outlay of about $5 for a heavy grade turkey, quite a considerable investment for a type of raising that has almost reached the point of saturation. Before going into speculative raising on such a large scale, they must first seek out sure markets where their products will be purchased at a reasonable price.
Mr. Speaker, may I also take this opportunity to express special congratulations to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), who has made one of the best contributions to the Union Nationale-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Lahaye: -to national unity. I said that on purpose, to provoke a reaction from our friends opposite. I am quite pleased at having done so, because they have paid one more compliment to the government of my province, as well as to the Conservative government, because when a government is not worth criticizing, it is proof that it is hardly worth anything.
I have special congratulations for the hon. member who had the honour to second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He made the finest contribution possible for national unity, as we, the Conservatives, understand those words:	the
perfect union of two great races whose best qualities we choose, in order to make a united and strong nation. I congratulate him quite sincerely for his great contribution to national unity.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes of my maiden speech to speak briefly about my constituency. The constituency of Champlain, Mr. Speaker, bears an historical and symbolic name. Last summer, in Quebec city, we had the pleasure of celebrating the third centenary of the arrival of Samuel de Champlain and of the foundation of the city.
I wish to talk about Champlain constituency because the name of Champlain has not come up for many years. I will speak objectively, reasonably and fairly. Champlain constituency, Mr. Speaker, is on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, overlooking the city of Three Rivers and extending east. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, how proud I am to be located so close to the heart of the province of Quebec, and the outpourings of a generous heart necessarily overflow on the neighbour constituency.
The Champlain constituency takes up about 30 miles of the north shore of the St. Lawrence. It is a very promising place from an


industrial standpoint. I should like to give an obvious proof of this in saying that the city of Cap de la Madeleine, particularly well known to Catholics, because of its pilgrimage shrine, has nearly doubled its population in the last ten years and that new industries are being set up there constantly. I am convinced that, with transportation facilities, the quality of the soil-although I am not a geologist-and the advantage resulting from its proximity to the St. Lawrence river, that city is bound to develop rapidly and I think that before long some industries will move east to Champlain, Ba-tiscan and Ste. Anne de la Perade parishes, the latter being a large village already boasting of a few industries.
Though I am not much of a prophet, I expect that in the future, the constituency of Champlain will develop as a great industrial district. And I see no reason why the St. Lawrence, whose channel runs particularly close to the shores of my constituency, should not give rise to considerable development.
This is not to imply, by any means, that the constituency of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) will suffer from it. I also hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), whose constituency of Three Rivers is next to mine, will not feel jealous because of developments taking place to the east. I think I am realistic enough to be allowed to touch upon these matters.
I foresee for the constituency of Champlain, where the deep water channel nearly touches the shore, the early development of all kinds of industries. Those lands cannot conceivably remain farm lands. I also think I can state- although this is somewhat more difficult- that soon winter navigation on the river will develop, and that, probably, the cities of Three Rivers and Cap de la Madeleine will become terminal harbours for winter navigation. Again, I say this without prejudice to the hon. members for the ridings situated below Three Rivers, as well as those from Montreal ridings.
However, I honestly believe it will always be hard, especially in the wintertime, as we can see this year, to cross Lake St. Pierre, a sea of still water, a widening of the St. Lawrence river, 20 miles wide, where there is no current. For this reason, I feel that even if the suggestion is disregarded regarding winter navigation as far as Montreal, except in a case like this year when severe cold has held up ocean-going vessels, it

would be easy in ordinary times to extend winter navigation as far as Three Rivers, which would result in further expansion.
This brings me to the present situation concerning navigation. I am familiar with this subject because many navigators come from my constituency of Champlain. There are some 500 navigators in my riding and certain problems are of special concern to them. In the first place, inland navigation, according to them, should be left specifically to our Canadian fleet. It is obvious that an ocean-going vessel can certainly carry a shipment as far as Fort William, Chicago and Milwaukee, in the United States, but in my opinion we should also control coastal shipping, inland navigation, so that it would remain in the hands of Canadian ships and Canadian companies. Maybe a lot will have to be done before applying this principle all down the line, but I believe an attempt should be made to carry it out.
There is also another situation I am particularly interested in. While I was reading the papers recently, an article caught my attention; perhaps it will be gratifying for my hon. friends opposite to hear that I read it in he Devoir of Saturday, January 24 last. It dealt with a protest made on behalf of pilots, with regard to a statement reportedly made at a meeting of the Dominion Marine Association and of the Lake Carriers Association of the United States, in Ottawa, when opposition was made to the compulsory payment of pilot fees to the Pilots Association of the Montreal and Quebec area, and it was suggested that almost anyone could do the job. I am quite familiar with the usefulness of this association, since many pilots in my small community belong to it. To become a pilot in the St. Lawrence river, a sailor has to go into apprenticeship for at least ten years, and then work many more years as an apprentice. Therefore he does not become a full-fledged pilot until he is almost thirty. In my opinion, such a training is necessary. As a matter of fact, if there is any important profession, it is that one, because pilots are responsible for a ship worth 3, 4 or 5 million dollars. I fail to see how the helm of a ship could safely be left in the hands of a man who never learned from experience how to steer a ship in a channel which is hardly more than a ditch, which a navigator has to know like he does the palm of his hand. I do not think any inexperienced person should be allowed to
The Address-Mr. Lahaye pilot a ship on the St. Lawrence, where there is danger not only for the ship itself but for the other ships it might meet. It is somewhat like the granting of a licence to a car driver. No licence is granted to a ten-year old child; but it will be to someone who has given evidence of his ability to drive. All the more care should be taken when a million dollar ship is at stake.
Allow me also to make a suggestion with regard to piloting between Montreal and Kingston. Some six or seven pilots in my constituency work in the Montreal-Kingston area, and they complain that they do not enjoy the same benefits as those enjoyed by the pilots of the St. Lawrence, from Montreal to Three Rivers and from Three Rivers to Quebec. I agree there is no obligation to employ licensed pilots. Most ocean-going vessels hire pilots, but there is no rule requiring ship owners to employ licensed pilots. I am aware of the particular difficulty involved due to the fact that part of the waterways is American. Besides from Cornwall to Kingston, arrangements would have to be made with the U.S. government in regard to those pilots. Just the same, it remains a fact that from Montreal up to the approaches to Cornwall, it should be easy to grant our pilots in that district the same status and the same guarantee as those enjoyed by the Montreal pilots. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), a far-sighted man, to do all he can and give serious consideration to the problem.
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the session I have heard speakers of opposite parties making nebulous speeches and constantly chiding us claiming that the country was going down the drain. Allow me to say that had the opposition represented the situation more truthfully and realistically, we would not have been forced to make optimistic speeches in order to balance the picture. For two hours the Leader of the Opposition twisted the statistics and the reports in an effort to extract facts showing that under the present government, everything is going to pot. I realize that this is a method of practising politics, but to me it is definitely too one-sided. And I am most sincere in saying that such theatricals are apt to discredit him and to sow the seeds of uncertainty among the Canadian people. Fortunately, we are getting used to such pictures, and they make little impression. Still, there is quite a contrast
336	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Lahaye between their speeches made before the 1957 election and their speeches today. At that time, they would promise general and practically eternal prosperity, whereas today everything has changed overnight. Today, they show constant pessimism, an attitude that I think is dangerous and unhealthy.
Mr. Speaker, we hear statements from the opposition to the effect that this government has done nothing to relieve unemployment. Preposterous! I say to the hon. members of the opposition, what about the $500 million which were released to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation in order to promote housing, to say nothing of the additional funds invested by loan companies as a result of this measure? What about the 200,000 additional workers-and that is a conservative estimate, in the original sense of the word- who found employment this winter as a result of the winter building program?
Mr. Speaker, you cannot be completely realistic and say that nothing had been done in this field.
Post offices are now under construction. It may look like quite ordinary things to you, but if I take a look at my riding,-I do not pretend to be a national administrator, even though I am that as a member of parliament,-I notice we have now a post office under construction. In fact, this very winter, a large dock will be built, for which tenders should be called very soon.
Construction in Cap de la Madeleine is substantial. We even notice a considerable increase over what it was last year.
I could mention many other works, but my time is limited.
Gentlemen of the opposition, instead of looking at things in this manner, instead of spending your time blackening the situation,- on purpose, I believe,-try to be reasonable. Give the true picture of the situation, stop looking for the worst, just for the sake of darkening the picture.


Mr. Habel:: What are we going to say to the unemployed of the country?


Paul Lahaye: Try to find the good points of the situation-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Tell me, what are we going to tell the unemployed?


Paul Lahaye: We are considering this very important problem, but you should also admit that this government has done plenty to improve the situation.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Not enough!


Paul Lahaye: I read in the January 23 issue of the Gazette an item entitled: "Newsprint Output Shows Late Pick-Up", which says that last December paper production was 476,232 tons, while in December 1957, it was only 435,269 tons. There is an evident increase of about 41,000 tons and, to avoid criticism by the members of the opposition, may I say that the increase amounts to exactly 40,963 tons.
I could also mention a paper mill of my constituency, which, up to the end of 1958, gave its employees only 6 hours of work a day. Since New Year's day, the regular employees of the same mill have been working eight hours a day. That is another indication that conditions are improving in the paper industry. The situation there had been somewhat uncertain in the last few years owing to a 14 per cent decline in the economic activities of the United States, who are major importers of paper. This situation is steadily improving and if we look around we can find obvious signs of economic recovery.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that the present situation is in no way tragic. When there was a 14 per cent decline in United States economic activity I dare say that Canada, through an efficient Conservative government, got by with a decline of only 7 per cent. We now have sure indications of an economic recovery and as did other qualified persons, I ask our manufacturers, our businessmen, to take part in it. This is not an abject supplication; it is a rational and normal request. I therefore ask manufacturers and businessmen to carry out, and at once, aggressive construction programs that will be of greater help in improving the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to state that a young and strong country like Canada with competent and progressive leaders, enjoying a sound financial situation, will have suffered only a temporary delay, a consolidation of the prosperity realized in the past and in which the previous government has reasonably taken part in spite of its faults. I do not doubt that Canada will keep achieving new successes, and a degree of prosperity that cannot fail to be hers in the future.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, as the previous speakers did, to congratulate the

movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Fortin).
I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher upon the way he spoke as well as upon his knowledge of farming.
I must also congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet for his contribution to national unity, which the greatest prime ministers since confederation have worked to achieve. I am referring here to Laurier, King and St. Laurent.
Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec a deplorable situation has been prevailing for almost four weeks in the relations between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its producers. Feelings run high and the whole population depending on the French network feels concerned and remains unaware of the facts.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) claims he cannot intervene, although, as pointed out by previous speakers in this debate, section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Act states as follows:
The Minister may either upon application or of his own initiative, where he deems it expedient, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit regarding industrial matters-
Another cabinet member, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), who reports for the C.B.C., stated emphatically that this strike was illegal. This strike is illegal, he said, and no more. He did not prove his statement. Is it not strange to hear such irresponsible talk coming from the Minister of National Revenue on so serious a matter? He should be more adept at footwork. He should learn how to do some footwork as some of his colleagues do.


An hon. Member:: As you do.


Mr. Tremblay:: Expert at footwork.


Mr. Racine:: The hon. member for Roberval is again being heard.


Samuel Boulanger: If the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) has any question to ask, I am prepared to answer it.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I put questions only to reasonable people.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the house that, since the beginning of this session, the hon. member for Roberval has been heckling, which shows that his political education could have been acquired only at the Duplessis school.
The Address-Mr. Boulanger
It is also the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), together with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough), who gave us a fancy footwork exhibition, which nobody had asked for, when they stated that O Canada was not our national anthem, but a pretty song. Those two ministers have displayed their narrowmindedness in thus riding rough-shod over the ideals of all right-thinking citizens of Canada. And they did the same thing to the Canadianism for which we have been fighting for so long. At the same time, they subjected all Conservative members to ridicule for none of them protested.
Mr. Speaker, it is equally strange to notice the courteous attitude taken by the government with regard to the settlement of the dispute which occurred between Canadian National employees and the management of that company. Everyone knows that the cabinet, even though the Prime Minister was away on his world tour, took the initiative of settling the question by promising an increase of 17 per cent in transportation rates, an increase which now affects the whole population and especially the farmers. The Prime Minister seems much more prone to settle commonwealth problems than those existing within this country. If he does not want to intervene, or if he does not authorize his ministers to act, so that the dispute may be settled favourably for both sides, they shall have to do so in a more humiliating fashion in the near future.
The people served by the C.B.C. French network are beginning to feel annoyed at paying taxes for a service which has already cost so much money.
Mr. Speaker, I will in the course of my speech, talk about another matter which is of concern to the population of Ontario and Quebec in particular, and more particularly to people in the province of Quebec: that of the textile industry.
I would have liked to deal with farm problems, but I believe that the problem of the textile industry is more important at this time. However, may I inform the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) that, time permitting, I will have a few words for him at the end of my speech. Last year, the house had quite a debate on textiles when the matter of tariff on imports of woollens and of the anti-dumping legislation came up. Unfortunately, being in hospital at the time, I could not take part in that debate.

The Address-Mr. Boulanger
At the time, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and several members on the government side went all out in their attempts to show that the slump in the textile industry of Canada was due to the Liberal party. The Minister of Finance had this to say. I quote from page 3470 of the Hansard:
I have stressed that this problem was not our creation. This was one more of the problems to which we have been heir when our predecessors- our do-nothing predecessors-went out of office. Surely the textile industry and the tens of thousands of Canadian workers in that industry are entitled to receive some intelligent understanding of their problems and some sympathy in the light of their difficulties.
And later, he said:
This industry deserves something more than words and it will require more than words to meet its needs.
We were all anxious to know the magic formula that the Minister of Finance would use to restore that industry to its original strength. This formula was a 2 per cent tariff increase on woollen goods, which means, in practice, an increase of 15 cents in the cost of woollen goods used in the manufacture of clothes, and an increase of about 25 cents in the cost of material used in the manufacture of an overcoat. These were the words the Minister of Finance used to indicate that the consumer would not be really affected by this increase and that the textile industry would be saved. He had just saved the country's textile industry; the workers would henceforth have jobs; gone would be the days of unemployment in the cities of the eastern townships, and in cities with textile plants.
How far can the Minister of Finance go to mislead the people, and to have them believe that he has done wonders for the textile industry?
The government has the same attitude as it had during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958. We were told that the Conservative government, once in office, would settle the problem of the textile industry. The Minister of Finance himself came to Quebec to say that a vote for Conservative candidates was a vote for a solution to the problems of the textile industry.
The Prime Minister, at certain points, and in preparation of his election campaign wrote in 1957, in the textile industry manual, the following comments:
(Text):
It is a complete indication of what the industry's spokesmen have been saying tor a very long time and particularly in the past few years when you had special reason to ask for a better understanding of your needs and problems.

(Translation):
In the course of that debate last year, the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) quoted figures to prove that it was the fault of the Liberal government that the textile industry was in a slump. He added the following words, which I quote from the Hansard of August 13 1958, page 3467:
While in 1930, that industry was supplying 71 per cent of the national consumption, in 1957 it got only 57 per cent of the domestic market, always under a Liberal regime. From 1950 to 1955, still under a Liberal regime, foreign producers were allowed to grab 43 per cent of our national consumption.
I must say that the figures quoted by the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot are meaningless, having no direct bearing on the primary or secondary textile industry.
He closed his remarks by claiming to represent the textile workers of St. Hyacinthe in thanking the Minister of Finance for the position he had adopted towards the textile industry.
Another member from the Eastern Townships, the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), also expressed his thanks, and I quote his words as reported in the Hansard of August 12 1958, page 3443:
Mr. Chairman, with regard to item 554B, I thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) for accepting the Tariff Board's recommendation for a slight increase in the rate of this item. I also very greatly appreciate his stating, in his budget speech of June 15 last, his intention to amend the definition of the term "dumping" so that the value of the price of foreign products shall include production costs, and a reasonable margin for sale costs, carrying charges and profit.
As the present discussion relates to the textile industry. I take this opportunity of commending the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) on adding 40 more assessors to the staff of various customs offices in this country.
Again it is the hon. member for Sherbrooke who said in the house, on May 16 1958, as recorded on pages 175 and 176 of Hansard:
On discovering so much uneasiness and unemployment in our textile industry we must expose the profound and remote causes. Nothing satisfactory was done by the former Liberal administration since 1935, either to adjust the customs tariff or to prohibit the import into Canada of foreign products which flood our markets and paralyse production in our own industry. More especially, during the past 10 years, the former Liberal administration has been giving free rein to foreign competitors and, in a blind and improvident manner, has left our Canadian market at the mercy and whim of imports coming in from Japan, the Indies, Italy, England, West Germany and the United States.
What has happened since the Conservatives came into power? Has the situation improved? No, Mr. Speaker, the situation is worse than ever. The number of people

employed has been steadily decreasing and the volume of importations has been greater than ever.
There are facts and figures which are more eloquent than some honourable members' fine words. Let me quote some of them in order to prove that this government did nothing to better the lot of the textile industry in Canada.
I refer to our cotton primary industry. If we look into the Cotton Institute of Canada report we find that, for the quarter ending June 30, 1958, the share left to our industries in the production of cotton fabrics for our Canadian requirements is 43 per cent. That is the lowest level ever reached by that industry. In 1957, that share was 46 per cent; in 1956, it was 51 per cent; in 1955, 54 per cent. If we were carrying our enquiry further, we would find that the share then left to our industry was even greater.
In the first eight months of 1958, American exports in Canada increased 225 per cent compared with the same period in 1957, in regard to drill, twill, sateen, broadcloth, twilled cotton material, etc.
In fact, between those two periods, our imports from the United States increased from 6 million yards for the first eight months of 1957 to 13,528,000 yards for the same period in 1958.
The amount of imported materials during the last eight months is therefore much higher than during the twelve months of previous years.
The main reason, although not the only one, is the sharp increase of imported American materials on our Canadian markets, the entry into Canada of a great quantity of first quality American products that are passed as second quality products.
An investigation conducted among Canadian manufacturers who use the materials mentioned above, in the manufacture of garments, has shown that 50 per cent of the fabrics used in 1958 were imported into this country as substandard products thus enjoying the discount provided by the act, a discount reaching as high as 10 per cent, depending on the class.
I emphasize especially that the United States, to promote their sales on foreign markets, pay a premium to American mills which ship manufactured cotton goods to Canada on the basis of the raw cotton content of the product. The premium is approximately six cents a pound. The premium thus paid by the American government is a definitely unfair practice detrimental to our Canadian producers. It is a particular
The Address-Mr. Boulanger incentive for Americans who thus make more profit on their sales, or lower prices when competition gets too tough.
Other tactics sometimes used to a certain extent by American manufacturers consist in deliberately placing a piece of fabric of a different colour into a bale of some first quality material, thus contributing to lower its class and price, or in intentionally cutting a yardage into pieces of various lengths, acceptable to the buyer, thus making possible their classification into a lower category, and even including first quality pieces in the same shipment bearing the second quality label, always for the purpose of securing a lower excise tax rate or customs tariff.
Those practices are detrimental to our industry and to our trade; they are slowly destroying what is left of factories in this country and forcing Canadian workers into unemployment.
I read in a report of the Cotton Institute some comments which aptly describe the present situation:
It is difficult to understand why Canada was required in 1957 to accept 67 per cent of all bedspreads exported by the United States, 64 per cent of all cotton towels, 78 per cent of all cotton drapes and draperies, and 34 per cent of sheets and pillow covers.
The most tragic aspect of the situation is the fact that American exports to Canada are ruining the Canadian textile industries to the benefit of the United States factories, however insignificant and negligible such advantage may be to them. The 218 million yards of cotton cloth which the United States exported into Canada last year represent 77 per cent of the Canadian production, but only 2.5 per cent of the United States production. In other words, if the United States had not exported cotton cloth to Canada last year, the American factories would have lost only two hours a week, and Canadian factories could have increased their production by 75 per cent and paid $45 million more in wages and salaries to Canadian workers. If imports from the United States had been cut down by half, this would have meant a loss of only an hour a week in the United States cotton factories, but $22 million more in wages and salaries for these Canadians.
The 22 million yards of processed drills, twills and cotton satin which will have entered Canada at the end of that year (1958) will have practically ruined this market for Canadian factories, but represent only 2\ per cent of the 981 million yards of goods of these categories, produced in the United States.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I was saying before recess that last year, in the cotton

The Address-Mr. Boulanger textile industry, employment has decreased by 2,700, that is from 21,300 to 18,600 on July 1st, 1958.
In the wool textile industry, there was a decrease of our manufacturers' production of 860,000 yards of fabric during the first six months of 1958 and a reduction of 2,000 employees, in comparison to last year.
This is another record that the government could inscribe in the annals of the Conservative party, worthy follower of the Bennett administration.
In the field of synthetic fibres, there was a decrease just as in cotton. According to the report of the Silk and Rayon Institute, our manufacturers' share for the first six months of 1958 was only 68 per cent of the production of commodities needed by the country while it was 70 per cent in 1957 and 74 per cent in 1956.
The number of employees, which was 15,900 on July 1st, 1957 fell to 14,400, a decrease of 1,500.
I have dealt with the primary textile production and I would like now to say a few words about the clothing industry.
Our greatest competitor at the present time is no doubt Japan. Our imports of any textile product except hats, was $8,812,000 in 1957 and for the first eight months of 1958 our imports had increased to $9,186,795. And for 1958, the estimated figure was $11,500,000, which is a 30 per cent increase over 1957.
All told, Mr. Speaker, the textile industry as a whole has reached its lowest level of activity ever recorded. Certain segments of the industry have already folded up under the pressure, and others will follow suit if adequate action is not taken to ensure the industry's survival.
The manufacturers-we can say this in fairness to them-have done their part to improve equipment and production methods so as to compete with other countries.
Workers have waived salary increases so that employers might hold out and keep the plants in operation. In fact, comparing average earnings of textile workers with earnings in various other trades requiring similar training and qualifications, it is found that an assembler in one of our automobile plants earns $1.94 an hour; an electrician, $2.24; whereas a weaver in the textile industry earns $1.36, and a carding machine operator, $1.24 per hour.
Neither the workers, who have endured great sacrifices, nor the employers, who have

kept abreast of technical progress, are to blame for the dilemma with which the textile industry is faced. The matter of its survival now rests with the government, as was stated by Mr. H. Dobbie, president of the Woollen and Knit Goods Manufacturers Association. Another expert, Mr. Roy Crabtree, president of the Basic Textile Institute, recently stated that "the industry has done just about everything possible to help develop its own protection against this tremendous competition" from countries with low production costs. The industry must now look to the government to take remedial action.
This is what the mayors of Sherbrooke, Granby, Cowansville, Three Rivers, St. Hya-cinthe, Richmond and Princeville are asking in the petitions sent by Mr. Marcel Marier, mayor of Drummondville, to the Prime Minister on February 11, 1958, and on January 12 of this year. It is also the request of the Eastern Townships Textile Association, sent by its president, Mr. J. S. Moynan, and its 130 directors and technicians, and the request also of the Chambers of Commerce of the region as well as other Eastern Townships organizations. These requests made by the population of the region I represent here are merely a consequence of the glittering promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on, but I am told that my time is up. May I say in conclusion that the confusion in which the government finds itself becomes increasingly intolerable for the public in general, and especially for those who are interested in the textile industry. If the government does not renounce this policy of confusion and announce a more definite one as soon as possible, in this regard, I intend to come back on that matter at each opportunity that I will have during this session to remind him of the fine promises he made to the industry for the sole purpose of having its term of office renewed.
(Text):


Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise this evening to make my first contribution to the debates of this house I should like first of all to associate myself with all the felicitations extended to you, sir, during the first session of this parliament and again this session, and with all the expressions of confidence in your ability and high sense of fairness and impartiality while presiding over the deliberations of this house. One of the first experiences I had when I

came to Ottawa and visited one of the offices in the Senate side of the parliament building was to be greeted as Mr. Speaker. Having previously heard and read about the esteem and high regard in which you are held by all hon. members I must say I was greatly flattered and not a little startled and it was with considerable reluctance that I disillusioned the gentleman who had addressed me in this fashion.
I also wish to congratulate Mr. Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of committees of the whole house upon their appointments and to extend to them my sincerest good wishes.
I must also with a deep sense of regret and sorrow join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leaders of the opposition parties in the tributes they paid to Mr. Val Yacula and Mr. Edward Lockyer who since the last session have passed on to their great reward. It is not possible in a short session to become personally acquainted with the members of this house as one would wish to do but it happened to be my good fortune to have become well acquainted with both of them and for that reason news of their deaths came to me as a great shock. I express to Mrs. Yacula and Mrs. Lockyer and to their families and relatives my sincere sympathy.
Next I should like to congratulate the four hon. members who took their seats in this house at the opening of this session on January 15 upon their election as representatives of their respective constituencies.
Likewise, I offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Despite what has been said in this house, the selection of these hon. members to perform this traditional function was a happy one, indeed. The hon. member for Provencher as everyone knows is a native-born Canadian and a descendant of Norwegian and Swedish parents. This is just another factual indication of the truly national aspect of the Conservative party which embraces Canadians of almost every ethnic origin and is also a demonstration of the phenomenal extent to which immigrants to Canada have contributed to the growth and expansion of our great country. It also points up the opportunities that prevail in Canada for Canadians of all national origins to have a voice in and to make their contribution to
The Address-Mr. Spencer the conduct of affairs of our country. No longer do we have second-class citizens. There is equality of opportunity for all regardless of ancestry and this is as it should be.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is also deserving of very great commendation. His selection to second the motion, and more important still his speech, evidenced the tremendous strides which have been made under the present government toward national union of all of our people of diverse racial origins. As he so appropriately mentioned, one-third of our population today is of neither French nor English origin. It was reassuring and refreshing indeed to hear from his lips, expressing as he did the point of view of his compatriots in the province of Quebec, that national unity, about which there has been so much talk over the years and so much credit unjustifiably claimed by the Liberal party, is now under a Conservative government a reality. The creed he cited and his impassioned appeal to all our people to make that creed their own was indeed a heartwarming and patriotic plea.
Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to speak for a few minutes about my own constituency of Essex West. It comprises the major portion of that dynamic city of Windsor and all of the contiguous township of Sandwich West. It is the only Essex riding almost entirely urban in character. The rural areas of Essex county are generally speaking about equally apportioned between the constituencies of Essex South and Essex East. Until the last election no Conservative had been elected in Essex West since 1930.
Statistics are usually boring and uninteresting and for that reason I shall not unduly burden the house, but there is much about the city of Windsor and its environs that is not generally known and certainly not fully appreciated. The latest statistics I have available were compiled by the Windsor chamber of commerce as at August 1 last. I shall at this point refer rather extensively to the data thus acquired. Windsor is Canada's largest city on the United States-Canada border and situated on the busiest waterway in the world. During the 1957 season, a period of 282 days, vessel passages in both directions upon this water totalled 20,642 or 73 vessels per day, or one vessel every 20 minutes, carrying a total of over 130 million tons of cargo on this waterway. There were ships of great length, as long as 729 feet, carrying iron ore, coal and grain through this great inland water route of the great lakes system.
342	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Spencer
It is a geographical coincidence that in Windsor we are south of the United States and between Detroit and Windsor there cross in both directions each year over 17 million persons, close to 5 million of whom are United States visitors to Canada. The metropolitan population of Detroit alone is 3,670,000. Windsor is one of Canada's great industrial communities, manufacturing a wide variety of products in 475 industries. Only four cities in Canada produce more than Windsor. Windsor's selling value, according to statistics of the dominion bureau of statistics, in one year was $474,634,000.
During the past year there has been a monthly average of 36,148 employed in Windsor industries. While Windsor is well known for automobile manufacturing, and I mention the products of Chrysler Motor Corporation, engines and parts of the Ford Motor Corporation and engines for General Motors Corporation, it produces many other products such as a wide range of pharmaceutical and other nationally advertised products, one of which I may mention, namely Walker's Canadian Club, an industry of which we are very proud and which provides year-around employment for many, many people in our city.
According to official estimates for 1958, Windsor is also fifth in Canada, according to volume, in capital investment in new industrial construction, machinery and equipment. The figure for one year, 1958, was $30.1 million. An annual average of 1,282 new homes have been built in Windsor during the past four years. The area is also well served by five main railroads and one terminal line, the trans-Canada network airlines and adequate highway transportation facilities.
Windsor, too, is determined to realize every advantage of the St. Lawrence deep waterway after it is built, which now provides great lakes transportation. With all recent improvements costing $9.37 million, Windsor has the second lowest per capita gross debenture debt in Ontario, according to the latest available statistics. Windsor has completed the construction of a municipal courts building and has started plans for development of over 1,200 feet of river-front property in the downtown area where there will be initially erected a civic auditorium and a convention hall. The Hiram Walker historical museum was opened on the site on May 7, 1958. Now completed is the new city


hall to be fronted by an esplanade extending to Riverside drive. We also have the best facilities for education and a university, Assumption university of Windsor, with Essex, Holy Redeemer, Holy Name, Canterbury and University colleges as affiliates.
Perhaps I should also say something about the county of Essex. Windsor and Essex county, together having a population of 246,000, enjoy the news services of an outstanding Canadian newspaper, the Windsor Star with a circulation of over 78,000, ten weekly newspapers, radio stations CBE, CJSP and CKLW, and television station CKLW-TV, the most powerful television station on the North American continent, with an approved rating of 325,000 watts.
Windsor's industry is well balanced with a prosperous agricultural community well known as the sun parlour of Canada where 33 different fruit and vegetable crops are produced. Because of the favourable climate, with an average winter high of 35 degrees and a low of 27 degrees, an average summer high of 78 degrees and a low of 58 degrees, and a long growing season averaging 171 days, the county produces fruits and vegetables which reach market one to five weeks earlier than any other area in Canada. The farms of Essex county have a higher per capita production than anywhere else in Canada.
I should like to make some particular observations with regard to our industrial workers. A survey made by the Battelle memorial institute on the economic development opportunities of Windsor reveals that no Canadian metropolitan area is as dependent upon the manufacture of one type of commodity for its well-being as is Windsor upon the automotive industry. Consequently when economic factors adversely affect this important industry the people of Windsor suffer in direct proportion thereto. Furthermore, when government fiscal policies place a further handicap upon the industry by way of a special excise tax, insult is added to injury and our people suffer to an unjust and disproportionate extent. That is why we in Windsor over the years have appealed to the Liberal government of the day time and time again but without marked success to remove what must be recognized by all fair minded people as a rankly discriminatory tax against one segment of our economy.
I shall return te this topic later but the point I want to make at the moment is that one of our greatest assets in the greater

Windsor area is our industrial workers. In the past as in the present we have had in the area a heavy concentration of industry and because of that, we have a manpower pool of workers and technicians possessing mechanical skills and talents to a greater extent, relatively speaking, than anywhere else in Canada. They are, taken at large and despite some beliefs to the contrary in some quarters, fine, intelligent well-informed and conscientious citizens, and I am proud of them. It is true that our people are perhaps more unionized than in other communities. It is also true that our union leadership leaves much to be desired. Our municipal authorities in years past have also contributed to much of our industrial strife. But those are all things of the past. We have today a healthy industrial climate and, generally speaking, good labour-management relations. In 1957 there were no man days lost in Windsor's automotive industry due to strikes.
Another point I should like to make is that our workers do not submit to dictation or domination by their political leaders. I think perhaps that is general across the country. The Windsor political action committee, which professes to speak for labour and endeavours to control and direct its voting, has over the years endorsed the candidates of the C.C.F. party. On occasions in the past it has had a measure of success. In the last two federal general elections in 1957 and 1958 an intense and concerted effort was made to swing Windsor labour to the support of the C.C.F. party. They concentrated their efforts upon Essex West possibly because there appeared to be little hope of defeating the deeply entrenched hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who had been given in 1953 one of the largest majorities in Canada.
They selected a well-known formidable candidate and experienced campaigner, he having been a city alderman, and undoubtedly the strongest candidate they could find. What were the results? In 1957 he secured almost 22 per cent of the vote and running again in 1958 secured only 19 per cent and made the usual contribution to the country's exchequer. No, labour by and large supported the Conservative party and I agree with an observation to that effect made by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) during the last session. But, Mr. Speaker, I must be excused for correcting his statement that in the last election labour in Windsor supported the Liberals. I would not be here today were it not otherwise.
Let us take a look at what happened in neighbouring Essex East. The hon. member
The Address

Mr. Spencer for whom I have the highest regard, as he knows, must surely have been shocked and must have suffered qualms of trepidation when the returns came trickling in and he saw his huge majority of 1953 dwindle away and his percentage of the vote drop from 67 per cent to the minority percentage of 42.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I am not habituated to
provoking controversy, as the hon. member for Essex East knows, but I do say that he can be thankful indeed and he must be most grateful to the rural areas of his riding which gave him the modest majority that enabled him to stand off the tremendous surge of the Conservative candidate, Mr. Roy Hicks, a labour man himself with whom I was proud to be associated in our campaign in the city of Windsor. My hon. friend should give an assist, I believe, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who came to Windsor in the dying days of the campaign to save the crumbling ramparts of his party stronghold and rescue the hon. member from enforced retirement. It is well for the Liberal party that the leader did, because the hon. member for Essex East for whom I say again I have the highest regard as he knows, would be sorely missed in this chamber. He is undoubtedly the most effective debater on the opposition side-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I said on the opposition side- and heaven knows, they need him badly.
I should like now to return to the excise tax on automobiles. This tax was originally imposed as a wartime expedient, and I do not quarrel with that. However, there is no basis for its retention in peacetime. It has not been completely removed since the last war, and it should never have been increased by the Liberal government in 1947 to 25 per cent. On March 23, 1949, it was reduced to 10 per cent, and the record since then is as follows: On September 8, 1950, it was increased to 15 per cent; on April 11, 1951, it was further increased to 25 per cent; on April 9, 1952, it was reduced to 15 per cent; on April 6, 1955, it was further reduced to 10 per cent. On December 7, 1957, the Conservative government under our esteemed Prime Minister further reduced the tax by one-quarter to 7 per cent. I congratulate the government upon this action, and I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to give favourable consideration to a further reduction and the eventual elimination of this tax at the earliest possible date compatible with the needs of the economy.
The hon. member for Essex East, and the former member for Essex West failed dismally

The Address-Mr. Spencer to sufficiently espouse the cause of their constituents, while they were supporters of the Liberal government, to see to it that this discriminatory tax was removed at a time when additional tax revenue was no longer required for government operations.
A few months hence a period of daylight saving time and confusion will begin. Some municipalities will adopt daylight saving time while others will refuse. Some areas will move their clocks forward at one time, and others at another. Some will return to standard time later than others. A traveller will never be sure until he arrives at his destination and sees a clock whether he is an hour ahead of time or on time or an hour late for his appointment, or whether the places of business are open or closed. This could be quite disconcerting if, after a long day's drive, the vendor dispensing liquid refreshments should be closed. All in all, it is so confusing and needless.
During the war we quickly ended this nonsense. We decided that daylight was worth saving. A federal regulation switched the whole country over and back again simultaneously. There was a minimum of confusion, and no one seriously complained. Why should it not be done again? Surely there can be a happy medium struck between the conflicting time changes and an end to this annual muddle and perplexing state of confusion. I urge the government to give serious consideration to the removal of this annoying and unnecessary period of uncertainty.
I should like now, in the few minutes at my disposal, to speak very briefly of the unemployment situation in general and that pertaining in Windsor in particular. The favourite theme of the Liberal party has been unemployment and from the speeches and comments of the opposition, particularly those of the hon. member for Essex East, one would conclude that unemployment is a tragedy which only descended on us in the last year or two since the present government took office. Of course, this is just plain nonsense. It would be ludicrous if it were not for the fact that we on this side of the house are genuinely disturbed about the ill effects of the economic recession, and the government has shown its concern by taking effective action to alleviate the situation. I am not going to review the measures taken by the government as I would be repeating what has been said in this house and, in any event, they are well known.
What I want to stress, however, is that we had a serious unemployment problem before the present government took office. I have before me a report on unemployment as recorded in the Windsor office of the unemployment insurance commission since the

beginning of 1953. Without going into details, the record certainly reveals a need for action to stimulate the economy. I have made a search, and I can find nowhere the advocacy by the hon. member for Essex East in this house, while he was a member of the government, of the elimination of the excise tax on automobiles in order to stimulate the sale of automobiles throughout the country and thus create jobs for our unemployed in the city of Windsor. The then member for Essex West was obviously aware of the situation because I found recorded an inquiry of the minister of labour as to whether anything could be done to rectify the serious unemployment in Windsor. This was on February 7, 1957, at a time when it was becoming embarrassing in view of the expected general election.
What remedy did the government provide for our people? Sometime in May an announcement was made that the moving expenses of our unemployed would be paid by the government if they could secure employment elsewhere. This was the cure for our ills prescribed by the former minister of labour.
In conclusion, I should like to contrast that record of indifference and neglect of the mounting unemployed rolls with the record of the present government. There was an immediate appreciation of the gravity of the economic doldrums into which the former government had allowed us to drift and a program of remedial measures was initiated and since pursued with vigour, the beneficial effects of which are now revealed in the upswing which has begun. The people of Canada made a wise decision when they turned out the former government before conditions became irremedial, because under the leadership of this government and our Prime Minister we can go forward with confidence and optimism toward a more prosperous and still greater destiny.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the subject of my remarks, I want to congratulate you on the ability and the integrity that you have shown during the last session and during this one. I also congratulate your deputies, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and for Spadina (Mr. Rea) who quite capably acquitted themselves of the difficult task of presiding over the debates of the house.
It is also with pleasure that I join with those who, before me, congratulated the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Fortin).
I am very happy to support the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Pearson), an honourable and distinguished gentleman who is

known and respected by all the nations of the world. I support his motion of non-confidence concerning the way the affairs of this country have been administered by the Conservative government for the last 19 months. What has been the result of that administration? There are 750,000 people looking for jobs, which means that about 3 million of our fellow citizens are living in worry, misery and discouragement in a country of 17 million inhabitants. Nearly 18 per cent of our population, if we take into account only those who are unemployed at this moment, are in a sad plight indeed. How many more will be added to this number from now to next May?
Inflation has affected at least 6 million individuals with fixed revenue, that is pensioners, small wage earners, small merchants and farmers. These people are discouraged and lack the necessary money to buy the bare necessities. There is at present a slump in business from one end of the country to the other, and when we refer to those facts we are branded as defeatists.
What have you done, my friends of the Conservative government, since 1957? You have spent the surplus, $350 million that the Liberal party had accumulated in 1956 and 1957. You have shown a deficit of $50 million for the administration of 1957 and 1958. Furthermore, you have spent about $300,000 belonging to the unemployment insurance fund; you have shown a deficit of several million dollars for old age pensions, and probably a deficit of a billion dollars for the administration of 1958-1959. This is not too bad! What good administrators you are! The country was in full prosperity when you took power, when everything was going fine. In fact, the situation had never been so good, with the exception of the slackening of business which always occurs during the few months preceding a general election. It is not extraordinary for our country; this slowing down lasted only a few months, but in the United States it is felt for three or four months before each general election. Compare yourselves to us, Liberals, who had to take charge of the administration of the country in 1935. At that time most Canadians were in bankruptcy. It took but five years of a Conservative administration, from 1930 to 1935, to plunge the country into debt and to take it to the brink of bankruptcy. We will soon find ourselves in the same economic difficulties if, by mischance, you stay in power for five years. The situation will get worse. This is what happened between 1931 and 1935, as I just said, and I should know because I was in business then. Two thirds of our
The Address-Mr. Gour farmers were under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act or were going to be so placed; otherwise, they would have lost their farms. Three out of five general stores in my village of Casselman went bankrupt and their owners lost all their personal property. I survived, but not without struggle and hardship. I was mayor of my town from 1931 to 1934; three quarters of the people were on relief; across the whole country, thousands of municipalities were bankrupt and under trusteeship of provincial governments. In my constituency there were four such towns, including the beautiful and prosperous city of Eastview, which since then has grown about one hundredfold. It is not, at the moment, under trusteeship of the government.
And you, hon. Conservative ministers and members, have the gall to ask us, here in this house: what have you Liberals done during your 22 years at the head of the country? As, apparently, many of you have a poor memory or are too young to know what we did during those 22 years, I shall recall a few facts. However, it would take over a week to mention everything we did to make the country prosperous, as it was when you took office in 1957.
I described a moment ago the situation existing in 1935, in the municipalities, in the provinces and for individuals, but I said nothing of salaries which were paid at the time by the Conservative government. A certain amount of preliminary work had been started for the construction of the Rock-cliffe airport, and a kind of concentration camp had been set up, where men with families were paid two cents an hour, ten cents a day, that is 20 cents or $1.20 a week for 60 hours of work. Those men were fed and were supplied with overalls, but when the overalls were worn out, the men had to spend a week's salary on a new pair and two week's salary to buy a pair of shoes, or a pair of mittens. Just imagine how much was left to support their family!
Mr. Speaker, I know there are other members who wish to speak after me. I could speak for fifteen days on end about my leader's motion, and I may add that I have many suggestions to make to you. In fact, I could write a 100-page volume of suggestions which you never even considered. As early as August you should have called a conference of the provinces and the municipalities to devise a plan, and not wait until October or December. In fact, you should call a conference in June at the latest, in order to prepare the winter program, and another one in October in connection with the summer work.

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith
What have you done to curb inflation which is mainly due to the conversion of bonds which bore 3 per cent interest, and which you raised to 4J per cent, and, which now nobody wants? It is so true that I tried to sell mine this morning in order to pay my debts, because everything has been in a bad way ever since the Conservatives began to run the country's business. And do you know how much I was offered for bonds falling due in 1979? I was offered exactly $82.50 for one bond of $100.00, which means that I must take a loss of $17.50 for each $100.00 if I want to pay my debts.
Not so long ago, an interest rate of 3 per cent was considered a good return. But since the Torys came to power, what is it worth now?
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that time does not allow me to deal with other matters. However, I intend to resume later. I think I have made enough practical suggestions to the government to have the right to refresh the memory of those, and especially young men like you, who do not seem to have experienced the effect of the thirties, under the Conservative administration. Canadians need three meals a day, and perhaps you do not remember the days when many of my voters had to be satisfied with only one.
(Text):


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks must, of course, be ones of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and to the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I know, sir, that there have been many remarks made already in this chamber congratulating those two hon. gentlemen and it would be simple enough for me to agree in principle with what has been said. I think, too, that the press of Canada has perhaps paid the greatest compliment to them-a compliment far greater than any individual member of the house could convey-by describing their remarks in this chamber as setting the keynote for this debate, something which has not been done in many years.
I took a great deal of interest, in particular, in the remarks made by the mover of the address when he gave his very mature appreciation of the problems of agriculture. He not only did that, but, without emotion, he described the history of the industry and explained how we find ourselves in our present situation. He recommended, as one would


expect from an hon. member on this side, some constructive suggestions to the government and accordingly his stature in this house improved with each syllable he uttered. As I walked out of the chamber and listened to the comments being made I was particularly impressed by some words by a member of the protective staff who had been listening. He said this was the first speech on agriculture that he had ever understood. And as I watched the leading exponent on this topic, that great agricultural expert, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I gathered that he found himself in the same category as the gentleman who made that observation.
I should like, also, to compliment the seconder of the address because all too often do we hear people in our country, whether in parliament, in this chamber or outside, speak of national unity as something which we can accept without working for it. I propose in the latter part of what I have to say, not to offer a suggestion to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet but, rather, to take up his challenge, because the keynote of his address was to me the fact that the area which he represents has given the lead to each and every province to make certain that we accept the challenge of national unity such as he has described.
The nature of this debate finds me in practically the same batting order as I was a year ago. I have no intention of labouring unduly the weakness of the opposition. However, I will not resist the temptation to draw to the attention of this house one rather interesting aspect-that on every occasion on which we have seen the opposition speak or engage in any conversation over C.B.C. television stations we have seen no indication of this desire to come out fighting which we have heard so much about. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this group of gentlemen who wanted to come out fighting that after the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) had torn their arguments apart piece by piece their front bench members began to slip slowly further down in their seats until all we could see of them was the heels of their shoes before the Prime Minister was through.
I do not intend to say any more about the contribution they may or may not have made to the debate, but I should like to say a word about the television performance of the hon. member for Essex East, because at that particular time he was asked a number of questions about what he would do in the event he ever found himself again in government. On each occasion he replied that not having all the facts in front of him he was

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith
not able to come to a firm conclusion. I remember, in particular, a question asked by Mr. Charles Lynch with regard to his opinion on the recognition of communist China. The nimble piece of footwork performed by the hon. member would have done credit to the best ballerina in the country; he literally danced off the stage before he made any reply at all.
And now, if I may, I should like to turn my attention to a matter of more serious and, I hope, of a more consequential nature. I am sure all of us were delighted that Canada today is participating in discussions on an international basis with the United States. I refer to the Canada-United States joint committee. I was very happy to hear the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) tell us of the part he had played in this. I congratulate him on his contribution to this debate, because it was a most important one. We in the city of Calgary enjoy a relationship with the United States which is very unusual and it is perhaps significant in this respect that in our consular area we have more than 60,000 United States citizens, the greatest concentration of Americans outside the United States itself. We have enjoyed a relationship which is an example to the rest of the world. These United States citizens are not just welcome transients but men and women who have made a contribution to the business, industrial and social life of our city. I think we have set an example to the rest of the world in being able to get along with our neighbours.
I do not think any of us would disagree that with regard to diplomatic problems-* and perhaps I should say not so much diplomatic as economic problems-there has been some erosion of our relationship with our great neighbour to the south. But it would be equally wrong for us to suggest that the problems we have before us are insurmountable, and the important part of this committee's work has already been established in so far as it is going to be asked to define where the area of disagreement actually lies. We will, in effect, separate fact from fiction; we will determine what the problem is and attempt, as members of two legislative bodies, to resolve it, bringing recommendations back to our respective governments in the hope that some action can be taken to reconcile the differences which are before us. I suggest that the most important advance we have already made lies in the fact that this committee has been established.
I congratulate this government, which has been alleged in the past to have been antiAmerican, upon taking the first step toward some constructive action to improve our relationship with our fine friends south of
the border. The difficulty with regard to our relationship with the United States lies, in so far as we have been concerned, in the fact that we have at times felt ourselves to be neglected-maybe misunderstood is the better word. I suggest that the action taken by the United States congress and by its speaker gives a clear indication that they recognize the problem.
I wish to call the attention of the house to four particularly important actions taken on their part. The first, of course, was by the President of the United States coming here to discuss mutual problems in this very chamber. The second was when the United States congress extended the reciprocal trade act. The third was when Mr. Brook Hays and Mr. Frank Coffin presented their report, and the fourth was when the President, on the suggestion of the Prime Minister, appointed the United States counterpart of the Canadian committee. This is a very clear indication that the United States realizes that our difficulties can only be surmounted by a frank understanding as to where the problem actually exists.
I believe that the committee can accomplish a great deal. It is not an instrument that will become a debating society because the two countries recognize that the differences are economic. My hope is that the citizens of both Canada and the United States will stop shooting verbal rockets at one another based on differences and issues that do not really exist, but rather that having defined the area of their disagreement they will like mature men and women resolve their differences. I suggest that this can also be done at the legislative level.
Perhaps if I were to say a word about defence it might be construed that having had the privilege of serving as chairman on the committee on estimates last year, which committee examined the estimates of the Department of National Defence, I am setting myself up as an authority on the subject. This is most certainly not the case. But having made reference to the estimates committee may I be permitted to take advantage of this my first opportunity to do so and to thank, first of all, the committee members for making our work all the more agreeable. Through their co-operation we were able to complete our work in very short order.
I should like to extend to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) the sincere appreciation of the committee for the time he gave to us. Whenever he attended meetings of the committee he answered in detail all the questions that were put to him, and he made himself available at all times. I

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith also wish to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that their co-operation was greatly appreciated.
Having made reference to the work of that committee may I perhaps suggest that hon. members of that committee had full opportunity last year to discuss the question of defence in minute detail and I feel it would serve very little purpose to attempt to go back and review any of that discussion in this session of parliament in the light of any change in the international situation or the defence picture for we must realize the restricted nature of any new developments.
But what is our defence picture? In the past year we have seen introduced in this house what I suggest is a rather narrow form of nationalism on the part of a few hon. gentlemen who have indicated a resistance toward any suggestions for the integration of Canada's defence forces with those of the United States in any form of defence alliance and particularly through the NORAD agreement. Surely it is time we set aside this question of having our rights infringed upon when mutual defence is in the interest of our national survival. We must realize that national defence is not something one can arrange to suit one's own convenience and there must be cognizance of national and international needs. There can be no question of this house not having been given every opportunity to debate the question of joint defence. The most important aspect of this matter is that we are conducting our defence on a co-operative basis and thus are providing protection not just for either country but for the continent as a whole.
Perhaps the most important aspect of defence this year is the recognition that we are in a transitional period. For example, with respect to manned aircraft, whether it be the CF-100, the Sabre or the CF-105, they have a life expectancy that cannot be calculated beyond a few years. We also know that missile warfare is something that will soon be upon us if it is not already. Let us recognize that this is a transitional period and bear in mind that in expending monies for defence we must do so with one eye on the present and one eye on the future. It is ridiculous for us to expend large sums of money on the development of any piece of military equipment which in only a few months will be obsolete and of no value to the defence of the country as a whole.
I am, however, one of those who believe there is a period in the foreseeable future when a manned interceptor may be required to meet the 1,500 to 1,700 existing manned bombers of a potential enemy. Until this

situation changes it is unthinkable that we should put ourselves in a position where we could not defend ourselves on that basis. I do not intend to enter into the argument about the relative merits of the CF-105, the United States CF-106 or the F-108 that will not be off the production line for some four years, but as one who has flown in defence of our country I believe we must maintain a flexible defence policy involving the flexibility of military equipment. Any aircraft we adopt should be capable of being related to our missile program but not dependent on it.
About missiles themselves, we know they are weapons that can be employed with great accuracy but of course they have shortcomings. While it is important to think in terms of defending ourselves on the home front we must also consider the commitments we have under the NATO agreement which will require additional types of weapons.
I have brought to the attention of hon. members matters that are perhaps already only too familiar to the Department of National Defence, but before leaving the subject I should like to say a few words about home defence. There has been no conflict whatsoever on the part of the government in any statement it has made and particularly concerning whether or not we will likely require a first-class two seat interceptor. Every statement that has been made by this government clearly indicates the need for a combination of weapons and every statement that was made in the committee on estimates when it examined the estimates of the Department of National Defence supports this position. What I want to make clear is this: last year the government spent $174 million for a one year extension of the Arrow program, and at that time had flown only four of the CF-105's. Certainly the government is not going to accept or reject this particular aircraft until it is fully acquainted with its flight characteristics.
Recognizing that we are passing through a transitional period in defence, it does not make sense to say that we must evolve a hard and fast rule concerning what type of weapon or group of weapons we are going to employ until we know what the qualifications of those weapons are. The government must have the full facts at hand before making a decision, and it will test and review various types of equipment in order to decide on their suitability to fit into the pattern of international defence under the NORAD agreement. Then and only then can a decision be made. No attempt on the part of hon. members of the opposition and particularly on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, who on many occasions in the past few days has expressed

some doubt about the acceptability of the Arrow, is going to force this government into a premature and untimely decision.
Before leaving the subject of defence may I make a second suggestion that applies to the defence of our country. Our commitments under NATO are gradually disappearing. Many of the responsibilities we have will be relinquished. Some of the airfields we have in Canada will doubtless be abandoned. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence that in co-operation with the Department of Transport consideration should be given to the question of how these airfields can best be utilized.
In my own city, for example, we have an airfield, formerly the No. 3 service flying unit, which will become surplus at some point. Canada has a growing civil aviation problem and to some extent private, commercial and executive aircraft are cluttering up the principal airfields in our cities. I think it is time we recognized that we should transfer our civil aircraft to those subsidiary fields which are about or nearly about to be declared surplus. If we did that we would accomplish two things. First of all, we would have alternate air fields near our cities for defence purposes in the future. But what is more important, we would be providing incentive for civilian aviation to develop to a greater extent than it has in the past without in any way complicating commercial air routing.
While I am on the same subject I should like to suggest the advantage of giving some thought to permitting our auxiliary squadrons to have an additional role, namely that of carrying out air search and rescue in many areas of our country not adequately covered today. For the most part auxiliary squadrons have been transferred to air transport command where they use twin engine expediter aircraft. They are comparable to any of the light bombers which were used in the early stage of the war. I think the squadrons would be more effective in providing more help in search and rescue, which to some extent has been neglected in many sections of Canada.
I come now to a subject which perhaps has been introduced in this chamber before and about which I have seen a rather interesting change. I refer to the amount of lobbying which exists in parliament today. I refer to lobbying by outside interests which in itself is in no way offensive. In fact, I did some research and drew a parallel with some pressure groups, or lobbying of legislation, in the United States. It is not unlike our own country some 25 or 40 years ago. I recognize the constitutional difference between our parliament and the United States congress. In
The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith the United States, because of the constitutional differences lobbying can have a great deal more effect than it has here, but what I would point out is that in the United States as early as 1867 there was a group of gentlemen who decided that lobbying had reached such proportions as to become extreme. The first attempt at a bill was introduced at that time. Some years later the bill on lobbying was introduced and only as recently as 1946 did we see any legislation which had any teeth in it.
I do not for a moment, Mr. Speaker, deny the right of individuals either in a body or as a group to approach any member of parliament on any business with which they may be concerned. Because of the very nature of our constitutional right here we make ourselves accessible to anyone within Canada who has a problem. But I suggest that the history of pressure groups and lobbying in the United States is not unlike our own in this respect. These groups, because of their size, because of their operation and because of their effectiveness in obtaining the legislative result they required eventually were asked to file with the United States administration two facts, namely their source of income and their affiliation with the people with whom they were doing business.
I think that at some time we may be forced into the position of referring to a committee of this house whatever information we can to determine whether lobbying has become so effective in Canada today that similar legislation to that passed by the United States is required here, namely legislation having to do with the registration of lobbyists. I am not speaking mainly of those who may wish to make a phone call and describe a problem to a member. I am not referring to those who may wish to make an appointment and present a problem to an individual. I am referring to that vast army of people who descend on the capital. They may describe themselves as public relations men or even members of the press. They have been known to be members of that very important profession, the legal profession. I am not confusing those of the legal profession who are here set up as agents to do business on behalf of companies, but rather to that group on the outside who know that legislation may be introduced at this session or at some future session and who think they should be here to make absolutely certain that the greatest and most effective pressure can be brought to bear on every member of this chamber.
It is quite possible that we may not have reached the day when legislation is required. I realize, too, that any legislation that may be introduced would not necessarily be the whole answer to the problem because in

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith the United States since 1946 some 2,800 lobbies have been registered which operate within the law. What I do suggest is that it is a regulation which, if it is not required at present, may at some time in the future be of great help to the individual member, not that hon. members need to be protected. I would not be so naive as to suggest that an hon. member is not familiar with the subject that may be discussed with him, but only that he should have the opportunity of discerning the particular objective required in the lobby which is undertaken at that time. As I said initially in introducing this matter I do not suggest that there should not be any information given nor do I deny the individual the right to be given the opportunity to carry out whatever undertaking he has in mind.
I am going to close the remarks I have made tonight with a reference to the oil and gas industry and it will be brief. Shortly there will be introduced in this chamber legislation having to do with an energy board, something that has been long required in the history of the petroleum and natural gas industry. We assume that the legislation will involve on the one hand the interests of the consumer and on the other hand provide some help to the industry which it will govern. I will not at this point make any reference to it but I would like simply to introduce a note of optimism at this time which is the first time I have had the opportunity of speaking on oil and gas in the past two years. The marketing of our petroleum products has taken the first encouraging upturn that we have seen in the past two and one-half years. This has been due largely to the expansion of the Ontario market which has more than doubled itself in the past two years.
The most significant aspect of the Ontario improvement has been the desire on the part of the industry itself to divert portions of crude which at one time were taken from foreign sources. In addition, crude was forced back which had been coming in from Montreal refineries, thus limiting again foreign imports into the country. I think too it can be said that the hope for a future market in the United States has improved, again because on the one hand General Petroleum Corporation and their refinery at Ferndale in Washington state have replaced foreign crude with Canadian crude from western Canada which was also under their control.
The point I make, is that the industry for the most part has corrected to a very large degree its own problem. I think it is to be congratulated first of all on recognizing that that problem is best left in the hands of the


industry itself, with the minimum amount of control or regulation. I do not for a moment suggest that there is not going to be a demand or a desire for the eventual construction of a pipe line to the Montreal area. In my opinion it is only a matter of time before that will take place. The marketing picture will improve which will clearly indicate that the market demand has taken up some of the slack of the overproduction which we have had in western Canada. But in the long term our ability to produce will, as it does today, far exceed our ability to sell oil. Therefore it is essential, not only from the point of view of the economic picture in Canada but in the interests of national defence, eventually to move oil into the Ontario and Montreal refining area.
Second, I would say this. Our hope of moving more oil into Montreal or of increasing the market in Ontario is in my view at present second only to the necessity of improving market export into the Pacific northwest and the great lakes area of the United States. In any event, it can be said that for this year, certainly for the first two months of the new year, the market picture for export and for domestic demand has increased beyond all expectations. In fact, in the first two months of this year we are only a little below the record year in 1957 during the Suez crisis.
I think if anything is to be said about oil and gas we have to comment on two other aspects. First of all, there is the fact that the Venezuelan government has seen fit to increase taxation on the companies operating in that country. This could have a very interesting effect because it will inevitably bring about an increased price for Venezuelan crude which must move into foreign markets. It would be wrong for me to suggest that these oil companies or, for that matter, the government will attempt to outprice themselves completely so far as foreign markets are concerned, but it is significant to note that any suggestion of further concessions by these producers, either in Canada or the United States, which in the past has made it impossible for Canadian crude to compete will be certainly short lived if not completely eliminated. I hope that the market for Canadian crude, both in the Pacific northwest and also in Ontario and Montreal, is broadened considerably, first of all by the more efficient manner in which we produce oil and, second, because of the change in the international situation as it affects Venezuela.
Finally, so far as oil and gas industry is concerned, there will be introduced into the house more oil and gas legislation than at any time in the whole history of the Canadian parliament. I suggest this is going to

be something with which each and every member must concern himself because this is Canada's No. 1 mineral industry, one which today has grown to maturity, which affects not just the four areas in which the product is produced but which has an influence on every province in our Canadian economy. Therefore it is my hope that hon. members will not only look into the recommendations contained in the Borden report but will examine the areas where this industry affects the particular economy of their own constituencies.
Speaking as a member of parliament I say that we need the greatest help from every section of the community to put together the best recommendations which can be introduced into legislation. We also know that there are going to be many new and interesting events which will affect the industry. A few of us had the opportunity today, for example, to view, certainly for the first time in some years, an experiment which conceivably may be carried out in the very rich Athabasca tar sands. This area, as is well known to the House of Commons, contains the greatest known reserve of oil. The experiment which was demonstrated to us through a motion picture will be carried out by the Richfield Oil Corporation as a possible answer to the separation of the oil from the sand, thus making available in some future year this great source of crude oil.
There are, of course, a great number of others who are interested in this prospect, but what it amounts to is that the year 1959, with the improvement in the domestic oil picture, with the opportunity that may exist in future demands from United States sources and in view of the eventual construction of pipe lines, improvement in oil and gas policies both on the provincial and federal level and the effect of more important improvements in the technological field, will unquestionably be the industry's greatest year.
As I close my discussion of oil perhaps I should say that I know that very shortly the petroleum and natural gas conservation board will make available its decision on whether or not to recommend a permit for export. This is something which will be in the hands of the federal government to consider, and I know I speak on behalf of my constituents when I say for them that I hope the government will give the earliest consideration to this matter. I say this because, assuming that an export permit is considered and recognizing that the Borden commission and the petroleum and natural gas conservation board have both suggested that we have gas reserves far beyond domestic requirements for Canadian consumption, I think it can be
The Address-Mr. Pearson said that the export of our surplus requirements is a most beneficial thing so far as the Canadian economy is concerned.
I close on the theme introduced by the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne when he discussed in such eloquent terms the need for national unity. I think he will agree with me, as I am sure every other hon. member of the house will, that while national unity is something that is present today we have achieved a measure of economic unity which permits each province, each section of each constituency for that matter, to be able to be a part of the family of confederation and feel that they are not poor relations because if you understand where your problems exist and survive that is what creates national unity. I believe and I am sure that the majority of the people of our country believe that if we have any portion of national unity, as the hon. member suggests, and I agree with him, certainly we have attained it because of our achievements in economic unity and equality which include the construction of the railroad, the improvement in the farm population's rather difficult situation of a year ago, the improvement of the position of the maritime provinces, the improvement of the picture in British Columbia today, all of which have been part and parcel of the operations of Conservative government. That is the reason we enjoy national unity today, because this is the government that has made it possible.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the closing moments of the discussion of the subamendment to state the position of this party in respect thereto. Before doing so, I should like to say that I have listened with great interest to the interesting and, I thought, on the whole constructive contribution made to the debate by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He mentioned among other things the desirability of proceeding carefully and not making premature decisions in regard to such an important matter as the CF-105. I would remind him, if a reminder is necessary, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) told us in the committee over which he presided with such efficiency last session that the decision in this matter would be made in the autumn, last autumn. Certainly the statement of the government on that matter in September did not constitute that decision which we had been led to expect would have been made at that time. If a decision has to be made, and we on this side appreciate the difficulties of that decision, perhaps it would have been better if it had been made last autumn and before March 31.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
The hon. member also expressed some suspicion about the development of what he called lobbies, and suggested, as I understood him, that the time might be coming when we would have to register those who could be called lobbyists, as is done at the present time in the United States. I hope, Mr. Speaker, we will not have to consider any such procedure as this when it comes to the right of Canadians, individually or collectively, to make their views known to the government of the day. We remember in that connection the statements that were made not very long ago that the doors of the government would always be open, I hope not only to those who are registered for that purpose.
We on this side had hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), in that intervention which he made with his usual vigour and forcefulness a week ago today, would have given us and the country a considered and constructive analysis of the economic and other problems which face the country now, and the principles on which the government proposes to act through legislation in meeting those problems. The Prime Minister, on that occasion at least, did not give us that kind of statement. He criticized me for taking an unduly gloomy and pessimistic view of the situation. He said that I spoke irresponsibly and in a way-I hope I am not misinterpreting what he said-which was not consistent with the danger which we faced at this time from communism. Communism, Mr. Speaker, had nothing to do with what I was talking about on that occasion. I suggest that we do not assist the fight against communism abroad by not dealing effectively and immediately and constructively with the problems that we face at home. I do not believe it was in accordance with what I said to interpret my remarks, as the Prime Minister did on page 52 of Hansard for January 19, 1959, as painting a picture of Canada as a place, fearful in its prospects and frightening in its future.
There is only one thing which can prevent Canada from achieving the destiny which is hers if her people desire to achieve it, and that is the loss of peace and world war III, which will prevent any country from achieving any destiny in this world. Inadequate policies of government can postpone, and I suggest if we do not get the right policies from the present government we may postpone the achievement of that destiny, but no Canadian, whatever party he belongs to, lacks faith in the achievement by Canada of the destiny which is hers and the realization of the national vision which we all have before us.


The Prime Minister also thought that we were exaggerating the economic and financial difficulties that face us. I made certain specific statements and colleagues of mine followed them up with other specific statements which we attempted to support by the official statistics which were available to us. We gave certain concrete evidence in support of those statements, and I do not feel the Prime Minister or his colleagues in government have dealt effectively, and as we had reason to believe they would, with the points of criticism which we advanced. I asked certain questions of the government which are recorded on page 41 of Hansard for January 19, 1959, very definite questions. They were meant to be constructive questions. They were meant to elicit from the Prime Minister and the government the principles upon which they were going to act in the introduction of their legislation. These questions have not been mentioned, let alone replied to by any spokesman for the government since this debate began.
I also made three additional concrete, and I thought constructive suggestions concerning other matters and how we should proceed in regard to them. They also have not been referred to by any speaker on the government side in this debate. I wish I had the time to put those questions which appear on page 41 on the record again, but they are there.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) made an interesting intervention in the debate which included very little indeed about the policies of his government, but a good deal about the policies and personalities, particularly this personality, of the preceding government. He told us once again with some satisfaction how the commonwealth had been saved by a government which had always believed in the commonwealth from a party which had never believed in the commonwealth. Once again he has not produced the evidence to support that kind of wrong statement. I refer the minister, not to his own words but to his own actions. I refer him to his trade diversion policy which has resulted in exports from the commonwealth to the United States being increased by 15 per cent, as I pointed out the other day, and exports from the commonwealth to Canada being decreased. I refer him to the free trade offer made by the British government a year or so ago, about which nothing has been done. I refer him to the increase in wool duty. It is a homely old saying, Mr. Speaker, but it remains true, that actions still speak a good deal louder than words, even the words of my hon. friends.

My hon. friend also said with some satisfaction that he and his government had saved us from the United States. He expressed his preference for jackboot over tiptoe diplomacy in relation to that country. He did a great deal of threshing of old straw, but once again we can let the record speak for itself. Perhaps it would have been more useful if we had at this time from the minister some indication of the trade policies of this government, some views on the proposals that have been made on this side concerning the restoration of the Hyde Park agreement; some indication of the attitude of the government toward economic and trade developments in Europe which will have, if they develop in a certain way, a far-reaching effect indeed on the trade of Canada as well as on the trade of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us the subamendment moved by the C.C.F. One part of that subamendment refers to the government in agricultural and anti-inflationary policies, which of course we can unreservedly support. We could have found even more examples, but we thought it wise to concentrate, by exclusive mention, on unemployment, which is such a pressing and immediate problem in human and social as well as economic terms. There is another part of the C.C.F. subamendment. A reference to the absence of social and economic planning which calls for approval of a socialist approach or a socialist solution for national problems would make it impossible for us to support such an amendment to the address.
On this occasion, however, Mr. Speaker, and this is in contrast to previous occasions when these words were used, we have noted a reference specifically to the confused policies of the government which were criticized by us, among other reasons, precisely because they were unplanned and were carried out in a piecemeal, hit-and-miss, short-sighted fashion. We agree that there is not the kind of economic planning which is both desirable and necessary to meet these problems which are before us today. Because we feel that that kind of planning is essential for this particular purpose, we shall be able to support and vote for the C.C.F. subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In addition, Mr. Speaker, a vote against it would imply confidence in the government which is certainly not our purpose or our feeling. I have already begged the government to interrupt this debate so that its unemployment legislation could be brought forward at once for immediate action. Surely the seriousness of the situation 66968-9-23
The Address-Mr. Pearson required this procedure at this time. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has twice refused this request.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have only until a quarter to ten in which to finish my remarks. If I finish before a quarter to ten I shall be delighted to have the hon. member's question. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once brushed aside my request with what I thought was a somewhat frivolous observation.
I now wish to make another request, indeed an appeal, to the government. It is that immediately this vote is taken on the subamendment we proceed without delay to take the vote on the amendment and on the main motion or, in other words, that we conclude this general discussion, this throne speech debate, tonight and proceed tomorrow with legislative and other business giving priority to unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk informs me that it is 9.45 o'clock p.m. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith to put the question on any subamendment now before the house.


Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock the house stands adjourned automatically.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a question of the leader of the house. I wondered if he would indicate whether we would take the vote on the amendment to-morrow?


Howard Charles Green: We will proceed with the debate in the ordinary way, Mr. Speaker, and if the hon. member and his followers have run out of ideas I am sure they could get some from their new brothers in the C.C.F.


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