1959-01-20

Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday last I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys the following question, as reported on page 11 of Hansard of January 16:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. My question is based on a news dispatch in today's Montreal Gazette announcing the intended closing on February 1 of five collieries affecting 4,000 men in the Glace Bay and Waterford areas of Nova Scotia. What steps does the minister propose to take to avert this mass unemployment in a region that is at the present moment experiencing grave and serious unemployment?
I received the following reply:
I did not receive any notice from the Dosco company with regard to a cut down in production or a staff reduction. I saw this article in a paper-the Gazette-this morning, and this was the first news I hrd of it, through the press. However, we shall look into the matter and as soon as I have been officially informed by the company that there has been a reduction of staff and production, or of its plans in the matter, I shall notify my colleagues and we shall take a decision about it.
On the very same day, Mr. Speaker, as recorded in the Halifax Chronicle-Heraid of January 17

*


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wish the hon. member would state his question of privilege so we could follow the relevance of what he is saying.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am just coming to the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My question of privilege is that the minister's action in this regard was a shock to parliament and to the rights of parliament, because on that very day, January 17, the minister informed the press, as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, as follows:
A memorandum outlining marketing problems facing the Nova Scotia coal industry and containing recommendations relative to subvention payments on movement of coal is under study by the federal cabinet.
Mines minister Paul Comtois told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald Friday the memo was drafted following a series of dominion coal board meetings which heard several delegations from Nova Scotia and the coal operators; and after a conference he held with Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia and officials of Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, we do not assert that we should be told of cabinet's deliberations before a decision is reached-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member state the privilege of the house which he contends has been offended?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On this occasion the house was misled and misinformed.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: On this occasion information which was refused to the house was given to the press. It is a shock to the rights of parliament.
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Gloucester is rather easily put out and is giving a quite personal interpretation of the answer I gave last Friday. As a matter of fact, I replied that the officials of the company had represented to us that the government might perhaps consider the advisability of increasing grants and assisting coal production. I also said that we had not been officially advised that there would be staff reductions.
That is the answer I made in the house and I do not think there is any disagreement between my statement and the press reports.
(Text):



ROYAL VISIT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I reported on the prospective visit of Her Majesty the Queen I stated that as soon as the itinerary had been approved by Her Majesty, that itinerary having been submitted to her by General Graham and a committee, it would be tabled. I would also point out that within the next few hours copies will be available in the post office boxes of the members.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of two tariff

Tabling of Reports
board reports. One, reference No. 121, relates to waterproof footwear and rubber-soled canvas footwear. The other, reference No. 126, relates to fluorspar. These reports were received from the tariff board last December and I authorized their release for public distribution at that time. They are now being tabled, together with transcripts of the evidence taken at the board's public hearings, pursuant to section 6 of the Tariff Board Act.
The contents of these reports are no doubt already familiar to those members who, for one reason or another, are directly interested in them. There may, however, be some members who have not yet had an opportunity to examine the reports. Accordingly I should like to say a word about each of them.
Reference No. 121 on waterproof footwear and rubber-soled canvas footwear was initiated by my predecessor and a first report thereon was received by him shortly before the 1957 election. In tabling that report in October, 1957, I pointed out that the board had not been asked for recommendations. For that reason I referred the matter back to the board with the request that in due course it make any recommendations that it might deem warranted regarding the retention or modification of the present duties.
Pursuant to this request the tariff board considered representations submitted by the Canadian rubber footwear industry relating to both the British preferential and the most favoured nation rates of duty on rubber boots and shoes and rubber-soled canvas footwear. With respect to rubber boots and shoes the industry requested that a new duty of 15 per cent ad valorem be imposed on imports from the United Kingdom and other British preferential sources, and that the present ad valorem duties under the most favoured nation and general tariffs be accompanied by specific minimum duties ranging from 30 cents to 95 cents per pair. With regard to canvas shoes with rubber soles the revised tariff treatment sought by the industry envisaged the introduction of specific minimum duties ranging from 55 cents to $1.25 per pair under the British preferential tariff and from 60 cents to $1.35 per pair under the most favoured nation and general tariffs.
In the report which I have just tabled the tariff board states that it was not persuaded on the basis of the evidence submitted that it would be warranted in recommending the adoption of the duties requested by the industry. It did not recommend any changes in either the wording or rates of duty in respect of the tariff items covering waterproof footwear and rubber-soled canvas footwear.

The report on fluorspar results from a reference which I sent to the board on September 24, 1957. Fluorspar is a product which has not attracted wide attention but which is of very direct concern in two Canadian localities. It is used extensively in the aluminum industry and in the iron and steel industry as a flux. Smaller amounts are used by Canadian producers of glassware, enamels and certain chemicals.
Canada's principal fluorspar mines are located at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland. The larger of these, Newfoundland Fluorspar Limited, supplies acid grade fluorspar to its parent company, the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited. The other, St. Lawrence Corporation of Newfoundland Limited, formerly shipped its entire production as concentrate to an affiliated company in the United States. Following the termination in 1957 of its affiliate's contract for United States stockpiling purposes, the St. Lawrence Corporation's mine has been closed.
Apart from Newfoundland Fluorspar Limited and the St. Lawrence Corporation of Newfoundland, Limited, the only other operating producer of fluorspar in Canada is, according to the report, Huntington Fluorspar Mines Limited, Madoc, Ontario. This firm mines, crushes and hand picks metallurgical grade fluorspar on a small scale.
In its report the tariff board says that at the hearings the St. Lawrence Corporation of Newfoundland and Huntington Fluorspar Mines proposed that the existing duty free entry of fluorspar be replaced by a duty of $10 per ton on all grades from all sources. This proposal was opposed by The Aluminum Company of Canada, which owns Newfoundland Fluorspar Limited, and by Canadian producers of glass, steel and chemicals.
The tariff board came to the conclusion that the closing of the St. Lawrence Corporation's mine was not primarily due to developments in the Canadian market, but rather to the fact that it could no longer sell in the United States market on which it has been entirely dependent.
With regard to the applicants' request for the imposition of a duty of $10 per ton, the board's majority opinion is to be found on page 36 of the report which I have just tabled. The relevant extract is as follows:
On the basis of the current fair market value, f.o.b. mine or mill in Mexico (the major source of supplies to Canada), a duty of $10 per ton-estimated by the president of St. Lawrence Corporation of Newfoundland as necessary to permit operations yielding a profit of about $5 per ton-would have an ad valorem incidence of something between 60 and 100 per cent. While a duty of $10 per ton would be in the nature of a bonanza to the relatively small operation at Madoc, it would very likely prove-in the opinion of the board-insufficient to

permit St. Lawrence Corporation of Newfoundland to compete with the Mexican product. On the other hand, it would be a burden upon the domestic users of fluorspar, especially to those industries competing in export markets.
The board accordingly has not made any recommendation for any change in the provisions of the tariff on fluorspar.



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR 1958&quot;   REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I am asking leave, Mr. Speaker, to table copies of the communique which the committee authorized to be issued at the conclusion of its meetings.']
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he proposes to make available to members of the house and the press gallery copies of the "Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958"?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the number of copies of the Economic Outlook that were printed or at least mimeographed, last year was very limited and it is just impossible to accede to the hon. member's request. I had available only about five of those copies. I tabled two and one was made available to the press gallery, but there certainly are not enough to circulate to all hon. members. No such request was made for the "Economic Outlook for 1957" and I did not anticipate that such request would be forthcoming now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like formally to make that request because this is a document that should be in the possession of hon. members and of the Canadian people. As to the difficulty of reproducing copies of it, that is really not a serious matter. I should think that at least all hon. members should have copies, and I should think the press gallery are entitled to some copies of a document to which so much importance has been attached.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: I should like to raise a question of privilege on this point. I had a motion on the order paper covering this matter. It is true that the motion has not passed, but in my experience it has always been customary for a government producing a document, even if the motion relating to the document had not yet been passed-I suppose as a courtesy-to send a copy to the person in whose name the motion stands. Very late yesterday morning I was finally able to get the copy of the document which was tabled, but this copy is the property of the house. I have yet to receive a courtesy copy. Last year, when the circumstances were different, there was no difficulty encountered by the government in producing hundreds of copies.
66968-9-6i
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Since this question of privilege has been raised, I think someone should set the record straight. I recall many occasions when copies of documents were tabled by the former government in response to motions when no extra copies were made available.



Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) asked me if I would be making any report to the house on the meetings at the beginning of last week of the joint United States-Canada committee on trade and economic affairs. I intimated at that time that if it were the wish of the house I would make a short report and table the communique which the committee authorized to be issued at the conclusion of its meetings.
May I, therefore, now table copies of that communique and say briefly that the meetings of the committee proceeded in Ottawa on January 5 and 6. On the part of the United States it was attended by Hon. Robert B. Anderson, secretary of the treasury; Hon. Fred A. Seaton, secretary of the department of the interior; Hon. Lewis L. Strauss, secretary of the department of commerce; Hon. C. Douglas Dillon, under secretary of state for economic affairs; Hon. Marvin L. McLain, assistant secretary, department of agriculture, as well as by a number of high officials from the departments concerned in the administration of the United States.
Canada was represented by my colleagues the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and myself as well as our officials.
It had been expected that Mr. Dulles, the secretary of state of the United States and Mr. Benson, the secretary for agriculture, would be attending, but within a few hours of the meeting both of them were incapacitated, the one by illness and the other as a result of an accident.
The meeting was carried on in the most friendly and informal atmosphere. A very wide range of subjects came before us for discussion. These subjects included, of course, trade problems; even with the happy relations that exist between Canada and the United States there are still formidable trade problems.

Inquiries of the Ministry
On the part of the Canadian representatives the Canadian point of view with respect to the limitations imposed by the United States on imports of Canadian oil, lead and zinc, as well as certain aspects of United States agricultural surplus disposal policies, were plainly stated and vigorously pressed as was also the firm insistence of the Canadian government upon the fullest respect being extended to Canadian sovereignty in all its aspects.
A question was raised after the meeting concerning the range of subjects that came before the meeting, as to whether matters pertaining to defence purchasing came within the scope of the discussions. They did not, Mr. Speaker. There is another joint cabinet committee, the committee on defence, which embraces within its scope matters pertaining to defence purchasing.
I stress the very happy and extremely friendly and informal spirit which prevailed on the part of representatives of both countries. The meetings were useful. They provided an opportunity for a timely exchange of views, and it is the view of the Canadian government that the meetings served a very useful purpose.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: What did they accomplish?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am asking leave, Mr. Speaker, to table copies of the communique which the committee authorized to be issued at the conclusion of its meetings.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the preliminary report of the Fraser river board submitted to the governments of Canada and of British Columbia as of October 31, 1958.
As a result of its three years' study and based on data accumulated for several years by its predecessor, the Fraser river board has made a number of recommendations which deserve careful study by the responsible authorities. These range from expanding the program of collecting basic data regarding the Fraser river basin to multi-purpose development proposals for the basin.
One project, predicated on a partial development of the river and on dyking, offers hope of controlling the disastrous floods which the lower mainland of British Columbia has known. This project, which requires further examination, might achieve flood control on


practically a self-supporting basis and with no harm to the salmon industry. If the British Columbia government is disposed to have this matter further examined, the dominion government will consider such a suggestion.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to make a brief statement regarding the situation in the human history branch of the national museum of Canada.
In June, 1956, a civil service competition was advertised to fill the position of director of the national museum which was to become vacant with the retirement in November of that year of Dr. Alcoclc, who was formerly its head. After the competition was launched but before the selection of a new director was made, the then government decided, in October 1956, to create two museums, a museum of natural history and a museum of human history. As a result of the civil service competition Dr. Loris S. Russell was appointed director of the natural history branch and Dr. Jacques Rousseau was appointed director of the human history branch.
There has not been and there is not now any difficulty whatever in the natural history branch. So far as the human history branch is concerned, it appeared in June 1958 that there was serious unrest among the senior scientific personnel. An inquiry was immediately undertaken at the direction of the deputy minister. In the course of the inquiry, it developed that the director of the human history branch was in immediate need of two months' leave of absence for medical reasons. This, along with absences of the scientific staff in the field during the summer and fall, as well as absences by the deputy minister and myself on departmental business, delayed completion of the inquiry.
The inquiry has involved the interviewing of a great many people, the checking of many statements, and the examination of a great deal of material that has been submitted. Before it was completed the matter became the subject of reports in the press. The fullest inquiry has now been completed, and a report was submitted to me by my deputy minister on January 15.
May I say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the report is confidential and it deals, on the basis of confidence between an official and his minister, with many complaints about and

reflections on the personalities and character of many people. As such it is a privileged document and it will not now nor, so far as I am concerned, at any time in the future be made public. A copy has, however, been sent to the chairman of the civil service commission for his information and retention.
From the most thorough inquiries it is clear that there are no policy questions of any kind at issue. It is purely and simply a case of violent clashes of personalities. There had, it is apparent, been certain strains among some of the scientists in the branch in the past, but these had never led to difficulties nor assumed serious proportions until now.
The inquiry has revealed that several scientists in the museum have been at fault in the matter in varying degrees. At my direction the deputy minister is interviewing these persons to make clear the deficiencies of conduct that have contributed to the most regrettable flare-up. It will be made abundantly clear to all of these that they will be expected henceforth so to conduct themselves in their relations with one another as to restore to the branch and to maintain in the future the atmosphere that is essential if the scientific work of the museum is to be carried on.
The director of the branch, Dr. Rousseau, is an ethno-botanist of wide reputation. I want it to be perfectly clear that nothing in the matter or in the inquiry or report has at any time or in any way reflected on his reputation or standing as a scientist. The direction of a branch of the museum is not, however, primarily a scientific task. It is primarily administrative. The inquiry has made it clear that Dr. Rousseau's talents are scientific rather than administrative. He is therefore being offered a purely scientific post in the public service which I hope he will see fit to accept. A period of time has been given Dr. Rousseau to consider the matter, and I would not wish to go further at this point.
The civil service commission has been consulted and kept fully informed before decisions were taken. They fully concur in the conclusions that have been reached.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that as no question of policy is involved and as this is purely a matter of personal and internal frictions within the human history branch, I think it would be in the interest of the museum, of the public service, and of the scientists concerned if the healing processes of time could go forward as quietly and with as little further publicity as it is possible for them to do.
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the unemployment figures made public today, and showing the highest unemployment for this time of year in Canada since the end of the war. Can the minister say whether emergency action is being contemplated, and whether there is to be a reduction in the qualifying period for seasonal benefits in order to alleviate suffering amongst many Canadians at this time?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given to a reduction in the number of weeks necessary to qualify for unemployment insurance. Since the hon. member has mentioned that this release shows the highest number of unemployed since the war, may I say that the action taken by the government has resulted in improvement to the extent that there were 22,000 more people employed in December of this year as compared with December, 1957.


Hazen Robert Argue: How does this help the people who are unemployed?


Michael Starr: In answer to that question may I say that the municipal incentive program which will take effect toward the end of this month will have the result of improving those figures.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give us the figures covering the increase in the labour force in 1958?


Michael Starr: I have not those figures available, sir. All I have is the dominion bureau of statistics release which shows that there were 22,000 more working in December of this year as compared with last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question, the answer to which will assist us in interpreting the very important employment report given to the country today. Can the minister say whether or not there is any category of workers formerly included in these reports that is not now included in the reports presented to parliament and the country today?


Michael Starr: The same categories are included now as were included in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it not true that fishermen are not included
78	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry this year, and is the minister's answer that no consideration is being given to a reduction in the number of stamps required also applicable to fishermen; because the minister will recall that he told me the opposite quite recently.


Michael Starr: In the first part of his question the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is again confused, because he is referring to the national registration figures in which fishermen are not included. Everyone seeking work is included in these dominion bureau of statistics figures, and the qualification period for unemployment insurance also applies to fishermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words the government has ceased-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not going to enter into a debate on this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I simply want to clarify the minister's answer. The question I was going to ask the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a supplementary question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question, and it is this. Did I understand the minister to say consideration is no longer being given to a reduction in the number of stamps required by fishermen for unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: I said, sir, no consideration is being given to reducing the 15 stamps that are required for seasonal benefits at the moment, and that includes everyone.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO READINESS FOR 1959 NAVIGATION SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. G. Allmark (Kingston):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the house concerning the readiness of the St. Lawrence seaway system to handle traffic at the commencement of the 1959 navigation season?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I shall make the following answer in view of the great interest shown in this matter by the hon. members for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Glen-garry-Prescott and Grenville-Dundas.
At the end of 1958, just four and a half years after the St. Lawrence seaway authority was established, construction of works under


its jurisdiction has progressed to a stage which assures that all channels, locks and ancillary structures will be available to shipping at the opening of navigation next spring, although subject in part to a restricted depth of 24J feet until June 1, when the specified minimum depth of 27 feet will be available throughout.
An over-all insufficiency of equipment suitable for dredging of the various classes and conditions of materials encountered, aggravated by the early advent of winter which so seriously interfered with the clearing of ocean vessels from the Lachine canal and Montreal harbour, has retarded the completion of production and clean-up dredging and the proving of all navigation channels to the specified 27 feet depth and, in a few places, to full width.
All five lock structures undertaken by the seaway authority have been completed and all lock equipment and machinery has been installed and tested. All the work undertaken by the St. Lawrence seaway authority with respect to Jacques Cartier bridge, Victoria bridge, Honore Mercier bridge, Caughnawaga C.P.R. bridge and the Cornwall island high level bridge has been virtually completed. The St. Louis span for the Canadian National and the Valleyfield span for the New York Central over the Beauharnois canal are scheduled for completion by March 15, 1959. The Cornwall north channel bridge is scheduled for completion late in 1960, with tenders for the substructure to be advertised by the end of February, 1959. The seaway authority is issuing a more detailed statement as to completion of various phases of the work.
Before vessels may safely transit the new seaway facilities aids to navigation have to be placed, and this is a responsibility of the Department of Transport. Every effort will be made to have this work completed as closely as possible to the time when navigation normally would commence. This is dependent of course on weather, ice conditions, and a number of related factors. The present objective for the completion of this work is about April 20. However, in accordance with established canal operation practice a more precise statement as to the opening date can be expected toward the end of March.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a further question. It is not really a supplementary question, but it deals with the seaway. Before I do, perhaps I might be allowed to tell the minister that I am very happy to have him make this statement. It is quite clear that the minister is ably following the steps established by the former administration.

The question I wish to direct to the minister, which I feel he may not be able to answer today and if not he may take it as notice, is this. The President of the United States announced yesterday, I think, that for the year beginning July 1 the seaway is expected to collect $12,600,000 in tolls, of which $4,200,000 will go to the United States. He went on to make a general statement about the operation of the United States part of the St. Lawrence seaway, and I wondered if the statement made by the President was correct and whether the minister would not consider making a similar statement to the house in connection with the operation-tolls particularly-of the St. Lawrence seaway as the President made to congress?


George Harris Hees: I expect to be making a statement regarding tolls at a time when the final toll structure has been agreed upon by both the United States and Canadian governments. I shall make it just as soon as possible.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I have a supplementary question with respect to the information the minister gave us. Is he in a position to project the same kind of information or analysis for the upper lakes at this time and give us some indication as to the time schedule so far as deepening is concerned, and whether the ships which are going to be able to come in and take advantage of the deeper drafts of the St. Lawrence seaway will be able to go on further into the upper lakes?


George Harris Hees: The deepening of the Welland canal locks will be finished for the opening of navigation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Welland canal is hardly in the upper lakes.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps if the hon. member could get together with me afterwards he could tell me what he has in mind and what difficulties he envisages.


Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: I have a supplementary question with regard to the bridge going across the entrance to Hamilton harbour, something which the Liberals forgot to do. Can the minister give us the date when this bridge will be completed?


George Harris Hees: No, but I will check into the matter and let the hon. member know.



SUGGESTED OFFICIAL OPENING AT BOTH MONTREAL AND CORNWALL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. The
Inquiries of the Ministry other day I asked him if he could tell the house where the official opening of the St. Lawrence seaway would take place, and his reply was that when he tabled the itinerary of the royal visit I would be able to find out. I have looked at the itinerary, and there is nothing to indicate where the official opening will take place save and except an insertion which says that when the details have been completed another statement will be made at a subsequent time.
I should now like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a great deal of preparation is necessary in both the areas where the opening is likely to take place, will the Prime Minister not tell the house now that the official opening will take place at both the city of Montreal and the city of Cornwall inasmuch, as it has been stated in the press on more than one occasion that such probably would be the case?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the interest of the hon. gentleman in Montreal but his vicarious interest in Cornwall does not have the same appeal to me. Representations have been made by the hon. member for Stormont and by many other members with respect to matters such as this. As I stated the other day, I thought the hon. member's question would receive an answer when the committee reported this week and the itinerary was brought before the house. The committee has given the fullest information it has at the moment, and when General Graham is in a position to determine, with the assistance of the committee, the answer to the question asked it will be transmitted immediately to the house. I felt the other day that the information the hon. member asked for would be available at the same time the simultaneous release of the itinerary was made in the United Kingdom and Canada. It is not available as yet.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if the Prime
Minister would allow me to bring this matter to his attention; it will probably reply to his query as to my anxiety for Cornwall. There was a precedent established in connection with the ground-breaking ceremonies of the St. Lawrence seaway, at which time it was decided there would be two official ceremonies, one in the state of New York and one in the province of Ontario.
The question is this. In view of the fact that the situation is the same, would it not be advisable that two official openings should take place, one in the province of Quebec, in the city of Montreal, and the other in the international section? Would the Prime Minister not give consideration to the suggestion,

Inquiries of the Ministry either himself or by means of the committee? There is a precedent for this, as I have stated.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a matter for determination not only by the committee but also after consultation with Her Majesty. Certainly the views of the hon. gentleman will receive consideration by the committee, to whom I will direct them.



RECEIPT OF NOTES RESPECTING CHANGES IN CUSTOMS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question in view of the astonishing admission made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) that he did not have at any time before or while the anti-dumping legislation was being discussed in this house last session, the two notes addressed by the government of the United States to Canada dated June 26 and September 3. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether or not he was in possession of these notes at the time, and can he offer an explanation as to why his colleague the Minister of National Revenue was not so informed?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall now the exact dates but I made a public statement with respect to this matter, and I would draw that fact to the attention of the hon. member. My recollection is that this note dated in early September was left in the Department of External Affairs by a junior official of the United States embassy, and it was left by that official with a junior member of the staff of the Department of External Affairs. It was never left with me. Indeed it was never left with the undersecretary of state for external affairs. It was never left with any of the assistant under secretaries. It did not come to my attention until the debate was over with respect to this antidumping legislation. I must take responsibility for this matter as the political head for the department, but I can state that as a fact. I saw the United States ambassador on three occasions. One was a social occasion and it is not quite fair to mention that one, but I saw him for discussion on two other matters. No reference was made in any way to the fact that this note had been delivered at a junior level in the department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He was talking of the note of September 3. May I ask him what the situation is with respect to the note of June 26? Had that note been brought to
[Mr. Chevrler.l

the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and was that note circulated to the Minister of National Revenue and perhaps to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, or were all kept uninformed?


Sidney Earle Smith: I was
aware of the earlier note and, having regard to the normal practice, I would have expected the officials would have distributed copies of it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister find out whether in fact this June note was circulated, and will he also find out whether the September 3 note was circulated to the ministers concerned and on what date?


Sidney Earle Smith: With respect to the observation made by the Leader of the Opposition may I say this. I gave an explanation with respect to the September note, and I can assure the house that if I did not know about the existence of that note, my colleagues did not know about it either.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yesterday the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked me whether I could supply the house with the name of the counsel appointed to represent the government in the zinc oxide case. The name of the counsel is Mr. Pierre Badeaux, Q.C., former batonnier of the Montreal bar.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, without undue delay I wish to ask the Minister of National Revenue what has become an annual question. In view of the continued interest of thousands of industrial workers in the publication of the revised blue book on pension plans, and in view of the minister's assurance on July 8 last that the blue book would be produced in due course and without undue delay, would the minister inform the house when the administrative tortoise, mentioned in his reply to my questions of June 2 and July 8 last, will reach the finish line and the long expected blue book on pension plans be published?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that the tortoise is very near

the finish line and will cross it in good condition, but due to the probing of my hon. friend it will be a little weary and will have to have a little time to catch its breath before it subjects itself to the critical eye of my hon. friend.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it a fact that the C.B.C. refuses to recognize the Montreal Television Producers' Association only because that association is affiliated to the Canadian and Catholic Labour Union?
( Text):
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not catch the full and correct wording of the question. Since it is a very technical subject, I think perhaps if my hon. friend will permit me to do so I would prefer to take it as notice and answer him tomorrow. As I said the other day, when these matters are concluded I will be prepared to make a full statement, but I will deal specifically with this question tomorrow.
(Translation) :



MONTREAL


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask another question of the Minister of National Revenue. Is it true that C.B.C. producers in Montreal are getting less pay than C.B.C. producers in Toronto? If so, could the minister supply figures in this regard?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for statistical information. He might put the question on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to your attention the fact that the first part of the hon. member's question is perfectly within the rules of the house. Perhaps the second part is not within the rules, but the first part certainly is.


George Clyde Nowlan: The salaries of the C.B.C.
are solely in the control of the corporation. I have no idea what the salaries are and I do not intend to find out unless we have an
Inquiries of the Ministry order from the house to that effect because I think that is a matter of internal administration of the corporation. I am quite certain those salaries would be on a comparable level across Canada.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Transport this question. In view of the representations made to him last fall by myself and, I presume, by my two colleagues from Essex county as to the decision of the Department of Transport to transfer the Windsor radio regulations office to London, and in view of the announcement that this transfer is to take place on February 1, does the minister not consider that it would be a great mistake to transfer this office from Windsor to London? Windsor is a larger community. I would ask the minister to state to the house now whether he cannot-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member may be presenting a good case, but this is not the time to do it. The sequel to this argument is to ask the minister for an opinion, something which is also against the rules of the house at this stage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this is a matter that is to take place on February 1. I am asking the minister whether he cannot reconsider his decision and recognize the priority of Windsor as one of the important cities of Canada.


George Harris Hees: No one appreciates more than I do the importance of Windsor as one of Canada's great cities. The hon. member for Essex West got in touch with me, as he has said, and put the proposition before me. We examined it very carefully and I have written to him, as he knows, in some considerable detail explaining-well, I wrote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You wrote to the hon. member for Essex West.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You said "the hon. member for Essex West".


George Harris Hees: Well, I will check; I think I was in touch with the member for Essex East as well. However, as I explained at that time the department considered the matter with great care, and the reason was that additional areas could be better serviced if the operation were centred in London
$2	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry than if it were centred in Windsor. It was .solely for that technical reason that the change was made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Real discrimination.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think you might he interested to know that this whole matter *centres around the transfer of only two technical personnel from Windsor to London.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the minister would not want to give the country and parliament a wrong impression. It is not the number of employees but the importance of the bureau that is involved, and the minister has not given the house any satisfactory explanation so far.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The importance of Paul is at stake.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member will come and see me afterwards I will give him more information which I feel sure will satisfy him.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier inquired if I would ask Canadian National Railways to delay the *diversion work on the Victoria bridge until the construction of the champagne-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -the Champlain bridge had been completed. We are all in a rather heady mood today, Mr. Speaker. I am advised by the management that there is the utmost urgency for the diversionary bridge to be completed so as to avoid interruption of navigation after the opening date of the seaway. The management is preparing a statement of the reasons for this condition, and I shall be glad to provide my hon. friend with the information as soon as I have it.
(Translation):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Levis, and say that there is no attempt to maintain winter navigation between Montreal and Quebec.
[Mr. Hees.)

Usual ice-breaking operations are taking place to prevent flooding and to help ferry services.


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his answer, but frankly I do not think it is very clear.
(Text):
The question I asked the minister yesterday, and I will repeat it in English, was whether the department would leave navigation open between Quebec and Montreal this winter, because there were reports in the Quebec press a few days ago that the channel would be open for winter navigation. That was the purpose of my question, to see if officially the department would leave the channel open during the winter months this year.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I wonder whether I might supplement the answer given by the Minister of Transport. I should like to point out that in Canada we have other ports besides Quebec and Montreal. I refer particularly to Saint John and Halifax, the winter ports of Canada. The minister's answer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Minister of Transport could very well have answered that there is no necessity for keeping the St. Lawrence open between Quebec and Montreal during the winter months. This winter has shown it would be an impossibility in any case. I suggest that the hon. member forget it.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: On a question of privilege, the reason I asked the question was that I wanted to know whether the department had enough icebreakers to provide for navigation not only in respect of Quebec but all other ports that need icebreaking. The question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester was asked for that purpose. I have no objection to the ports of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or any other place in Canada being kept open. I also asked the question because the matter was mentioned in the Quebec press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Winch:: You do not need icebreaking in Vancouver.


George Harris Hees: The answer I tried to convey in my imperfect French was that we are going to carry on icebreaking operations between Toronto and Montreal in exactly the same way-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Toronto?


George Harris Hees: Quebec and Montreal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is certainly taking a broad view.


Harold Edward Winch: It sounds like more champagne.


George Harris Hees: Quebec and Montreal, just to make it as impossible as is possible for the Montreal harbour to become flooded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the minister has broken the ice too well. Perhaps we might turn now to more serious questions.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the well-taken interest in the maritime ports by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, for which I thank him, will the Minister of Transport reconsider his decision not to open Pictou harbour?


George Harris Hees: As I explained yesterday, we would open Pictou harbour for that particular shipment if it were possible but, as I pointed out, it would require the services of our two biggest icebreakers, which are very heavily committed on other extremely important work at the present time. For that reason it is impossible.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member for Gloucester that he should not expect an answer to the same question on two successive days.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys arising out of telegrams I have received from William Marsh, president of district 26 of the united mineworkers and Allan Foley, president of the Phalen local, dealing with the projected lay-off, in February and for at least four months following that, of 4,000 coal miners.
Will the minister say what consideration the government is giving to the request of the dominion coal board that its powers be extended to include authority to market surplus coal as a means of disposing of such coal and assuring employment by keeping the mines operating?


Paul Comtois: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question a few moments ago. I have nothing to add to what I said last Friday. I did not, however, receive official confirmation of the intention of the company to lay off some men. I have
The Address-Mr. McGee received a telegram along the same lines as the hon. member, and I may say that the matter is under consideration at the present time.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I direct a further question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys of which I have not given him notice, and ask him whether he was informed officially by A. V. Roe that there was to be a shutdown by their subsidiary, Dosco, of the coal mines in Nova Scotia prior to the company's announcement; and whether it is not correct that he has since received a letter from this company, whose actions since entering the province of Nova Scotia have, to my mind, certainly been questionable.


Mr. Comiois:: I will check the matter with the dominion coal board to see whether there is any foundation for that statement.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he has received a report which the government authorized a distinguished Canadian soldier to make in the matter of civil defence and, if so, when that report will be tabled.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The report has now been received. It is being studied, and I expect to have an announcement to make in the house in a very few days.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the minister intend to table that report for the consideration of this house?


Jay Waldo Monteith: My first answer still goes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Do not put words into my mouth.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 19, 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.
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable trepidation that I venture to make my contribution to this debate following the heavy artillery of
84	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McGee yesterday, the sounds of which still seem to echo through this chamber. I should like to express my personal pleasure at finding you still in the chair. I should like further to add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed to your deputy, the chairman of committees, and to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address, and to say that I am happy to see that my admiration for the hon. member for Provencher is now being widely shared in this house. As for the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, there is very little I can add to the universal praise and acclamation he has received from all corners of this house and in every newspaper I have been able to read since his speech was made.
I agree with everything that has been said, Mr. Speaker, concerning the speeches of the mover and seconder. There is one other comment I have to make about the tone of those speeches and their constructive aspect. The benefits which will accrue as a result of the suggestions made will continue for a long time to come. I might add, however, that the tone of the debate changed sharply when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) rose to his feet yesterday.
Referring to battles best forgotten, and taking a narrow partisan view of the various problems facing this country, I am happy to say he reaped the whirlwind later in the day. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had no choice but to reply in kind to that type of speech and to destroy the flimsy structure of those partisan arguments. I mentioned heavy artillery. As we know from experience in the last war, the heaviest artillery barrage still leaves a job to be done by the infantry.
I should like to take issue with the Leader of the Opposition concerning statements made to the people of Canada by members of the Conservative party concerning tight money. I suggest that he examine the record previous to the 1957 election in the riding of York-Scarborough and in every other riding I visited during the election. He would find it was the discriminatory effects of the tight money policy as applied by the Liberal government which were under fire, the fact that the small businessman bore the brunt of that policy. It was not a blanket condemnation of tight money or monetary policies.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the famous white paper which appeared and disappeared presumably in the same drawer as the famous Canada medal, and other Liberal schemes. A notable feature of that white paper, as I recall it, was the shelf of public works. As I have stated in this house -and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did not disagree with me-that shelf


did not exist, and was not available when needed by the present government.
I found it passing strange to listen to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and his comments in general about government action concerning recession and inflation. I recall that in a television broadcast he referred in detail to this subject. We do not have the benefit of a staff to sit in front of television sets and make notes, but I do recall specific questions being put to the Leader of the Opposition on that program early in December asking him if there was anything he had to propose in the anti-recession field which the government had not already done; and his answer, as I recall it, was no. He was then asked whether there was anything which the government was doing with which he disagreed, and the answer to that question was also in the negative. I found it passing strange to hear the comments in the economic field yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in such dramatic contrast to his statements to the nation in a television interview.
He has accused the government of adopting policies in fighting this recession which he characterized as fumbling and bumbling. I would like to take the Leader of the Opposition to my riding and to many other ridings in this country and show him low cost homes, low rental homes, homes that have been built and are now being constructed for the senior citizens of this country, homes being built for young families, homes they can afford to buy and maintain, as a result of these fumbling and bumbling policies. I ask the hon. gentleman if he disagrees. Would he prefer not to have seen these policies implemented which have had what I consider a tremendously beneficial result?
We will hear from hon. gentlemen opposite the words "fumbling" and "bumbling" in relation to almost every department of government in respect of their active anti-recession activities, and I may be permitted to anticipate just a few of the departments that will be subjected to this type of criticism. As long ago as December 1, 1958, the Minister of Public Works announced that jobs for 250,000 Canadians would be provided this winter by the government's housing program. I submit you cannot separate the on-site activities of building from the effect of such construction on the rest of the economy. One must consider the myriad items that have to be manufactured to supply these homes and furnish them when built and occupied. A conservative estimate of the potential indirect employment that could flow from that program is at least as much as the on-site employment, another quarter of a million jobs, and one-quarter of a million and one-quarter of a million make half a million jobs.

We move further into the government's own construction program, which will provide on-site employment this winter for 150,000 men. Certainly the ratio in that type of construction has far wider effects on the rest of the economy, but let us consider just a conservative estimate of 150,000 indirect jobs, or a total of 300,000 jobs, indirect and onsite.
We could go from department to department considering the beneficial results of the acceleration of anti-recession activities undertaken by this government and come to impressive totals which I am not prepared to present at this time. These are but a few of the examples of effective anti-recession activities which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as fumbling and bumbling.
Scarcely any item escaped bombardment yesterday in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, but from that torrent of words there emerged what is surely one of the most fascinating definitions of Liberalism ever to have been formulated. Hon. gentlemen may perhaps recall these words of the Leader of the Opposition uttered yesterday and reported at page 33 of Hansard of yesterday's date:
Certainly no Liberal can be anything but a champion of the rights and liberties of the free man against dictates and pressures, from whatever source they may come.
I wonder where were these brave fighters for Liberalism when the dictates and pressures of Mr. C. D. Howe steamrolled certain measures through this house? Where were these brave fighters for Liberalism at the time of a certain division that I recall very well in the 1957 session, when we saw brave Liberals flitting back and forth behind the curtains fearful because they might have won a vote?
I expected from the Leader of the Opposition something of a more positive and constructive nature with respect to the serious economic situation which confronts this country. I have a theory formulated from my studies of parliamentary history in Canada. I call it the "middle year" theory. Parliament is at its best and does its most effective work in the years between elections. In the session immediately following an election there is perhaps too much acrimonious debate with hon. members reminding each other of what might have been said in the heat of debate on the hustings. In the session before an election perhaps too many of us speak too much to the electorate and too little to each other in creative consultation concerning the issues at hand. Certainly if at any time we can have the calm and considered judgment of the representatives of the ridings in this country it should be in these middle years.
The Address-Mr. McGee
I looked forward earlier this session to having such a spirit prevail. This was destroyed completely yesterday by the tone and manner of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke as I submit he did to the detriment of the deliberations of this house. I say further that we in this chamber would receive the thanks of a grateful nation if we set our minds to the serious tasks confronting us, particularly in the economic field, in seeking constructive solutions to these problems which is surely the highest function of parliament.
I have a few suggestions to offer, and perhaps I may be permitted to voice them. My first reference, of course, must be a plea for a less partisan approach to these difficult problems. Second, I would urge the instigation of a study which may already be under way to equalize the effects of monetary policy to prevent a recurrence of the discriminatory type of effects of the tight money policy of the previous administration, and to protect the small businessman from the squeeze. I also think we would do well to give serious consideration to a more flexible fiscal policy. It has been demonstrated fairly clearly that there are limitations to economic predictions and their accuracy. Great care however should be taken to retain the prerogatives of parliament in this regard.
I would also plead for the retention of the more important and favourable aspects of the housing program which has proven to be so effective as a monetary and fiscal policy. If this should be reduced in years to come when we are involved in another type of battle we will have lost the beneficial aspects of such a program which should be retained. I refer again to low cost housing, low rental housing, housing for senior citizens and urban redevelopment schemes.
As I have said before in this house, we have a form of recession each winter in Canada. These housing programs, particularly in the fields I mentioned, could be related to solving the problem of our annual winter recession. I have seen in my own riding, as I am sure many hon. members have seen in theirs, new construction techniques being adopted. Encased in envelopes of plastic polyethylene film, building can go forward in spite of severe temperatures outside. The adoption of such techniques and the application of new materials in the housing field make it possible for the continuation of an effective construction program despite the Canadian winter.
It was suggestions of this type that I expected to hear-and I hope we will hear many more from hon. members of all parties

The Address-Mr. Badanai in this house-during the course of this session. I should like to have heard similar suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
I was particularly disappointed but perhaps not surprised when the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue) took the floor yesterday and commenced with the typical pious and sanctimonious denunciation of the government and official opposition. But as I listened to him I wondered where was the brave leader of that group who, speaking on a platform in his home province not long ago, castigated and denounced the Prime Minister while gesturing wildly and wheeling his arms around the world. Surely the hon. member for Assiniboia does not lack the moral fortitude to face the Prime Minister with the type of accusation he had made in his home province; but though I expected to hear something of this kind yesterday there was no mention of it by the hon. member.
I expected to hear something about the reaction of westerners to the situation in his own party which was referred to yesterday in the press. It said that active members are splintering away from the Manitoba C.C.F. party because of the methods being used to create the new political party. I expected to hear something of the platform and program of this new and vital party which it is hoped will receive farm support. Who knows; perhaps this new platform was placed in the same dark spot as the Regina manifesto and other such statements.
There was in the hon. member's speech, I submit, Mr. Speaker, an indication that a little meeting was held. If I had the ability to write a dramatic account of that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I would say that what went on was this. One hon. member said, "I will shout about unemployment; you shout about inflation; we will both shout good and loud." No matter what the government does it is damned if it does and damned if it does not. I do not think the people of Canada will be misled by that shallow subterfuge. I think they know that when the battle of the recession has been won, as it will be won in the very near future, this government will come to grips with the battle of inflation; and further, that the vigorous and aggressive qualities that characterize this government will win that battle of inflation. Of that let there be no doubt.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin with a word of commendation for the way in which you perform your duties. You were the recipient of many compliments and congratulations when you were appointed Speaker of the house.

I recall that at our last session every member had a word of satisfaction on your appointment, and as a new member I joined my colleagues in expressing my sincere appreciation. However, it was not until I became better acquainted with the rules of the house that I began to realize the importance of an impartial Speaker.
I recall one instance when I offered an amendment on the second reading of a bill making changes in the Income Tax Act. My amendment called for consideration being given to repeal or reduce the excise tax on motor cars. The Minister of Finance submitted that the amendment was out of order, but after listening to the arguments you allowed the debate to proceed and it was put to a vote, notwithstanding the embarrassment to the government when it was reminded of past Conservative statements and promises compared with performance. On that occasion you earned the reputation of a worthy holder of the high office which you occupy and I trust that you will remain in the chair for a long time, irrespective of the political party which may be in power, for I hardly anticipate that this government will remain in power beyond the foreseeable future.
I also wish to say that I found the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairman of the committee of the whole worthy of occupying their respective offices.
The mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne certainly deserve congratulations for their excellent presentations, and I certainly hope their expectations regarding the contents of the address will be justified. For my part, I feel that the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition (Mr. Pearson) has made a much clearer analysis of the speech, and I am forced to the conclusion that the government is still unsettled in its policies to meet the many important issues the solution of which is vital to the restoration of an economic climate of confidence, which this nation enjoyed in the postwar period under a Liberal administration.
In its general terms the speech contains some features which are welcomed by most Canadians, such as the reference to the discussions taking place with the government of the United States to enable Canadian industry to share in the production of equipment for joint defence purposes, which I trust will help especially the unemployment situation which is very serious in my constituency. When I say this I do not mean to be a spreader of fear. The situation is threatening to become worse unless the government will do something to ensure the continued operation

of the Canada Car plant, which is manufacturing buses and tractor traitors at the present time. The president of the company made the statement in Fort William recently that the decision had been made to transfer all their commercial operations to the Dominion plant in Montreal, and to dispose of their Fort William plant. This announcement was a sad blow to the economy of the entire lakehead. It aroused the entire community, with the result that on January 8 a large delegation from the lakehead met with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Green) and other ministers to discuss the seriousness of the situation.
I must say that we were cordially received and were given a good hearing, for which I thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), and their respective deputies. Promises of consideration were given, and the delegation left the capital with a feeling that something had been accomplished. I sincerely hope that what the Prime Minister said last night, namely "the stronger the lobby the weaker the case" will not apply in this case. I express the hope that the government will make sure that this plant, which during the last war designed and produced Grumman fighter planes, the Gregory dive bombers and the Hawker Hurricanes and, since the war, the Harvard trainers, street railway cars, electric coaches, gas and diesel buses, Arctic huts for the United States army, tractor trailers, including heated and refrigerated models, will receive immediate consideration in the light of national interest.
The speech makes reference to an increase in Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan. We are all in favour of it, but why should this increase not be made in kind, such as with farm implements? This is a suggestion made by Senator N. M. Paterson to me, which if implemented could induce manufacturers such as Massey-Harris to manufacture these implements in the Canada Car plant in Fort William. Such an enterprise would not be subject to the uncertainties of defence orders to keep the plant in operation. It would also supply all our western farmers with machinery on a permanent basis which, after all, would be more desirable than the relatively short term operation of defence production. I am putting forth this idea as an alternative which I feel has merit.
The Address-Mr. Badanai
It pleased me to notice that at last the government has recognized the justice of granting supplementary pensions for retired civil servants and R.C.M.P. members on a permanent basis. Last year I had a resolution on the order paper in support of this measure.
In connection with the clause in the speech from the throne dealing with the establishment of a joint committee of both houses to review the Indian Act, I offer the suggestion that the government should give serious consideration to showing a more sympathetic approach toward the welfare of our Indian population. We have been all too prone to overlook some of their inherent rights in the past and to treat them indifferently. The Indians should not be treated as second-class citizens. Their record in our armed services during the first and second world wars was second to none.
In so far as housing is concerned, there does not seem to be any decline in the demand. Indeed, this is one item for which the demand is on the increase year by year. All one has to do is add up all the marriages taking place in these communities, and then it is easy to calculate the future requirements for housing. The natural increase in population, added to the number of new immigrants, creates a constant demand for low cost housing which the industry is not able to satisfy without government assistance to prospective homebuilders by way of loans at a low rate of interest on houses costing $12,000 or less. I suggested last year that a 2 per cent subsidy on prevalent rates of interest be considered for this type of home.
The reference to the housing problem in the throne speech falls rather short of expectations, since the need for dwellings to rent is so great that mere encouragement is not enough. We are faced with an unemployment situation which is critical, and anything that is said to the contrary will not make the thousands of unemployed in my constituency any happier. While an increase in tempo in the house-building industry will not be a cure-all for the ills caused by unemployment, it will at least create jobs in many fields. I am not a pessimist and there has never been depression in my vision, but at the same time I do not share all the optimistic predictions which have been made by members of the government concerning the easing of unemployment. Nothing would please the members on this side of the house more than to see the end of unemployment, but until we see a better picture it appears to me to be our duty to point up the need for transposing those rosy predictions into actuality.

The Address-Mr. Badanai
Having served as mayor of the city of Fort William for eight years, I was delighted to hear that parliament will be asked to assist the municipalities of Canada in financing construction projects. I hope this aid will not be limited to the recently announced winter work program in conjunction with provincial governments. In this connection it may interest you to know that this project has only benefited 120 unemployed in the city of Fort William. I express the hope that the assistance will go beyond the presently prescribed limitations.
One of the best forms of assistance to municipalities of which I know would be the establishment of a fund to be used for making loans directly to municipalities at a low rate of interest to finance the construction of essential public works such as sidewalks, sewers, pavements, bridges and schools. Another form of assistance would be the extension of tax relief on municipal purchases. During the last session the government removed the tax on certain purchases such as fire apparatus and road-building equipment. Municipalities should be exempt from all taxes on purchases of equipment and motor vehicles used by the works, engineering and police departments. The federal government could assist municipal councils by recognizing the combined provincial and municipal expenditures for the construction of technical and vocational secondary schools, and by making additional funds available to share in these costs.
Of all the legislation proposed by the Prime Minister none has received so much attention through all the known media of our times as has the bill of rights, which was introduced in parliament during the last days of the last session. There is indeed no shortage of arguments, pro and con, but there seems to be an area of general agreement in the fact that our laws and our courts have always protected our individual liberties guaranteed under our constitution. I am not a lawyer and I do not profess to be in a position to enlighten the house on what may be hidden behind the high-sounding words which appear in abundance in this document. Of course I am all for the things for which it is supposed to stand. After reading about the postmaster of a small sub-post office in York township who was dismissed because of a letter written to a newspaper criticizing the Prime Minister, I would say that the bill of rights falls far short of guaranteeing a man's freedom of expression if vocal expression of a political belief is involved.
So far as I am concerned the Postmaster General's statement that the Liberal administration fired 325 post office personnel

since 1935 is not the slightest excuse for meting out such inhuman treatment to employees. This is an action which contravenes any and all rights of free speech and assembly, and is in direct contradiction of the rights in the bill outlined so ceremoniously by the Prime Minister himself in the last days of the last session. If there is a right which should be guaranteed to every man and woman by this government, it is the right to free expression of opinion, even on the political platform, whether he or she is employed by private enterprise or by government. You may laugh if you wish; it is quite all right.
This is one of the most fundamental rights which should be respected regardless of whether or not there have been precedents approved by any government in the past, whether Liberal or Conservative. This government would render a great service to the whole country if it would come out with a declaration that in future there will be no dismissals of any members of the civil service or discrimination shown to anyone because of political activities, so long as those activities do not conflict in any way with the performance of their duties. Without this freedom of action this proposed bill of rights becomes nothing more than a document full of words without meaning.
If we must have a bill of rights-and I am certainly not opposed to it-let us have a bill which will spell out its meaning and which will include the declaration that no person shall be discriminated against because of political affiliations or activities, and which will apply to all persons including those in the employ of the government. Such an addition would give the bill substance, and I would be the first to stand up and cheer for it.
Nineteen years ago Stephen Leacock, in his history of Canada, had this to say about northwestern Ontario:
Perhaps the brightest page in these annals is the record of discovery and exploration of the incalculable mineral wealth of the central wilderness of Canada between the Hudson bay and the lakes. This means far more than the wealth itself, great though it must be. It removes from our commonwealth its fatal geographical defect of an uninhabited and seemingly worthless central area which broke east and west apart forever. The touch of King Midas is turning desolation into fairyland.
Since the great Canadian writer made this statement, northwestern Ontario has made considerable progress in the development of mines and forest products which has created a great industry, hydroelectric power will soon reach one million horsepower, and there is even a growing farm area. Also new communities have sprung up on the map of this great northern area.

I admit that the Prime Minister's vision of expanding and developing the country's northern regions to unlock its wealth of natural resources has captured the imagination of many Canadians. I submit that our federal government need not seek the very far north of Canada in order to apply this policy of development. The lakehead area in the very centre of Canada from lake Superior to Hudson bay and James bay is the very challenge to the imagination which our Prime Minister is seeking. No railway serves our region north of latitude 50 degrees. No highway goes beyond the Albany river and Red lake. In this vast territory the population averages one person per square mile. That is the situation right in the centre of Canada. What an opportunity there is for the government to open up central Canada with a railway and highway to connect the fresh water coast of lake Superior and the salt water bays of Hudson and James, tapping natural resources for nearly one thousand miles between them; to encourage and assist a new wave of settlement with a selective hardy stock of immigrants, creating new jobs, bringing more people and more wealth and developing strength and security for the whole of Canada.
This great area with the lakehead as its pivot, soon to become an ocean port, is awaiting the construction by the federal government of a modern harbour which has been promised. Notwithstanding divergencies of opinion with regard to the location of the proposed installations, when finally competent engineers decide on the site on its merits, solely from the standpoint of service to the whole area, then objections will vanish and the people at the lakehead will feel relieved from further uncertainties.
One cannot speak of the harbour without expressing disappointment at the delay in the appointment of the harbour commission, for which delay the government tried to blame the two city councils of Fort William and Port Arthur. These two cities appointed their members last July, only to be told later that the appointments were not valid because the bill to establish the lakehead harbour commission had not obtained royal assent.
I express the sincere hope that what the Prime Minister has in mind in his reference to the discrimination in respect of freight rates is to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the freight rate boost on the lakehead. We can all agree that the 17 per cent freight rate increase recently granted to the railways by the government was requested for the express purpose of meeting the wage increases demanded by the unions concerned. This being the case, I cannot help but consider
The Address-Mr. Badanai it most unfair to areas such as the lakehead which is approximately 850 rail miles from Toronto.
The distances between our centres of population and between industries are great. Freight rates are a big factor in the industrial development of northwestern Ontario. In the matter of grain movement and the transfer of goods between west and east, we are much more closely connected with Winnipeg and western Canada than with the east. Indeed, our economy is linked more closely with that of the province of Manitoba than with that of the eastern part of the province of Ontario.
I am sure my colleagues from northwestern Ontario will be as pleased as I was to learn that the government intends to spend more money than it has spent previously upon the trans-Canada highway. Because of the deplorable conditions of the trans-Canada highway from Fort William west to the Manitoba border many of our citizens are compelled to travel to Winnipeg via the United States. Quite recently the engineering experts employed by the Department of Transport predicted that from 50 to 100 transport trucks will be leaving the lakehead for the west every day once the lakehead seaway terminal is completed. I would most sincerely urge that sufficient funds be provided by the government to have this portion of the trans-Canada highway completed and ready to receive the increased traffic expected.
I wish to speak now on one aspect of national defence which concerns the city of Fort William. I refer to the Fort William armoury, which ceased operation on the 15th of this month. The building was formerly a hockey arena. It was purchased by the Department of National Defence in 1942 for $14,000. It was originally erected in 1919 at a cost of $40,000, and was of frame construction with timber beams and trusses. The property was owned by local residents who incorporated and were shareholders in the Fort William Arena Company.
Fort William previously had an armoury in a commercial block in the downtown area of the city. The facilities provided there were rather confined. In 1942 the need for a real armoury to train the reserve force became so acute that the Department of National Defence purchased the arena as a temporary expedient. In 1951 the council of the corporation of the city of Fort William offered a site to the Department of National Defence for a new armoury in a very central and suitable location. This site was offered on an exchange basis for the present armoury site. On July 26, 1954, a communication was

The Address-Mr. Badanai received from headquarters, prairie command, from which I quote:
Army headquarters have now advised us that your proposed site is satisfactory to the Department of National Defence. Army headquarters propose to take no further action until the treasury board approve the construction of the armoury in Fort William after which the exchange of lands as outlined by you will be arranged. Army headquarters have requested that the proposed agreement cover the use of the old armoury by the Department of National Defence until the new armoury is completed.
That letter was signed by N. E. Rodger, major general, in command of the prairie command. Sir, the armoury is now closed and the units will be transferred to the Port Arthur armoury. No consideration has been given to the status of the present armoury other than declaring it surplus and transferring it to war assets for disposal.
The city of Fort William objected strenuously to this procedure, for the land on which the armoury now stands is required by the city of Fort William to serve the Fort William Gardens, a large community centre adjacent to the armoury. Consideration has been given to providing accommodation for the cadet units which have been using the armoury ever since it opened, but no consideration is being given at the present time. These units comprise approximately 350 secondary school students who have been training regularly and are now deprived of the accommodation. This will mean that the present strength will eventually disintegrate, as there is no other suitable building to serve the purpose.
Last November I, as mayor of the city, sent a brief to the Minister of National Defence, but the only response received so far has been an acknowledgement. I submit on behalf of the city of Fort William that it has a right to expect some consideration of its proposal, and I trust that the minister will take another look at the situation because I am confident that he will be convinced that a city of 43,000 people guarding the granary of the nation should not be without the facilities to train our young men to take their proper places in the event of an emergency.
I am an ardent advocate of any measure that will bring about the establishment of a loan fund to assist those on undeveloped farms, especially in northwestern Ontario and other similar areas requiring hardy and dedicated people to make a success of such projects. We have that type of people in the district of Thunder Bay, but they find it difficult to obtain loans from established banks.
It seems to me that there should be a liberalization of the act governing the Canadian farm loan board. As an example, I have


received several letters from Mr. Gerhard Klinge of Walmsley, a township in my constituency. This chap came to Canada from Germany in 1951. He is married and has four boys ranging from 4 to 18 years in age. In 1954 he bought a homestead in the township of Pearson, and in 1957 he bought a neighbour's farm of 160 acres. With this farm he bought 10 cows as well as some farm equipment. In his spare time he worked in bush camps, and the monthly income of this hard working man from all sources was approximately $500, most of which was being used to make payments on mortgages and equipment. He required a loan of $8,000 and applied to the Canadian farm loan board. He even had the recommendation of the local agricultural representative. The loan was refused on the ground that his income was not sufficient to meet his obligations.
Evidently the farm loan board did not take into consideration two important aspects. The first is the character of the applicant, which to my knowledge is excellent, and the second is the anticipated increase in the income of the applicant as a result of the improvements he would have been able to achieve if he had been able to obtain the loan. I have no quarrel with the idea of helping the farmers of western Canada. I heartily approve of consideration being given to improvements in the Veterans' Land Act. But Canada needs men like Mr. Klinge. Because of men like him we can now boast of the sound foundation upon which this nation is being built.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned I was speaking about the necessity of helping the small farmers. I think we should do something to improve the lot of these hardy pioneers who operate not huge wheat farms but mixed farms, dairy farms, and truck garden farms. These are the people who for the most part are the farmers in the district of Thunder Bay.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the needs of the small tourist operator, the motel owner and others who are engaged in the tourist business of our nation. They too deserve recognition in the form of assistance; not charity, but the opportunity to secure loans and to improve their holdings in order to bring more tourist dollars to Canada. They too serve this country well and are worthy of consideration along with the small businessmen.

The visit of Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip for the purpose of officially opening the St. Lawrence seaway will make 1959 one of the most memorable years in the history of Canada. The sailing of the Britannia up the St. Lawrence and on to the head of the lakes, which is the end of the Canadian seaway, will undoubtedly be recorded as one of the great events of our time. The council of the city of Fort William has already appointed a reception committee, and I am informed that it is already at work in preparation for this historic event.
Day after day our newspapers carry the sad story of unemployment and its evil effects upon family life, pointing out the danger to our own way of life. This should serve as a reminder to the government of the gravity of its task. The Prime Minister has found pleasure in referring to the leader of the official opposition as a Jeremiah. I would refer the hon. gentleman to another prophet, Ezekiel, who in chapter 12, verses 22 and 24 warned us to beware of vain visions, in these words:
The days are prolonged and every vision faileth . . . for there shall be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination . . .
I respectfully submit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. Has the hon. member permission to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hubert Badanai: I respectfully submit that the time has come to be less visionary and more practical in our attempts to solve the economic difficulties which we now face. The solution does not lie in trying to minimize, contradict or ridicule the facts about the state of our economy so ably presented by the Leader of the Opposition, whose analysis of the record of performance of this government is without doubt another illuminating chapter in the history of debates in this house.


Mr. Clement O'Leary (Anligonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are
ones of welcome and congratulation to the four new members who took their seats on opening day, January 15. At the same time I extend my deepest sympathy to the relatives and close friends of the late hon. members for Springfield and Trinity who sat with us last session. To the hon. members for Pro-vencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) I offer my special congratulations, first on their having been so honoured, together with their constituencies, and second on the very excellent content and presentation of their addresses to this house.
It will be just one year at the end of this month since my predecessor for the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough, Mr. Angus
The Address

Mr. O'Leary R. Macdonald-or "Angus D.D." as he was better known-was stricken critically ill while performing his duties in this house and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. Mr. Macdonald somewhat miraculously survived major surgery, and though he is still very far from being a well man I am happy to be able to tell his many friends that his condition is showing constant improvement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. O'Leary:: Hon. members have indicated that they join in extending to Mr. and Mrs. Macdonald and the family our warmest wishes for his complete recovery.
The constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough is one whose economy is based almost solely on the successful operation of three of the primary industries, namely agriculture, fishing and lumbering. The largest centre is Antigonish town itself, the home of St. Francis Xavier University, a university which has gained an international reputation in the field of adult education through its extension service. From a strictly academic point of view this university is likewise well recognized throughout this continent, and has among its present student body young men and women from every province in Canada and from many states in the United States.
The St. Francis Xavier extension department has carried on its adult education program for almost 30 years. Significant numbers of students, as individuals and as groups from the Caribbean, South America, Africa and especially from southeast Asia, have been coming for many years now to study the program of this extension department. Three of the faculty members spent some time in southeast Asia promoting the program. Two of them were taken out there by officials of the Colombo plan. One of the department's personnel spent two years in Ceylon, where he set up a little St. Francis Xavier extension department. An associate director of this department for many years was called to India three years ago to promote the program, and just last fall both he and the man who had been in Ceylon were asked to go to Australia to help out on a short course for fisheries leaders of the Asian countries from Pakistan to Japan.
On August 5, 1952, reflecting on the experience of this extension department, Dr. M. M. Coady, for many years the dynamic director of this department and now Monsignor Coady, director emeritus, outlined its fundamental philosophy in these words:
The general purpose of the St. Francis Xavier extension department was to mobilize the people for continued adult learning. This was based on the conviction that in a democracy, people should not be allowed to float down the river of events

The Address-Mr. O'Leary but that positive purposeful effort should be put In the business of bringing them along the road of progress. They should come under their own steam, of course, but it is the work of educational institutions to organize them to do this. It is also the work of educators, we believe, to spearhead the thinking of the nation. We expect this in the field of the arts and sciences; there is no reason why we should not have it also in the field of social affairs.
The fishing industry in my constituency as in many sections of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces is of vital importance to our counties. In Guysborough county it is paramount. In Antigonish county it is a very significant and contributing factor to the total income of the people. True, there has been a decline in the actual number of fishermen who previously secured their entire livelihood from this source. The reasons for this are varied and fairly numerous. None the less in the past year, though the total catch was down somewhat, increased prices compensated for this drop in volume and as a result the industry, generally speaking, provided sufficient encouragement to a substantial number of our fishermen to cause them to make plans for an expanded program in the coming year, and to attract others to the industry.
A few shore sections of our counties where the residents are attempting to re-establish themselves in the industry are faced with the problem of finding proper and adequate shelter and docking facilities for their boats nearby. As the industry declined in these areas so did the facilities once placed there, which were maintained only so long as their commercial use justified the expenditure of the public moneys involved. I well realize this sane attitude on the part of the government but I do say that now, if there is any apparent hope of revitalizing the industry, no effort or expense should be spared in providing at least the essential facilities such as wharfs, breakwaters and such dredging as may be necessary to accommodate the fishermen concerned.
As for those fishing districts which have increased or maintained their volume, I must say that the Minister of Public Works has been more than sympathetic, and I wish to thank him on behalf of the fishermen of these areas for his tangible appreciation of their needs during 1957 and 1958. This does not mean that all our requirements have been met, but we are hopeful for 1959-80 and we shall continue our efforts with his office so long as our needs are in evidence and the industry continues to expand.
I believe, too, that this is the proper place to express our appreciation to the district engineer and his hard working staff in the

harbours and rivers engineering branch of the Department of Public Works at the Halifax office, for their splendid co-operation with us at all times.
About two months ago I attended the annual meetings of both the Antigonish and Guysborough federations of agriculture, and as recently as the week before last the Nova Scotia provincial federation annual meeting at Truro. I found all three meetings interesting, stimulating and encouraging. The reports and reviews of the past year's operations indicated that progress had been made, that federal and provincial government assistance to the industry contributed immeasurably toward this progress, that some problems were being solved or were capable of being solved by the farmers themselves, and that still others called for further helpful measures of assistance from government. Resolutions were presented, discussed and drafted for presentation to the appropriate bodies. Plans were made for increased production in certain types of products that could be efficiently and profitably produced and marketed. Discussion was live and frank, and as a result approved recommendations were limited to those which were of sufficient and justifiable importance as to seriously pertain to the over-all welfare of the agricultural industry.
I am happy to observe that the speech from the throne indicates that during this present session of parliament we will have an opportunity to review and revise the legislation concerning farm credit. This subject is of vital concern to my constituency and to the Atlantic provinces as a whole, as was evidenced in the resolution drafted by the Atlantic premiers' conference held in St. John's, Newfoundland, last September. A true and realistic appraisal of our family farms and a recognition of their contribution, not only to the economy of a large number of our people, but of equal and perhaps even greater significance, their contribution to the moral fibre of our society, is long past due. We maintain that our average family farm properly managed and with diversified production can provide a comfortable and enviable living for any Canadian family.
I quite agree with the statement that it requires more brains to be a successful farmer than it does to be an average member of a profession or other occupation. Speaking of Nova Scotia, I feel that we will have no difficulty in meeting this challenge because our province has a long but not proud record of exporting brains. Succeeding generations have continued to produce such men in our rural communities, and it is

these who can very successfully operate their fathers' farms and bring back into production farms that have been vacated over the past quarter century and more. But in order that our young rural people may take this, their rightful place, as proud owners and successful farmers, they must be given the opportunity to borrow the necessary funds for the many and varied improvements to be effected in their lands, buildings and farm equipment.
At the present time there is no agency that can satisfactorily serve the complete credit needs of these people. True we have farm loan boards, land settlement loans, credit unions and banks, but none of those are so constituted or equipped to serve the long term capital needs of our average small farm. It is for this reason that I see hope for our type of agriculture in that which is proposed in the throne speech with respect to farm credit.
A particular situation with respect to the operations of the unemployment insurance commission and a source of not inconsiderable inconvenience and annoyance to those in my constituency tiling claims for benefits has recently been corrected, in that we now have in the town of Antigonish for the first time our own claims agent, which service cannot help but guarantee to our people a definite improvement. Previously many delays were encountered due to improper and incomplete applications being forwarded to the office in Pictou county; and this office being over one hundred miles distant from some of the outlying districts of the constituency, it was well-nigh impossible or prohibitively costly for applicants to appear personally at this office. I wish to commend the Minister of Labour most heartily for having initiated this new improved service.
With the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) and with, I know, all hon. members of this house, I share a very deep concern over the great tragedy that struck the mining town of Springhill last October. The generous and spontaneous response of governments, organizations and individuals right across this continent genuinely demonstrated the solicitude of all. The magnitude of the disaster both in terms of lives lost and its far reaching effect upon the future of this town brought this about.
Recently we have read reports of this town's citizens being offered opportunities of employment other than at home. This effort on the part of public-spirited firms is to be admired and commended. However, when it is appreciated that the greater number of these men are no longer in their youth but are of middle age, unskilled other than as
The Address-Mr. O'Leary miners, own their own homes and have growing families, I believe anyone will agree that first every effort should be made to find employment for them at home. The government of the province of Nova Scotia has recognized the necessity for such action, and has taken the initial tangible steps for the encouragement of a local industry or industries. However, we all know that a substantial industry cannot come about overnight, so I wish to place myself on record as advocating that if this government is contemplating the erection of any type of institution in the province of Nova Scotia in the comparatively near future, which could give employment to a number of the citizens of Springhill, I strongly support the selection of this town as the site for such an institution.
At this time I will do no more than commend our government for indicating its intention to take action to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the recent horizontal increase in freight rates.
In March, 1953-and I repeat the year, 1953 *-a paper sponsored by the town council of Mulgrave and the Mulgrave board of trade entitled, a "Brief concerning the future of the town of Mulgrave" was released to governments and to the public generally. By way of introduction it read as follows:
For more than half a century the community of Mulgrave has been dependent upon the Canadian National Railway. The employment provided by the rail terminus and wharves, and the rail and road ferries connecting Cape Breton island with the mainland, have made possible the building of a pleasant and prosperous coastal town of nearly 1,200 souls.
Mulgrave is now an incorporated town with 214 residential homes, a modern school that boasts standards comparable with any in the province of Nova Scotia, three Christian churches, recreation halls and playgrounds, and all the ancillary shops and services required by a thoroughly modern and progressive rural community.
Established on a hillside overlooking the strait of Canso, Mulgrave is surrounded by rocky timbered terrain that has no agricultural possibilities. There is, however, a generous supply of seasoned timber available and a number of freshwater lakes lie in the vicinity. The deep water harbour has for centuries been a stopping place for ships plying the Atlantic seaboard; it is regarded as one of the outstanding natural harbours in the east and during the war played an important role as a naval port.
Now, after 50 years of stable growth, the community of Mulgrave faces disaster. The haunting fear of insecurity lies pregnant on the thresholds of her home. The stability of her family life is threatened; and the carefully nurtured traditions from which a lively community spirit has been fostered are in danger of fading into oblivion.
For with the construction of the Canso causeway the raison d'etre of Mulgrave's existence has come to an end. The causeway is being built from a point on the mainland at Auld Cove three miles beyond the old car and rail ferry sites, and all the activities which have provided employment to the people of the town will cease as soon as the project is completed.

The Address-Mr. O'Leary
Then, following certain proposals, the brief went on to say:
The number of men now employed by the federal and provincial governments with the Canadian National Railway and the car ferry is 288. This represents two-thirds of the total full-time working force in Mulgrave. One hundred and seventy-nine of these men have no security of tenure in their jobs and look forward to dismissal on the completion of the causeway. There are in addition, approximately 100 seasonal workers who will be affected.
Over and above this number there are 63 men now employed with the Canadian National Railway who have sufficient seniority in the company to permit their retirement or transfer to some other locality. This portion of the working force does not itself constitute a problem; but its displacement will result in a serious loss to the community.
Against this background of the working force that will be affected must be considered the social consequences that will accompany their displacement.
At a time when millions of the earth's peoples have become displaced through war, misfortune and persecution, the plight of 1,200 Canadians in the town of Mulgrave may not seem unduly grave. But we would point out that the situation which faces us was brought about not by chance but by the deliberate and planned decision of the public authorities. The people of Mulgrave did not protest the construction of the Canso causeway because it seemed the greater good of the wider community would be served by its completion. We do suggest, however, that in achieving the greater good the needs of the small number who are affected adversely by that decision cannot in justice be ignored.
One of the proposals advanced at that time was that the Canadian National Railways- and again I remind you, Mr. Speaker, this was in 1953-construct and maintain a spur line along the coast from the mainland entrance to the causeway to the town of Mulgrave. It was pointed out that without such railway connection Mulgrave could not hope to attract new industry or even hold the small industries then existing. The spur line requested would run three miles from the causeway entrance to the port.
All of the above was advanced almost six years ago, Mr. Speaker. The causeway to Cape Breton island was completed almost five years ago and the events that took place were almost identical to the predictions made a year previous, as outlined in the brief I have just read.
As recently as two weeks ago I sat down with the town's mayor, council and representatives of other interested groups and organizations, and we discussed at some length their existing problem as presented above. We arrived at the following conclusions:
One, that an engineer and economist should be sent to the strait of Canso area in an attempt to evaluate the strategic importance of this area for shipping and transshipping facilities; two, Mulgrave being the entrance to the St. Lawrence waterway and having one of the finest natural ice-free harbours on the Atlantic coast on this continent, needs this latter fact made better known to all

shipping interests. Anything that this government can do by way of publicizing this fact will be deeply appreciated. All of the facts relative to this port are easily available: 25,000-ton ships can enter this port without pilots-it is ice free the year round-during the summer it has both a north and south entrance-the harbour has a rise and fall of tide of only four feet. Every captain who has berthed his ship in this port will attest to these facts which result in a speedy and easy berthing rarely if ever found elsewhere. Three, during the winter of 1957 this port received a fair amount of freight normally handled at North Sydney. Conditions at that time resulting in the use of this port could very easily occur again. At that time all available docking facilities were utilized. As a consequence we deem it expedient that present docking facilities at Mulgrave not only be maintained but even expanded to care for present and future needs as we have good reason to believe will arise.
Four, further we believe that the Canadian National Railways spur line from the entrance to the causeway to the port of Mulgrave should be built as speedily as possible.
We in eastern Nova Scotia are very hopeful that a $40 million pulp mill will be built in the area of this port in the very near future. To date Premier Stanfield and his government have carried on successful negotiations with the company concerned; and when this pulp mill becomes a reality, that which I have recommended regarding the port of Mulgrave will be doubly necessary.
As I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I conclude with a general statement indicating my reaction to the speech from the throne. It is comprehensive and all-embracing and will, when its directions are implemented, have a good, positive and lasting effect on the lives of all Canadians.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to join with previous speakers in offering my congratulations 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). Both hon. members performed their duties as good parliamentarians, and I am sure they have earned the admiration of their respective constituents.
I well recall in sessions gone by, when members of the present government were sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker, the comments which were made following the reading of the speech from the throne. They characterized it as an empty document, a meaningless presentation or a confused, vague concentration of generalities. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I have in my hand a copy of the speech now under consideration during this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that this document gains more prominence by what it does not say than by

what it contains. This document barely mentions, and in most cases completely ignores, problems which should have at this time the most careful consideration.
Last evening in this house we witnessed a demonstration by the Prime Minister who was trying to defend the speech from the throne. In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister proudly stated, and I quote from page 61 of Hansard for January 19, 1959:
-we are now moving upwards. That is, in large measure, owing to the action taken by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, I hear the "hear, hear". It is true that the profits of the Royal Bank of Canada moved upward in 1958, but the Prime Minister did not state what part the conversion loan of last fall played in these increased profits. Yes, we are moving upward. Figures have just been released this morning concerning unemployment in Canada which show that unemployment has been moving upward to 419,000 workers who were registered for unemployment insurance and claiming benefits in November last. We are moving upward. The cost of living is moving upward; the price index has reached an all-time high at 126.3. We are moving upward. The interest on loans to provinces and municipalities is moving upward. Everything is moving upward but the unemployed are still looking for work.
In the course of his remarks the Prime Minister also cited certain figures showing the percentage of unemployed as compared with the labour force of this country. These figures varied from 3.8 per cent in 1945 to 6 per cent in the months of February and March, 1950; 6.7 per cent for the same months in 1956; 5 per cent for comparative months in 1957. But when he came to 1958, what did the Prime Minister do? He was aware that the comparative figures for 1958 showed that unemployment had almost doubled that of any five or six years previous. When he came to 1958 he deliberately quoted the figures for the months of October and November, and it was only following pressure from this side of the house that he revealed the percentages for the months of February and March, 1958, which were up to 10 per cent, almost double that of any previous 5 or 6 years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize, as does every member of this house irrespective of party, that Canada should continue to recognize the necessity for providing economic assistance to underdeveloped nations. At the last meeting in Paris on the occasion of its fourth annual conference, the NATO parliamentarians gave special and specific attention to
The Address-Mr. Robichaud the importance of technical and financial assistance to less developed areas. These matters of vital importance to NATO countries were submitted to the NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Paris last December and, without doubt, must have been considered as problems which should be given a high priority in their deliberations. The NATO countries should seek at once the means of adjusting free world economic programs to counter, and to counter effectively, the Soviet bloc economic warfare activities which are aimed at undermining the economic stability of the free world.
May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of extending to you and to the other members of the Canadian parliamentary groups who attended the fourth annual conference in Paris my sincere appreciation for their cooperation and good understanding. Our visit to the Canadian air force and army centres in France and Western Germany was a revelation to all of us. The R.C.A.F. squadrons and the four Canadian infantry brigade groups are part of the international commitment on behalf of the people of Canada. Our contribution to NATO in Europe is a subject of national concern. Every Canadian should be proud of the performance of our servicemen stationed in Europe. They have a duty to perform, they have a role to play, and they are doing it to the glory of Canada in the defence of personal freedom.
But, Mr. Speaker, what do we find in the speech from the throne which could give hope, the faintest hope, for the promises made by the present government with regard to the subject of financial relations between the provinces and the dominion? Where is that new dominion-provincial conference promised for January, 1958 and shelved ever since? What has the present government done to alleviate the heavy burden of municipal taxes? Oh, I know that great publicity was given to the Prime Minister's announcement, prior to his departure for his world tour, concerning federal participation in certain municipal projects to be undertaken during the winter months. The Minister of Labour himself took glory and satisfaction in announcing that this so-called benevolent program would provide additional winter work for about 9,000 to 10,000 men.
How many municipalities are today in a position to accept this offer, at a time when the costs of construction are seriously and substantially increased as a result of the difficulties encountered during the winter months? Why was this program not instituted in September or early fall, a period when such work was practical and economical? In many cases federal assistance would

The Address-Mr. Robichaud barely cover the additional cost to the municipalities and, furthermore, the total number of workers who can benefit from this program will be just about 2 per cent of the unemployed at the present time, barely a drop in the bucket or a needle in a hay stack. This program is nothing but another example of the complete lack of foresight of the present government and its complete failure to admit the seriousness of the unemployment situation throughout the country.
Where is this grave concern of the past? Where are these bold declarations of the Prime Minister, such as that which was made in Prince Albert on February 14, 1958, when he said:
As long as I am Prime Minister, no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment, so long as public works will provide them the assistance they require.
Then a few days later at Brantford, on February 17, 1958, here is what he said. I would ask you to listen to the words of this great evangelist, this new savior of the world:
The humblest of our people will not be forgotten. The people who are unemployed will not be in the false position of being put on relief.
Then again in Montreal on February 18 last, in a live telecast, he said:
As long as I am Prime Minister of Canada everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer.
Listen to what he said in Cornwall on February 24. The Conservatives had launched a winter works program and were putting forward a huge public works program to take up some of the slack in unemployment. Here are the Prime Minister's own words:
We have acted. We are meeting unemployment. We have given young Canadians the hope. We have given them the vision.
Yes, Mr. Speaker; they have given the hope and the vision, but still there is no work. What has the present speech from the throne to offer in order to take care of the situation and to implement what the Prime Minister solemnly promised with respect to unemployment? It gives more emphasis to the enactment of a bill of rights and to the approval of a statute to authorize the appointment of parliamentary secretaries who are anxious for those appointments than it does to the plea of the unemployed. What do we find in the speech from the throne? We find less than two complete lines to give hope to the unemployed. We read this:
Certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will be submitted to you.
That is all we find. What does it mean? We shall wait and see, as will the unemployed. We know that the fund of over $900 million


which was available to the present government when it took office has now been depleted by probably over 50 per cent. What a difference in attitude from that of February and March, 1958 when we were on the eve of a general election; and what a surprise it must be to Canadian workers to hear a member of the present cabinet, namely the Minister of Justice, declare before a group of young Conservatives that the present unemployment situation should be blamed on the previous Liberal administration.


An hon. Member:: That is for sure.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: From the other side of the house I hear the interjection "That is for sure". Is the hon. member so blind and so much obsessed by the vision that he has failed to realize that his government has been in power for over 18 months? Is not the shock of the present unemployment situation serious enough to inject into his veins and into those of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Labour and others a sense of reality and, I could add, of responsibility? If the Minister of Justice only knew how futile his arguments were on that occasion and how sterile was his achievement. I am convinced that he would react without further delay to the plea for adequate and more audacious steps to cope with the situation.
Is this the hope, the vision, that was promised in Cornwall on February 24, 1958 by the Prime Minister? For the married workers of the country, for the young and the old of Canada, is this great vision not getting dimmer and dimmer day after day and week after week? Yes, Mr. Speaker, this great vision, with its huge public works program which was supposed to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, has gradually vanished in less than ten months into nothing but a dream; and today we may wishfully say to the Prime Minister, "May your dreams some day come true." How desirable it would be for the Prime Minister and for his government to forget, for some time at least, about being looked upon as men of vision and to settle down to the job of running the affairs of the country.
In the present speech from the throne the plea of the unemployed has been brushed aside. It has been scuttled under the shadow of a meaningless, useless and untimely bill of rights. The right to find work is the bill of rights that the Canadian people are expecting today. If the Prime Minister and his government would give consideration to the recent pastoral letter of His Eminence Cardinal Leger, the terrific affliction of unemployment could be coped with by new and

more audacious steps to remedy this unfortunate situation. There are over 80,000 unemployed in the Montreal area alone, and from 10,000 to 15,000 young people are affected. This situation presents a problem which endangers the peace and harmony which are so essential to a sound and balanced economy.
In my own constituency of Gloucester over 7,000 persons are registered today as claimants for unemployment insurance benefits. Yes, Mr. Speaker; over 55 per cent of our labour force is registered for benefits, and even this figure does not offer a true picture of the situation. At least 2,000 more men or women have not gone to the trouble of registering with the unemployment insurance office because they knew they could not qualify, inasmuch as their eight weeks or ten weeks of contributions did not meet the requirements of the act. Proposals which I have made to the government to alleviate this deplorable condition at least in part have as yet been without result.
It does not seem fair that a farmer or his sons cannot qualify under the unemployment insurance regulations when cutting lumber or pulpwood on the family wood lots, while the same men can qualify if they leave their homes to work in lumber camps. In many cases farm owners have disposed of their wood lots at sacrifice prices to lumber or pulp dealers in order to be in a position to be rehired by these same dealers and qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. Our farmers are victims of discrimination, and an adjustment should be made in the unemployment insurance regulations in order to take care of such cases.
Requests from my constituency are at present before the Minister of Public Works for the construction of new wharves and for improvements to various harbours. Last year I expressed to the minister and to his department appreciation for their decision to proceed with major improvements to the Bathurst harbour in conjunction with mining developments contemplated for the area. Unfortunately conditions have changed. All mining activities in the area are at a standstill. Consequently the project did not materialize, and it may not take place for some years to come. The minister will admit, however, that the business interests of the Bathurst area cannot carry on much longer under present conditions. I realize that discussions are under way with the interests concerned, but I would urge the minister to give instructions to his officials to arrive at an early and favourable decision on this important problem.
The Address-Mr. Robichaud
Again, on numerous occasions I have outlined to the minister the deplorable situation of the fishermen of Maisonnette who are asking for an extension to their present wharf so that it may be used in their fishing operations. I want to repeat that the minister and the government have at Maisonnette an opportunity to provide employment to practically every available worker in the community. A practical wharf which can be constructed at a normal cost would, at the same time, provide facilities for the local fishermen and work to the shore help for at least four to six months of the year. Here the department is facing a problem which can be solved and which should receive immediate consideration.
The minister and his officials should also attempt to solve without delay the situation at Lower Caraquet. If a decision has been reached by the department, for obvious reasons, not to replace part of the present wharf recently carried away in a storm, consideration should be given to an immediate replacement. The need is urgent. A new location has been surveyed. The project is economically justified, and the local fishermen must be provided with adequate shelter and wharfage facilities for their fishing craft. I have enough confidence in the good judgment and ability of the department's engineers and other officials to expect that new construction will get under way at Lower Caraquet at least within the next few months. If no decision is reached at once in this particular case the fishermen of that community will have to wait until 1961 before they can benefit from wharfage facilities and operate with efficiency. It will mean more unemployment, more suffering for the people of this fishing community.
I also understand that the reconstruction and improvement of the Shippegan wharf have received the approval of the minister and his department. Shippegan is one of the largest fishing ports on the Atlantic coast, and it is urgent that the improvement asked for be undertaken without further delay.
The survey now under way by the public works department to provide shelter for the 50-odd fishing boats at Pigeon Hill should also be given priority. The fishermen concerned are awaiting with anxiety the announcement of the department's decision in this regard. The Minister of Public Works must be aware that the construction of public buildings must not necessarily get top priority on his advanced list of projects. The construction of a wharf or improvement of a harbour will not only provide work in the

The Address-Mr. Robichaud construction period but will provide additional facilities to expand such industries as fishing, shipping and others.
In my constituency we have a difficult problem with regard to the improvement of Tracadie harbour. This is a matter which should also receive top priority on the list of advanced planning projects to be undertaken by the department. Improved harbour conditions at Tracadie would provide facilities leading to the establishment of a substantial fishing industry so urgently needed in Tracadie and adjoining communities.
On May 19 last, Mr. Speaker, while speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I brought to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the plea of over a quarter of a million of our population in northern New Brunswick and the Gaspe peninsula who are deprived of practically any television reception or service. Eight months have gone by and our people are no better off today, no further ahead than they were in May of last year. I understand that permission has been granted for the establishment of a privately owned television station at New Carlisle which would serve part of the area concerned with programs 35 per cent in English and 65 per cent in French. This station was supposed to be in operation in August, 1958, but due to unforeseen difficulties it was announced that its operation would be delayed to a later date last fall. A further delay has since taken place, and we are now told that we will have to wait until the fall of 1959 before the inauguration of this television service.
Very little has been accomplished so far toward the realization of this project, and our entire population is showing its dissatisfaction. The proposed service, consisting of 35 per cent English and 65 per cent French programs, will not be satisfactory to our population. Such a service has been tried elsewhere. It has been tried right here in Ottawa and has proven most impractical and unsatisfactory. What our population want-I said it last year and I repeat it-are the same service and the same privileges which are offered today to other populated areas of Canada.
Attempts have been made to misinform our population by telling them that it is impossible for the C.B.C. to extend to our area the service or the facilities of the English television network, for the only reason that the nearest television station at Moncton is privately owned. This is not altogether so, Mr. Speaker, and the people of Gloucester county and northeastern New Brunswick should be made aware of the true facts in

this regard. It is true that the Moncton station is a privately owned station, but this does not prevent the C.B.C. from establishing relay stations or microwave towers which could be attached to the English network passing through Edmundston and then extending to Moncton, Halifax and Sydney.
The people of Gloucester county and of northern New Brunswick are Canadian taxpayers who are contributing their share for the operation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Our people have a right to enjoy and to share with their fellow Canadians in their own living rooms a community of interest, and to participate in events of national importance. Why should such a concentration of population be prevented from enjoying on television such instantaneous visual communications as the opening of the Canadian parliament or the important events of Her Majesty's visit to Canada next summer?
All across Canada microwave towers are going up. The Rocky mountains have been spanned and a link has been completed with Canada's newest province, Newfoundland. Yet the residents of Gloucester county, as well as other residents of a largely populated area in northern New Brunswick and the Gaspe coast, are still deprived of participation in the national television system. Again I want to emphasize that the proposed station at New Carlisle, if it ever materializes, will not be satisfactory to a large proportion of our population. It will not be satisfactory to the 12,000 residents of the Bathurst area and to other communities in my constituency and adjoining counties.
It could be difficult to give adequate service to certain remote areas because of excessive costs, but anyone familiar with the present television networks will soon realize that the connections extending through Edmundston and Moncton could easily and reasonably be extended to cover Campbell-ton in Restigouche and Bathurst in Gloucester county. Such a service is justified by the large concentration of population it would cover, and more so by the absence of technological difficulties which have been encountered in other sections of the country.
We hear these days of meetings in the prairie provinces to organize a march on Ottawa by the western grain producers, fighting for deficiency payments on wheat. If we have a wheat cry in the west, we also have a cry for television service in northeastern New Brunswick. Our people are alarmed. Petitions have been circulated, letters have been sent to the minister and to the C.B.C., and what we want now is something better than consideration or study. We want action, and we want action now. I sincerely hope that the Minister of National

Revenue, who has done so well in this particular field for his own communities in Nova Scotia, will without further hesitation transmit to the C.B.C. with his recommendation the plea of the dissatisfied population of northern New Brunswick. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that on January 1, I960, next New Year's day, my constituents will have the opportunity to hear and share with their fellow Canadians through their television sets the New Year's message of our Prime Minister.
Mr. Pallet!: And for many years to come.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Well, they have to hear it next year because if we wait too long they will not be in a position to hear it at all. When well over 85 per cent of the Canadian population is within reach of good television service, and when over 75 per cent of Canadian households have acquired television sets, it does not seem fair that we in Gloucester county and northern New Brunswick should be prevented from sharing in what has been called the most rapid development of television service in any country in the world.
The time allotted to me will not allow me to discuss freely in the course of the present debate a matter of major importance to most of the fishing communities in the maritimes. It has to do with the serious situation developing in the administration of lobster fishery regulations in the maritime provinces, and particularly in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I take no exception to the decision of the minister and the department to prosecute, to use the minister's own words, "as vigorously as the law requires" anyone catching or canning lobster illegally. The minister is threatening poachers with stiff penalties, and most unfortunate incidents could follow unless his department at once, without delay, takes a different view of this most serious problem.
Since my first speech in the house I have at every session urged the department to alter its policy toward illegal lobster fishing.
I have repeated again and again that more good could be accomplished by a fishery officer by a friendly chat with the fishermen at the end of a wharf or even at the corner store than by determination to play this game of "hide and seek" in order to catch a fisherman committing the offence of illegal fishing.
I am again warning the Minister of Fisheries that the only means of curbing this illegal practice is through education. If the minister would divert less than 10 per cent of his department's estimates for the protection branch alone, and use it towards the education of the fishermen, I can assure him that his problem would be solved in a very short period. If the minister would divert 1 per 66968-9-7i
The Address-Mr. Robichaud cent of the protection branch estimate toward the education of the lobster fishermen alone, his problem would be solved. Otherwise if he insists on this rough and tough practice I warn him again that he is looking for more trouble. This Cuban method cannot be allowed in this country, and unless a drastic and effective system of education is introduced at once the minister and his department will be held responsible for the consequences. I will be back on this subject at a later date.
From recent reports which have reached us the coal industry in the maritimes and particularly in Nova Scotia is suffering a depression as serious as the one which it had to face in the spring and summer of last year. Here again we find that the government shows uncertainty and inconsistency in dealing with the problem. On Friday last, as reported on page 11 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys the following very simple question:
My question is based on a news dispatch in today's Montreal Gazette announcing the intended closing on February 1 of five collieries affecting 4,000 men-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I recall the hon. member reading that earlier today. Could he not trust the memory of the house, without repeating the whole quotation?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I will endeavour to respect your views, Mr. Speaker.
The minister clearly stated at that time that he did not receive any notice from the Dosco company with regard to a cutdown in production or a staff reduction. When, with a telegram in my hand, I asked the minister a second question-whether any protest or representations had been made by local unions of the united mineworkers of America, I received an altogether different reply. Hon. members may recall that in his answer, as printed on page 12 of Hansard, the minister said:
Their representatives came and met with us some time ago. They did make representations, and I must add that the matter is now under consideration and that we propose to come to a decision in regard to this in the near future.
What a contradiction in the two replies of the minister. At first, he declared he had no knowledge of the situation. A few moments later he told us that representations along that line and in connection with other matters were made to the government by the Dosco company. The company's representatives, he said, had met with the government some time ago. At first, he had no knowledge of the matter; next, that they had made

The Address-Mr. Robichaud representations and the matter was under consideration. What a contradiction. It is a confusion which is typical of the government's actions today.
If we go back to the coal debate which took place on July 1 of last year we find that we were told by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), as reported on page 1801 of Hansard of July 1, 1958, that orders were on hand for 4,600,000 tons of coal and that following the five or six weeks shutdown contemplated at that time the crisis in the coal industry would be over. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys stated at that time that orders were on hand for the entire stockpile and that the company was only waiting transportation. Six months later we are meeting the same situation, a situation which is extremely unsatisfactory to the 9,000 or 10,000 coal miners of the maritime provinces.
Something is just not right in the coal industry, and I challenge the government to take the matter in hand and take action at once to remedy the situation. It does not seem logical that with a stockpile of 1,200,000 tons of coal in Cape Breton there should have been this winter such a shortage of domestic coal in the maritime provinces. It does not seem logical that, under such circumstances American coal should have been imported into Moncton and other centres of New Brunswick. In my own constituency of Gloucester there were shortages of domestic coal in December and early January. This does not seem fair to the coal miners who are being laid off in Nova Scotia, and to the miners of the Minto coal fields in New Brunswick, who were cut down to two or three days of work per week in the last four of five months.
Are the coal companies really making an effort to sell coal as they should do? Action by the government should be taken now before the lay-off of February 1 takes place. It is the responsibility of the government to get the true facts, to get a true picture of the situation in order to give adequate protection to the miners concerned and to make factual reports to parliament and to the country.
Unfortunately I do not have time this afternoon to discuss this matter in as full detail as I should like to do. It is the responsibility of the government to cope with the situation even if this means granting an additional subsidy to the industry. If our miners are allowed to work, the additional expenditure involved would be repaid time and time again by its benefits to the Canadian economy. Otherwise there will again be a merciless curtailment of employment in the coal fields and it is the duty of the government to

prevent such a curtailment and such contemplated lay-offs. It is also the responsibility of the government to find ways and means of coping with the situation. They have accepted the responsibility of power, and on them lies the responsibility of action.
There are other matters to which I should like to call the attention of the government, but further occasions and opportunities will be offered to us in the course of the present session. The question of freight rates is vital to the economy of the Atlantic provinces and we will have an opportunity to deal thoroughly with this problem at a later date. The people of the Atlantic provinces are aware that the pledges made by the 32 Tory candidates prior to the election have, to a major extent, been ignored. What about such pledges as those in connection with defence contract expenditures in the Atlantic provinces; the establishment of crown corporations in the Atlantic provinces; and special fiscal considerations to encourage the establishment of industries in the Atlantic provinces? I ask hon. gentlemen opposite how much money has been spent by the federal government out of items which have been included for the last two years in the estimates of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for the construction of the East Saint John thermal plant. Not yet a single penny, I am informed.
These are matters which we intend to bring to the attention of the house and of the country during the course of this session of parliament and for which the government will be asked to answer.


Mr. A. D. McPhillips (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to express my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address. I should like to say to the hon. member for Provencher-and I say this as a member who does not represent a rural or agricultural constituency-that I found his speech on agriculture made more sense to me than any other speech on this subject I have heard in this chamber.
To the seconder, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, may I say that the charm of the delivery of his broadly humanitarian speech reminded me of certain occasions in my extreme youth when I had the great pleasure of hearing political speakers from the province of Quebec when they were in my part of the country. They were Liberals, it is true, but they were big shots or big leaguers. Today that party only seems capable of producing bee-bees.
If I may be permitted to do so I should also like at the outset of my remarks to say to you, Mr. Speaker, how glad I am that you occupy the chair of this house.

I wish to to speak briefly today about the province of British Columbia, the Pacific province, and I refer to it as such for this reason. In Canada there is sometimes a little confusion caused by the broad term "the western provinces" or "the west". I think I am correct, both according to history and tradition, when I say that in Canada when the west has been spoken of, or even earlier when reference was made to the great northwest, the meaning intended was that area which now comprises the prairie provinces. British Columbia is the Pacific province. I would like to explode for all time any remnants that may exist in the minds of anyone of the myth about there being a barrier between British Columbia and the rest of Canada because of the Rocky mountains. I have even had people ask me what sort of people lived west of the Rocky mountains. I have been asked, "Are the people there more like Americans?" That kind of thinking has resulted from the old myth about the mountains being a barrier.
All Canadians, including the people of British Columbia, are proud of our national motto that Canada is a nation from sea to sea. We love the words of the poet that are engraved in stone above the door of the main entrance of this building in which this chamber is housed. I refer to the words of the poet:
The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west.
I wish to deal for a little time with the western gate of Canada. On that day in 1867 when British North America became the Dominion of Canada those words of the poet would not have been applicable because a barrier did exist as a result of the Rocky mountains. West of the mountains lay the crown colony of British Columbia which had recently fused with the colony of Vancouver island in 1866. Following confederation in 1867 the legislature of the crown colony of British Columbia took up an important debate. I was taught in school that the question in issue in this debate was whether or not they would remain a crown colony or join Canada. When I grew older and became a law student I had the opportunity of reading the verbatim record of those debates. To my amazement and somewhat to my horror I learned that although these venerable old gentlemen did discuss the question of joining Canada they also discussed whether or not British Columbia would join the United States in preference to joining Canada. Thank goodness the result has been what it was. British Columbia did
The Address-Mr. McPhillips join confederation in 1871. The Rocky mountains ceased to be any sort of barrier and the province became the greatest junction in the nation.
I shall not deal in detail with all the terms of union but under one of those terms the transcontinental railway was built under the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald and Canada became a nation extending from sea to sea with a national railway transportation system.
I should like to read from a recent article by Gus Sivertz which appeared in the good old Liberal Victoria Times in November 1958. Dealing with a statement made by a highly distinguished visitor to that area he said:
But for this momentous decision on the part of British Columbia to remain British, and to unite with the almost unkown Canadians far away to the east . . . the Canadian nation of today would have been impossible, even unthinkable!"
The province expanded and under the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald which had nation-wide application it prospered in those early days. He had great regard for the west coast and its importance. In fact at one time he was a candidate in the riding which I now have the honour to represent. I have in my hand a statement taken from the Victoria Colonist of October 22, 1878. This paper is the oldest continuously published daily newspaper on the entire Pacific coast and celebrated its hundredth anniversary on December 11. On that date it had published a newspaper every day for a hundred years which is probably a record for more than the Pacific coast. The article to which I referred is entitled, "City Elects John A." and as I said it is dated October 22, 1878. It reads as follows:
The election of representatives for the House of Commons for Victoria district took place yesterday and resulted in the return of Sir John A. Macdonald at the head of the poll-and also the election of Mr. Amor de Cosmos.
Shortly after the result of the election was declared a number of persons congregated at the corner of Government and Yates, where a cord of wood was deposited and ignited.
Of course, the Liberal government came into office in Canada in 1896.


Harold Edward Winch: What about 1958?


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I shall deal with 1958 later. At the moment I am referring to 1896 at which time the Liberal government came into office and the Pacific province was assigned a back seat in the affairs of the nation because that particular party had not been very interested in British Columbia and its inception, confederation or anything else. However, we were lucky in that we had a

The Address-Mr. McPhillips strong provincial administration under a gentleman who was later to become Sir Richard McBride and that Conservative government came into power in 1903 and remained in office until 1916. He was probably the greatest premier British Columbia ever had and so the province progressed internally.
In 1911 the Conservative government of Sir Robert Borden came into power and British Columbia came into its own again. Great improvements were made in the harbours of Vancouver and Victoria among other things and I shall deal later with these harbours and particularly that of Victoria. After careful consideration the Borden government decided to enlarge the outer harbour of Victoria to approximately three times its size. They built two magnificent ocean docks at Ogden Point and a large sum of money was expended for this purpose. That government also built a breakwater to protect the docks on the side from which the worst storms arose. Another breakwater was promised but unfortunately world war I came along and as we know that war brought in its wake a period of depression and nothing further could be done during those years.
In the harbour of Vancouver the Borden government built the great Ballantyne pier, which was recognized at that time to be the finest ocean pier in the entire world, and the first foundation upon which the great grain elevators in Vancouver were constructed, with the result that the golden harvest of the prairies could come to the west for the first time and find a storage place.
A little later, after the first world war, we were lucky in having as the federal representative from Victoria, Dr. Simon Fraser Tolmie, who afterwards became the premier of the province. Toward the end he was the minister of agriculture in the Borden administration and he was also in the Meighen government. Dr. Tolmie decided that the promise of the Borden government of those outer harbour installations in Victoria would be implemented. He had another idea also, namely, that the west coast of Canada should have the biggest drydock in the world. The government could not afford both and he was given his choice. Very wisely he chose the drydock, and that drydock was built as a Conservative project. It was the biggest dry-dock in the world at that time and it is still one of the biggest. It has brought great prestige to Canada as a maritime nation; it has brought millions of dollars worth of work to the west coast and it has been responsible for millions of dollars in wages to Canadian workmen.

Incidentally, it is remembered by many people that during the last war, after Singapore had gone to glory, it was the only other drydock on the Pacific ocean that could handle the great ship the Queen Elizabeth, the largest vessel in the entire world. This great ship had to come all the way into the north Pacific to reach our drydock on the west coast, which providentially was there. It handled that vessel, although the superintendent told me that when she was in the dock there were only six inches to spare on either side and 10 feet forward and 10 feet aft. The Canadian shipwrights and artisans clambered on board and they converted that great ship from a luxury passenger liner to a troop and ammunition ship. On her first trip as a troopship she actually carried 10,000 troops to the south Pacific in connection with the war with Japan.
Then the government of Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King came into power, and again the Pacific province received a body blow. Mr. King and his Liberals were not interested in continuing the project of the Borden government, oh, no! The outer harbour of Victoria remained without its second breakwater, the Macaulay point breakwater. I suggest to this government that the time has come for the promise to be fulfilled and for the outer harbour of Victoria to receive the extra protection of the Macaulay point breakwater so as to render the harbour perfectly safe for the big vessels which come in there and encourage more vessels to come in because, believe me, Mr. Speaker, some of the pilots are in quite a nervous state when they have large vessels under control. They have to go so slowly that they almost lose steerage way. If there is a slop from the southwest it is a mighty tricky business.
I wish to say something with regard to the docks themselves. What did the Mackenzie King government do? They took them out of the management of the Department of Public Works in 1923 and gave them over to the Canadian National Railways. Ever since then the Canadian National Railways have allowed them to deteriorate and now the sheds, along with those magnifieient ocean docks, are in a state of dilapidation as a result of the maladministration by the Canadian National Railways.
While I am on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this. It is not entirely related but it has to do more with the management of this great company. What about the great Queen Elizabeth hotel in the city of Montreal which cost the people of Canada over $27 million; not the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec but the Canadian people? What do we find? I think

the Canadian people are generous enough and sporting enough to pay for that hotel and have it receive the benefit of being part of a chain of railway hotels across this country such as the Chateau Frontenac in Quebec city, the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, the Macdonald in Edmonton and, of course, that gem, the Chateau Lake Louise in the rocky mountains. I am sure the Canadian people would have been happy if that great hotel had received the name of an early and great Canadian. That hotel should have been called the Chateau Maisonneuve. But the name it received, Mr. Speaker, was not chosen; it was dictated. What did we find when the cat came out of the bag? Yes, the big tom cat came out of the bag. We found that this $27 million gem of hotel construction, which was built by the people of Canada, was given away by the management of the C.N.R. and made an integral part of the hotel empire of Conrad Hilton. This is another illustration of the way the Canadian National Railways operate. I will have a little more to say on this point when I reach it.
They tell me that Conrad Hilton is looking for a hotel site in the city of Vancouver. I suppose he is looking for a group of people of the type that Barnum said was born every minute, but I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that with the present administration in office we need to worry that the Canadian National Railways are going to pull that stunt again through Conrad Hilton.
Actually, this is not what I rose to say. I wanted to deal with another phase of the facilities in the port of Victoria. I now refer to the inner harbour. At one time there was a very fine dock in our harbour of Victoria, a government dock built first by the Grand Trunk Pacific railway and then taken over, of course, by the Canadian National Railways. Those wharves were right downtown because our harbour is in the heart of the city. The Canadian Pacific railway docks were on one side and the Canadian National Railways on the other. The Canadian National Railways did not run so many ships, with the result that ferries and other vessels coming from Seattle or Port Angelus could dock at the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian Pacific railway did not want them at their docks. They could dock at the Canadian National Railways for a nominal and proper dockage fee.
What happened? In 1947 a change took place, and a sand, gravel and cement company brought their cement mixers and machinery on to this dock site and the business people of Victoria believed that the Canadian National Railways had leased out those docks. But that was not the case, because it developed that the Canadian National Railways
The Address-Mr. McPhillips had sold that asset of the Canadian people in the inner harbour of the port of Victoria. Now, of course, it is no longer available to other vessels, and it is a very awkward matter for the transportation system in to that port. Because we had a government-owned dock all those years we should still have it. I ask the present government to replace that dock and that we have facilities again where ships can come and pay reasonable dockage charges.
But this is only part of the story. This is the part that I really want to draw attention to, Mr. Speaker. We have never been able to find out how much money the Canadian National got for these docks because this big pooh-bah down in Montreal says he will not tell anybody. He sold an asset of the Canadian people, but he will not say how much he got for it. The first session I was here I put a question on the order paper and got an answer. They said the date of sale was 1947, and that it was sold to Evans, Coleman & Johnson Brothers. However, the answer I really wanted does not appear. I was told it is not the policy of this company to give this sort of information.


Harold Edward Winch: Ask the minister. He is a member of your own party.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I know who I am going to ask. I am going to ask that fellow I mentioned before by description when he comes down to the committee, and I shall wring the answer out of him, do not worry.
The amazing thing is that in 1947 the city of Victoria was represented by a cabinet minister in the Liberal administration, and an important one, too. He was such a palace favourite that he afterwards became ambassador to Japan. Apparently he could not obtain this information, or would not. In any event, such entities as the chamber of commerce of Victoria and so forth still do not know how much was paid for these wharves. In any event, we shall find that out. In the meantime, I should like to urge this government to replace them because they never should have been sold and the port of Victoria is suffering because they were.
There are some people who will say, after all, the port of Victoria is not one of the great ports of Canada. I am just going to give you some figures on that aspect of the matter. It is not as important, of course, as the port of Vancouver or Montreal, but I have here a clipping from the Victoria Colonist of December 31, 1958 containing a statement by the harbour master of the port of Victoria. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, this is a good answer or one of the many good answers to those dispensers of gloom yesterday in regard to the economy of Canada.

The Address-Mr. McPhillips This is the heading: "One of Our Best Years: 301 Deep-Sea Ships Use Docks in 1958". The article reads:
Victoria's outer wharf is drawing to the close of one of its best-ever years for deep-sea traffic-and there is no reason why 1959 can't be that much better.
Capt. Ronald Newell, harbour master, said yesterday that by midnight tonight 301 deep-sea ships would have used the outer docks, discharging and taking on cargo.
The vessels that come to the port of Victoria are all big ones. They are about 10,000 tons or over, so simple multiplication shows that we had about 3 million tons of shipping, which is about one-half of the amount for Vancouver. The large ports on the Pacific coast are Vancouver, Seattle and San Francisco. Vancouver reported about 6 million, Seattle about 11 million and San Francisco was up around 42 million; that is a lot of shipping.
The article goes on to say:
Incoming ships bring a great variety of goods for use and consumption in Victoria.
These include cars direct from the old country; liquor and wine from Britain and from 'down under'; Japanese oranges from the Orient; quantities of naval supplies; many food items from Britain and the United States; meat and wool from Australia and New Zealand; steel for the shipyards.
The deep-sea vessels leave Victoria heavily laden with lumber and grain. Exact figures for shipments of these exports were not available yesterday, but grain exports were substantially up from 1957 and lumber shipments almost 25 per cent above the previous year's total.
All this activity was achieved despite a five-week longshoremen's strike which idled the docks for that period.
There again we have a contradiction of the kind of gloom that was dispensed here yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). Incidentally, when he undertook to say that there were dirty dishes in the governmental sink, I should like to inform him that that is not so. However, when this government took office there were dirty dishes in the sink, and furthermore there was no soap.


Mr. Denis:: You did not wash them. They are still dirty, if they were at that time.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: I should like now to deal with another question entirely, and to make another recommendation to the government. Because of the beauty of the southern tip of Vancouver island, and because of the salubrious climate which makes it unnecessary to buy much fuel to keep warm in winter, this area is a haven for retired people. I have many of them in my riding who are living on pensions. The question with which I am going to deal now is the payment of the old age pension outside of Canada. I cannot see any reason whatever, particularly since the pension is on a contributory basis

now and has been for some years, why Canada should not pay the pension outside of this country if the pensioner desires it.
We have the best of precedents for that course. This action has been taken by Great Britain, by the United States of America, by Australia and by New Zealand. This is only a humanitarian proposition. There would be only a very few such pensioners and there would only be a trickle of dollars going outside the country when compared to the total amount paid. I have so often seen this rule work hardship. You may have an old couple who have lived their lives in this country, been good citizens, paid their taxes, and then when they are old they find their family has been dispersed. The only people in the world whom they have may be a brother or a sister in Scotland, England or France and these pensioners cannot go there. I think this is entirely wrong, and I recommend to the government that the act be amended accordingly.
I would not be dealing with Pacific problems properly if I did not say something about the activities of our premier, this sawdust Caesar who struts around the province of British Columbia like a barnyard rooster talking about the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars. We have a very serious situation there now, and that is the great giveaway to the Wenner-Gren interests in respect to the power on the Peace river. He may have fooled some, but he did not fool me with all this talk about mineral claims, and this and that. No, it was the Peace river water power that they wanted. Now, he says, we have not given away anything; I have not given away a teaspoonful of water-not yet. What he has done is this. He has put a reserve on that water and that land and only allowed this outfit to go in and make surveys.
You know what is going to happen when the surveys are completed and they want to use it. No one else will be able to get it because this organization has it under reserve. There is just one hope for stopping this terrible giveaway, this terrible steal in the province of British Columbia, and that is action by the parliament of Canada. The Peace river crosses the provincial boundary and flows into Alberta. This fact gives us a toehold to stop him; under existing legislation we have something to say about it. I have every confidence that my government will take the proper steps in that connection.
I have requested certain things for British Columbia. I came here as a Canadian first, a British Columbian second, and a Victorian third. But the things I have pressed for are

Canadian. The most westerly port of Canada must be a proper port in every respect. The west coast of Canada is every bit as important as is the east coast. I should like to suggest to this government that they might take a little bit longer look at the western Arctic. There is plenty being done in connection with the eastern Arctic. However, the western Arctic happens to be a great deal closer to the U.S.S.R. than is the Atlantic Arctic. I deprecate it when I hear Canadians indulging in such phrases as "When Russia attacks", "If we have a war with Russia", and "If and when Russia attacks". I do not believe in that sort of thing. I think it is war mongering. It is not good. Nevertheless, let us be realistic. There are places on the Bering strait where you could almost come across from the U.S.S.R. in a rowboat as the area is so narrow. I would commend to the government that more attention be paid to the western Arctic in all respects.
I have just about exhausted my time. I find it most edifying to be here and to be a supporter of this government. My support of the right hon. gentleman who occupies the chair of the Prime Minister in this chamber goes back a long way. I was just looking at the smiling face of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) this morning and remembering the time when, away back in 1942, he and I were two on the team-a very small team it was; a corporal's guard you might say-and we supported that gentleman in his first run for the leadership of the party in Winnipeg in 1942. Our horse did not win but we ran again. We were back in Ottawa in 1948. But then we had a general in charge in the person of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). We lost again.
In those conflicts that group was obliged to take a certain amount of laughter from some of the big wheels in the party and the odd sneer and jeer. One does not like that sort of thing. I do not like to be laughed at. I do not know whether or not some people like it. However, there is an old saying that he who laughs last, laughs best. When the objective was accomplished years later I must say that I did not feel like laughing. Rather I felt edified. I felt that we had accomplished the thing that Canada needed.
As I said before, we are here as Canadians first. If I do not get for my port these things from the Minister of Public Works, at least I will feel that as a Canadian, over those years I have mentioned, I have been in some small but persistent part responsible for placing at the Prime Minister's desk in this chamber the greatest Canadian of all time.
The Address-Mr. Regier


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. McPhillips) I may say at the outset that at one time many long years ago-I believe it was 21 years ago now-I also thought that the hon. member for Prince Albert had considerable ability as a leader and that some day he ought to go far. I must say that it was about 21 years ago that I changed my mind about the abilities of that man to occupy the post of Prime Minister of Canada. I am hoping that the day will yet arrive when the people of Victoria will have a representative who will come to the same conclusion as that to which I came away back in 1938.
I am sure that the people of Victoria who were unemployed last December 31-and there were 4,981 of them, according to the figures of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) -do not have very much to do. They will therefore, without a doubt, take a great deal of pleasure in reading the remarks their member has just made on their behalf in this House of Commons. He reviewed for them some of the history of the province of British Columbia. He castigated the activities of the Mackenzie King government. He complained about the management of the C.N.R. in regard to the new hotel in the city of Montreal. He complained of the rate of fees that ships are obliged to pay when they come to Victoria. I am sure they will somehow be a little bit more brilliant than am I and that they will be able to see how that will help supply them with employment so that they might meet their grocery bills at the end of this month.
Like millions of other Canadians, now that we have returned to what may be called a normal session of parliament, I had expected to see a sincere effort on the part of the government of Canada to meet the needs of the nation. I must express my great disappointment at the absence of progressive, forward looking and aggressive measures in the speech from the throne. I fail to find them. The needs of the people of Canada are great. There is an area of uncertainty that obtains in all walks of life. The millionaire is almost as worried as are the unemployed. Most of us Canadians were looking to this session for some measures to be undertaken that would assure a little bit of stability to the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, opposition members are often misunderstood both by members who support the government and by the electorate at large. We have in this House of Commons a responsibility that members on the government side may not have. There are eight
106	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Regier of us in this group compared with 208 on the government side. There are all kinds of members of parliament whose responsibility, without a doubt, is to tell the people of Canada what wonderful things the government has in mind for them. It is our responsibility to tell the people of Canada of the failings and the shortcomings of the government of Canada. One thing that we intend to do not only this year but in the years to come is to keep on reminding this government of the promises they made in order to obtain the confidence of the Canadian electorate. I think members of this house must agree that that is one of the responsibilities of the opposition.
I am not one who will fail to acknowledge that many good things have been done by this government as well as by former governments. This is my government exactly as it is the government of every other Canadian, and I accept it as such. However, Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to lose my speech in my efforts to become bilingual or to wrap myself in the old flag or some version of a new flag or to have my mind taken away from the needs of the day by some northern mirage or vision. I believe there are urgent problems facing the Canadian people at this time, problems that should be met at a normal session of parliament when political considerations ought to recede into the background. These urgent national problems are not being met by what is contained in the speech from the throne that has been presented to us.
I should like to go a little further afield than our national problems for a moment, Mr. Speaker, because yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) did so. Yesterday my house leader listed the urgent national problems. However, I want to say that we in the western world are facing a decision that we must make. Unless we are willing to plan our own economy and integrate it with the economies of all the other nations of the western or so-called free world we cannot hope to survive in the battle to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday. The well organized, well planned, well integrated nation to nation plan of the communist world is going to win the cold war unless the western world wakes up and decides that we can no longer carry on under the economic anarchy that many of us choose to call free enterprise. We must tighten our belts and buckle on our armour. We must convince the world that people under liberty, freedom and democracy are able to do more than people under a totalitarian regime. We pay a ridiculous lip service to a free enterprise that has long ago ceased to exist, that is


nothing but a wonderful name for economic anarchy which is going to lead us as a nation to a state of chaos and which will lead the western world into losing the battle against the more highly organized and more ruthless totalitarian regime that exists in the world today.
Most of the western world realizes the necessity for taking action. Look at what the nations of western Europe are now doing in forming a common market. But we in Canada and our friends south of the border, and I regret to say that latterly we have made efforts to pull the people of the United Kingdom down with us, think that we can afford the luxury of letting every interest within our borders carry on in its own merry, sweet and selfish way without regard to the effect on our whole way of life and on our society. At this time I should like to read a few words of warning, as found in the Toronto Telegram of August 23 last, that were sounded by Cardinal McGuigan of the city of Toronto when he said:
Perhaps one of the most widely known of all forms of this un-Christian political theory is economic nationalism which often results in waves of propaganda piling up a spirit of insularity, of national hyperconsciousness, of antagonism toward neighbour nations, and excessive tariffs-
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) is listening. I continue:
-embargoes and exchange restrictions backing up in practical form a buy-at-home advertising barrage.
I hope the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is listening. I continue:
Once this tendency to build up nationalism and restrict world trade develops, we note the inevitable consequences of aggression (or defence) for economic reasons and increased poverty and unemployment.
I hope that the people responsible for the government of Canada will think over very carefully the warning sounded by the cardinal in that article. Before I left home we had what we call a legislators' advisory conference. There were other conferences held, and from the hundreds of representations recently made to me I find that our problems are very much the same as when I first entered the House of Commons five years ago, the only difference being that some of them are more acute today than they were at that time. These problems have not been met. One of the favourite reasons put forward by former governments and the present government for not meeting these problems is that we have to spend so much of government revenue to defend ourselves against possible communist aggression.
I have with me a photograph which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on Wednesday, December 17 last. It shows a man sleeping

on a parking lot. For a mattress he has newspapers and for a blanket he has more newspapers. I think it is about time that we took another look at our so-called defence expenditures which now total $1,700 million a year because not attending to the needs of this unemployed man, not attending to the needs of many others like him in Canada, will do more to bring communism than anything the master minds in the kremlin may devise.
I wish to return to the election pledges of the government. I know that they have kept some and may keep others. We are told that some form of crop insurance and a roads to resources program can be expected. We are told that we can expect some action to alleviate discrimination in freight rates and that we can expect more farm credit legislation. I have also noticed in the newspapers that the city of Prince Albert can expect the government to share the cost of a new bridge across the river. I should like to sound a note of warning to the government. I am very happy to read that the government is prepared to share the cost of a bridge in the city of Prince Albert but may I ask this question? Is it a navigable river or will the bridge join two provinces? If the city of Prince Albert is entitled to this, then people in many other parts of Canada have an equal right to ask the government to share the cost of a bridge that may be necessary in their own area.
I have before me a book of election promises of the Prime Minister, other ministers of the cabinet and supporters of the Conservative party. I am only going to refer to the election pledges in the 1958 campaign, although I have with me a much heavier volume containing the election pledges of the 1957 campaign. However, the 1958 book says, among other things, that all the pledges given in 1957 are valid and will be honoured. I have not bothered to look through Hansard in order to refer to all the other promises made on the floor of the house in the past five or six years. However, I believe that the people of Canada have a right to expect the government to show that it takes something more than simply a Machiavelian approach to its election promises and that the government should supply some signs that it intends to honour its election pledges. I am sure if the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) or the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), or the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) had been leading the Conservative party, 10 per cent of those pledges would have been more than adequate for them and for their sense of responsibility; but we had such a vast array that it is not surprising that from the 1958 66968-9-
The Address-Mr. Regier campaign I was able to find over half a hundred election promises which so far I have seen no attempt to meet.
First of all, agriculture was assured that floor prices would bear a fair relationship to the cost of production. The pulpwood farmers were assured that pulpwood would be given a floor price; potato farmers were assured that their commodity would be given a floor price; and farmers as a whole were assured that no Canadian farmer would be allowed to suffer because of the dumping of agricultural products by the United States. Those who think there is too much spread between the price the farmer receives and the price the consumer has to pay were assured-and I am using the words given in the paper-that this "layer of fat" would be trimmed so that the farmer would receive more. Western farmers were assured that the making of deficiency payments would receive some consideration, unless our newspapers are wrong. The Montreal Star of March 17 reported a meeting held in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan on March 15 and the quotation is ascribed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister now says he never gave this assurance; we have to take his word for it, and I do. However, many farmers were under the impression that deficiency payments would receive serious consideration.
I should like to refer now to the vision and to other election pledges which have not been kept and with regard to which there is very little sign that they will ever be kept. There was the promise of an Arctic research program and the development of Arctic sea routes; we were promised that there would be increased self government for the Northwest Territories; it was said we had to speed up development of our Arctic resources because by 1988 Canada's population would reach between 40 and 50 millions. Judging by the way in which the minister has slammed the door on immigration these days I do not think our population will be anywhere near 40 or 50 million people by that date.
We were assured that access roads to the north would be built and that the government would provide $15 million to the provinces towards this end. A railroad was to be built into the north; a road program for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories was going to cost $100 million and, in addition, a federal-provincial cost-sharing program of access roads would, in the words of one minister, cost $75 million-in fact, he got so excited he said it might even be $150 million.
108	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Regier
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) predicted that the program of road building in northern Canada would mean employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The retired employees of Canadian railroads were assured that their demands for pension increases would receive full consideration. We were assured that one of the first acts in the session of the twenty-fourth parliament would be to abolish the rule of closure in Commons debates. We in the province of British Columbia were assured that there would be a joint investment program or other sound financial assistance in the development of Columbia river power. Nothing has been heard of that. Of course, we could not expect anything very definite in March because we were told that no basis of finality could be arrived at until the month of October. October has come and gone and we still have not heard of any basis of finality.
The co-operative movement was assured that the Conservative party would encourage it in every way. Mr. Speaker, I know that movement so well that I can safely say that this government has done absolutely nothing in regard to this particular election promise. We were assured that the leader of the government had very much in mind a second trans-Canada highway. At a later meeting he became a little more excited and added the words "at the earliest possible date". However, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) told us in effect during the last session that we would not be getting any second trans-Canada highway until we had finished the first one and, as he well knows, one of the provinces of Canada has not even begun the first one yet, so the rest of Canada is going to be held up once more in the development of a necessary project because other parts of Canada are slow.
The textile workers were assured that no industry would be subject to the ill effects of dumping. Fruit and vegetable growers were assured that they, too, would be protected against dumping and against the importation of earlier ripening vegetables and fruit. We were told the Canada Elections Act would be amended to reduce the time allowed for election campaigns; we were told that advance poll provisions would be widened so that more than three classifications of citizens could take advantage of the advance poll; we were assured that Canada would assert her sovereignty over her northern territories. Absolutely nothing has been done. A lot of violent anti-American feeling has been aroused, it is true, but no single action has been taken to assure Canadian sovereignty


over her northern territories. Indeed, if anything has been done, the signing of the NORAD agreement has robbed us of some of our sovereignty over our northern territories.
We were assured that by processing in Canada to the largest degree possible all our raw materials we would no longer have to ship them to the United States. I have yet to hear any minister rise in his place and mention one single thing which this government has done to prevent the continuing and growing export from Canada of our raw material resources. Our provincial governments were assured of a new deal and, for a time, we were almost fooled. Sixty-two million dollars more was given to the provincial governments. However, because of the decline in revenue, $50 million of the $62 million has already been lost to the provinces, and the recent rise in interest rates has caused the provincial governments to lose even more. So that under the present government the provinces will get less than they received hitherto under the Liberal government. The municipalities, of course, did not get a new deal at all as they had been led to believe. On October 6 and 7 they were told to go home and raise their tax rates and assessments; they were told that if they could not sell their bonds and debentures they ought to consider carefully raising the interest rates offered.
Our fishermen were assured that they would receive the benefit of floor prices fixed with regard to the cost of production. Nothing has been done about that. A firm stand was promised with regard to the protection of Canadian inshore fisheries against foreign trawlers. Again, nothing has been done about that; the Icelandic government is the only government which has taken a firm stand. We have yet to see what action this government will take to remove discrimination in the matter of freight rates. We were assured that the tight money policy of the former government would be reversed. In fact, exactly the opposite has taken place.
We were assured that interest rates were needlessly high. They are even higher today. In fact, this government handed on a silver platter to the moneylenders of Canada an undeserved gift which over the course of the next twenty-five years, using the Minister of Finance's own figures, will amount to over $1,000 million. That is how the government handles the taxpayers' money with respect to moneylenders but when it comes to the unemployed the government says, "we have to fight inflation and balance the budget."
The Conservatives assured us they would call a conference on national conservation in

the fall of 1958 but that has not been done. They assured us that the application of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act would be extended to all parts of Canada but that has not been done. They told us in certain terms something would be done about the natural gas pipeline but nothing has been done except the appointment of a royal commission. They held out to the people of Newfoundland the hope of aid for the development of hydro power projects and the building of transmission lines. We know what has been done in this respect.
In the city of Vancouver last March we were assured that as far as the recession was concerned we had passed the peak. I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, a responsible and highly respected man, could look at the figures and statistics and read the economic and business barometers and shout out to an audience of 13,000 that they are to ignore all these facts because, "I, the Prime Minister, personally assure you we are past the peak." Mr. Speaker, the mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine.
I remember one other prime minister who in an election in the 1930 campaign put bands of honor on the arms of the unemployed but the revenge came in 1935 and that man went out with a bigger bang than that with which he came in. This may well happen on the Canadian scene five years following the last election.
We were assured that the province of Quebec could rest content in the knowledge that its provincial rights would be safeguarded and cabinet representation from that province would be respected. I notice no leading member of the present cabinet representing that one-third of the Canadian population in the province of Quebec. We were also assured that Canada would not allow United States domination of Canadian industrial enterprise. Absolutely nothing has been done in this regard.
How the Conservatives wept for the plight of the small businessman but there is no indication that financial aid will be made available so that he can expand his business. He was assured of credit so he could expand and meet his larger competitors on more equitable terms. Nothing has been done. The sum of $30,000 was voted in the estimates last year which is enough to build one filling station in one small village in Canada. That illustrates the sympathy this government has shown toward small business.
One of the most pathetic cases of all is that affecting the old age pensioners of Canada and the understanding they had of what might be done for them by this government.
The Address-Mr. Regier I attended some of their meetings just before the new year. Many pensioners mentioned the fact that this government is going to bring in a new social security system and they are hopeful that the Prime Minister will keep that election promise and that they will receive a higher income. What a terrible hoax this is because the implementation of the Clark report or any other report setting up a new national insurance plan will result in the government saying to these old people now on pension, "Look, folks, you did not pay anything into it. This has to be on an actuarial basis so just be content to continue receiving what you now get." It is an appalling thing to mislead these old age pensioners into thinking their cash income will be increased if the government has no intention of doing so.
We were assured that taxation would be revised downward. First of all there would be a radical income tax change affecting most Canadians. There was the vague promise of a tobacco tax cut. Our investors were to be placed on an equal footing with foreigners. We were assured that this government would recapture foreign markets that had been lost, would begin trade with the Chinese communists and would take some trading eggs out of the United States basket. I do not think any minister can cite a single action of this government that has been taken to implement those election promises in regard to recovering our foreign markets.
And then we had the election promise of them all. We all remember how that five-cent piece used to haunt Mackenzie King. I think he had a nickel in his pocket when he was buried. How we heard about that in the 1930 election campaign. But there is another election promise that is going to haunt some people in Canada and it is to the effect that no man or woman is going to suffer from unemployment. I give fair warning that as long as there are unemployed in this country there will be C.C.F. members in this house to rub it in time and time again until this government realizes that it cannot ride out the storm, that the situation is extremely serious and the government is responsible for the welfare of the Canadian people. Certainly an unemployed man sleeping under newspapers in a public place cannot be told he is not going to suffer from unemployment.
I have omitted the pledges made by members of this government to those interested in education or with respect to the rights of parliament, Senate reform or the question of removing the review of divorce from the House of Commons but I feel I have listed enough clear illustrations to demonstrate the record of the government in terms of keeping its election promises.
no

The Address-Mr. Stinson
I say the government cannot deliver the goods because it is enslaved to the moneylenders of Canada. That is so obvious. Its one major economic influence since it took office has been the bond conversion deal. It found $30,000 for the small businessman; $9 million for education and although I do not know what its winter works program will cost I know from personal observation it will not be too much. This government was able to find $1,000 million for the moneylenders of this country and as a result the interest rate will be raised for every provincial and municipal government, hospital and school board, every business enterprise and every individual in Canada. In giving a 50 per cent increase in the take-home pay of the moneylenders of Canada this government did our country more of a disservice than has been done by any government in many a day. The history of the monetary system in Canada in years to come will bear out what I have now said.
The old philosophy that he governs best who governs least is completely obsolete today. Those who subscribe to that philosophy should move into the heart of Africa where there is no government or taxes. Adequate government and a growing concept of the role of government are marks of civilization. The people of Canada will some day realize they will get nothing from the Conservative government and this will be true because they did not sacrifice to elect the present government. Rather the advertising agencies and moneylenders of Canada elected this government and as long as people are willing to sit back and allow vested interests to elect their parliament so long will the people derive little benefit from parliament. They will get only as much as those in office feel they must give in order to once more lure their vote away from them at election time.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Are you against the people of Canada receiving interest on their savings which are invested for them by the money lending institutions of this country?


Erhart Regier: I am in agreement with interest rates being high enough to cover the cost of collection and the risk involved. Anything over and above that is usury which used to cost people their membership in civilized Christian society.


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I first express the sense of privilege which I feel in returning to this House of Commons as the member for York Centre and in having the opportunity of taking part in the work of parliament.

I would first congratulate my friend, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), on the fighting speech he made at the commencement of to-day's proceedings, in which he set out so clearly the measures taken by this administration in the past 18 months to meet the problems of the nation.
I would also like to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. McPhillips), who gave us just a little while ago such a colourful account of the history of his province and of the problems affecting his native city of Victoria. I am sure that many hon. members long after they have left this house and in their old age will remember that speech and read it in Hansard, as I will, with a great deal of pleasure.
These are exciting and critical days and the things that we decide here will have important effects not only on the people of this country but on many people throughout the world. For this reason, I consider it a privilege to be here.
In recent months I have met and talked to a number of people who have come to this country from Europe and other places. They are grateful for the material advantages they find in this country but the most precious thing to them is the freedom which they have in Canada. This parliament is the guardian not only of many of the rights that make up this freedom but it is also the symbol of our democratic tradition. For this reason also I consider it a privilege to be here.
The citizens of Canada, Mr. Speaker, are expecting great things of us in this second session of the twenty-fourth parliament. The problems facing us are complex and in many ways unique. The working out of solutions will require industry, insight and, if I may say so, a certain measure of restraint in the matter of speech-making. We are here primarily to get things done. And, Mr. Speaker, no hysterical, emotional speeches such as we have just listened to from the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) will assist us at all in the solution of those problems. I listened to that speech with careful attention and I must say that in the whole of it there was not one positive, creative idea presented which would assist the administration in the solution of the great problems facing this country.


Mr. Howard:: Have faith in John.


Harold Edward Winch: We thought you had the
answers.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That was before the election.


Frederick Coles Stinson: All of us will agree that in these days there is a new political climate in

Canada, an awareness of the role of parliament and Canada's place in the world. This has not come about by chance. It has happened because of the inspired leadership given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), a kind of leadership without parallel in this country since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald.
May I also express my respect-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It would be appreciated if hon. members permitted the hon. member for York Centre to carry on his remarks without too many interruptions.


Frederick Coles Stinson: May I also express my respect for the colleagues of the Prime Minister who share with him the responsibility of government. I think I have some little idea of the weight of the obligations they have and the constant pressures which surround them. I have said on the hustings and I say here that these are ministers of whom every Canadian can be proud.
I think that the Canadian people expect us to do two principal things during this session: first, to take measures which will promote prosperity and, secondly, to adopt policies and to take actions which will help promote peace in the world. Notwithstanding a slow beginning, 1958 turned out to be a better year than many observers predicted. Our gross national product increased by two per cent. Total exports remained almost unchanged from the year before. Wheat exports increased by almost 50 million bushels. Farm implement sales were greater than the year before. There was also a substantial decrease in our world trade deficit. Personal incomes of Canadians-and this term includes many thousands of Canadians represented by our friends to Your Honour's left-rose by about five per cent and consumer spending was four per cent higher than the year before.
While these are substantial achievements, Mr. Speaker, there are still thousands of Canadian out of work, and it is the first responsibility of this parliament to assist business and industry in the solution of the problem of unemployment. I sometimes think that "problem" in this connection is a pretty inadequate word; for it fails so badly to describe the distress and misery that a man goes through when he cannot find a job.
Equally disturbing is the problem of inflation, which is recognized as the basic danger to the health of our economy by every re-ponsible leader in business and in the trade union movement. One of the contributing factors, of course, has been the increase in the money supply, a 12 per cent increase in the one-year period beginning October 1, 1957. While this increase had some effect in speeding the economic recovery, it is a trend that
The Address-Mr. Stinson must be stopped. Another factor has been the huge spending program on the part of governments at all levels. I think we have to learn that the transfer of money from one sector of the tax-paying public to another does not necessarily produce wealth and that it can have serious inflationary effects.
The only effective answer to inflation is increased production and increased production is achieved only when people work harder and improve their techniques. No democratic country can undertake to force people to do these things. It is our responsibility as individual Canadians to accept higher incomes only when we have earned those incomes by greater productive effort.
One of the major reasons for the economic upturn in many parts of the country has been the government's policy with respect to housing. In the first half of 1957 there was a serious decline in residential construction. Upon coming to power this government introduced legislation which had the effect of requiring a lower down payment and lower income eligibility of people applying for loans under the National Housing Act. More than half a billion dollars has been made available for the construction of houses and other residential units. The government has encouraged limited dividend projects providing low rental housing and the redevelopment of depressed areas in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities.
These policies, Mr. Speaker, have resulted in a spectacular record for residential construction, with housing starts in the year 1958 reaching 163,000, one-third more than the figure for 1957. In my own community of North York township the value of buildings for which permits were issued last year rose to $130 million as against $76 million in 1957, with 10,000 new dwelling units being commenced during the year. It is impossible, of course, to estimate the social effects of this policy of promoting home ownership. The economic effects are felt throughout the whole economy. Serious problems remain. The high cost of serviced land in the suburban areas makes it difficult to build houses at prices that can be paid by low income workers. While municipalities have the major responsibility in this field, this government and the members of this party recognize the need for assistance.
Perhaps the most significant step taken by the government in recent months was the convening of the commonwealth trade and economic conference in Montreal. Here was a meeting of the representatives of 600 million people living in that unique family of nations known as the British commonwealth. Much was achieved. It was agreed
112	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Stinson that it was desirable to expand the resources of the international bank and the international monetary fund. It now appears that there will be a substantial increase in the resources of each of these important international financial agencies. The government of the United Kingdom announced the removal of dollar import restrictions from raw materials and industrial machinery. It was agreed that consideration should be given to the problem of the disposal of subsidized surplus products so that the legitimate markets of the members of the commonwealth would not be impaired. One of the major accomplishments, of course, was the recognition by all representatives of the need for more rapid economic development of the underdeveloped countries. I think we can all take great satisfaction in the increase in Colombo plan aid recently announced by the Prime Minister of this country.
This record certainly is good but, Mr. Speaker, it is still a fact that in this country and in all the western countries we have not yet begun to realize what is going on in the other half of the world in science, in industrial production and in education. While we in this country have been concentrating on becoming more comfortable, reducing our hours of work and finding amusements for our leisure time, the Russians and the Chinese are changing the face of the world. Not only that, but the Russians have reached out into the heavens and a man-made planet is now making its way around the sun. Consider, for example, the comparative figures for the production of steel. In 1958, Great Britain produced 18,902,000 tons of steel, 3 million tons less than was produced the year before. Canada produced 4,359,000 tons, about 2 million tons less than her capacity. The United States produced 85 million tons as compared with 112,700,000 tons the year before. Russia in 1958 produced 60 million tons, an increase of 4.5 million tons over 1957. Production in China was
10,700,000	tons, an increase over 1957 production of 4,800,000 tons.
These are plain facts, which are not changed by conversation about low wage rates and the long working hours of the Russian and Chinese workers. The spectacular achievements of Russia in the scientific fields are well known. Less well known are the accomplishments of the Chinese. Professor J. T. Wilson, who was in China last summer, has recently reported in the Saturday Review on a visit he made to the city of Lanchow. Here, in a city of 800,000 people, there has been established a scientific centre where within 10 years 15,000 technical people will be employed. He saw a library containing


2,600 science periodicals. The equipment was of a high quality and much of the work under the direction of western-trained scientists.
If we fail in this race against the Russians and the Chinese and the other Asian countries we will fail because we have become lazy, fat and complacent. Nowhere have we become more complacent than in the field of education. Last summer I had the opportunity of reading a report made by a young Canadian teacher, Mr. Anthony Frisch, who has made a careful study of the curriculum of the East German and soviet high schools in science and mathematics. Mr. Frisch has studied at Cambridge and McGill universities and has been a classroom teacher in Ontario schools. His report compares the soviet and East German curriculum with that in each of the provinces of Canada.
He points out that in Ontario the courses in mathematics are behind the soviet courses by about three years in the soviet equivalent of grades 9 and 10. In physics, Ontario is behind the soviet by two years in the soviet equivalent of grade 7; one year in the soviet equivalent of grade 9; one year in the soviet equivalent of grade 10; and one to two years in the first part of the soviet equivalent of grade 11. In Ontario, there is no attempt to teach mathematical molecular physics and the thermodynamics which are taught in the Russian counterpart of grade 11. In chemistry, Mr. Frisch reports Russian children are taught more in two years than Ontario children in five. In the final year in Russia, the whole course is devoted to organic chemistry, whereas in Ontario the upper school course includes only three weeks' work in this subject.
In British Columbia, Mr. Frisch reports that in mathematics the courses trail the soviet courses by three years and that the matters covered in the final two years of the soviet high schools are not touched at all. In physics, most of the work taught in the final 2J years of the soviet high schools is not attempted at all.
In the Atlantic provinces, the teaching of mathematics and science falls even further behind what is being done in the Russian high schools. In Russia there are 71 subject units taught in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology in the secondary schools, and in the provinces of Canada the figures are as follows:
British Columbia	 34
Alberta	   42
Saskatchewan	 43
Manitoba	 40
Ontario	 54
Quebec (Protestant	schools)	 48
Quebec (Catholic schools)	 28
Atlantic provinces		 42
Newfoundland	 27

This concentration on intensive training in science and mathematics is not confined to countries under the Russian influence. In the Gymnasia Ivrit secondary school in Jerusalem, the curriculum taught in these subjects is similar to that given in the schools in Russia and in East Germany, and this in a country struggling to meet the basic material needs of the people.
It is my opinion that three things are urgently needed. The first is a vigorous effort on the part of ministers of education to revise the curriculum in mathematics and science. I am persuaded that such a step would be well received by the secondary school students of this country, many of whom would prefer a more exacting curriculum to some of the extra-curricular amusements which are offered up these days.
Second, we require more public money to be spent on education, for equipment, for teachers and for scholarships. At the present time ten per cent of the money spent each year for national defence would pay the total budget for education in the province of Ontario.
Finally, we need to arouse the people of the country to an awareness that this matter has become a national crisis.
As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) said last summer at the Couchiching conference, "crisis" is a very common noun these days, partly because it fits neatly into a headline. As we read the newspapers, every day seems to bring a new crisis. I suggest, however, that some of the most critical things which are happening seldom reach the headlines, and that this falling behind in education is one of them.
I would also propose that in addition to the scholarships agreed upon at the commonwealth trade and economic conference, this government establish awards for study in other parts of the commonwealth in science and in history, the recipients to be known as "commonwealth scholars". While there may be constitutional difficulties in the way of federal government action in this field of education, I think these can be overcome if the Canadian people can be brought to realize that their children and grandchildren may not be equipped to meet conditions in the world as they will find them.
Mr. Speaker, I have touched on some of the things which I believe to require attention in this session. In a free country governments alone do not determine whether or not our goals are achieved. Much depends on the will, the enterprise and the judgment of individual citizens. Government policies and actions, however, remain terribly important. It is our duty as private members in all
The Address-Mr. Godin parties to recommend to the government of the day policies and actions which we think advisable.
We are living in an important era in the history of our country, and we cannot permit ourselves to become downhearted or easily discouraged. I was reading the other day, on the wall of the office of a good friend of mine, a few lines written by Edmund Burke which were as follows:
Those who would carry on great public schemes must be proof against the most fatiguing delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults and, worst of all, the presumptuous judgment of the ignorant upon their designs.
While I believe this statement to be true, I also believe that all of us in this House of Commons can receive great rewards, rewards that will come from great public schemes courageously undertaken.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased that I am being given such an early opportunity to speak in the debate on the speech from the throne so that I may give to members of this house an on-the-spot account concerning the great economic difficulties which our area necessarily suffered since the last session of this parliament.
At the outset I must say that I fully realize that the problem was a provincial one and that, primarily, it had to be settled at the conference table by the union and the management. However, I am pleased to pay tribute in this house to the union of mine, mill and smelter workers, local 598, for the manner in which the strike was undertaken and carried out. As far as I have been able to read in the newspapers, we in our area all feel confident that the strike was carried out with the best of discipline. I am also pleased to congratulate the company which at that time was necessarily faced with a problem. We heard yesterday that there was no existing problem of recession or inflation. I feel that the workers in my area in the face of the rising cost of living, were definitely entitled to make demands for higher wages, something which they have been accustomed to do. I also fully realize that the company, in the face of the present recession and in view of the figures on its books, could not very well afford to increase the cost of its production. That is why I am pleased to offer to both the congratulations which they deserve. Later in my address I will speak of the problem involved, but first I should like to state how greatly the population of our area have appreciated the assistance from the Catholic charities, the Salvation Army and the newspaper Le Droit

The Address-Mr. Godin of Ottawa. All have made charitable donations for the purpose of assisting the needy people in crises of this nature.
Yesterday we had the privilege of hearing three extremely important speeches. As a newcomer in this twenty-fourth parliament, I must say how greatly I was impressed by the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the manner in which he described to this parliament the problems of today. It is my intention to say a few words later about the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) but, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like to discuss the less important matters first.
I should like to make a few remarks about the position of the C.C.F. group in the house. At the beginning of his speech the leader of the C.C.F. group said that as far as he was concerned there was no difference in the speeches delivered by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister and that if they were to change seats in the house all they would have to do would be to exchange notes. I understand this is possible because it is a known fact that the Canadian people have never required the C.C.F. group either to undertake the duties of government or of the official opposition.
The role of the C.C.F. group may be similar to that of an old maid who would undertake to give advice to a young bride on the intricacies and difficulties of marriage. I have heard the further reference that possibly the C.C.F. group in this house may be compared with a drum majorette. There is much high kicking and twirling but the sound does not come from there. The music of proper policies for our country is very confused unless the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) would like to have the house believe that the advantages or disadvantages of queen bee jelly are a major Canadian problem.
Before I go further I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the young member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) for the wonderful contribution he made in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I trust that the hon. member may have further opportunities to present to the house the opinions which he elaborated so well.
(Translation):
I would feel remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I failed to congratulate the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) who, at the very beginning of the second session of this 24th parliament, made in the house the usual remarks in support of the motion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

I noted that he stressed two particular points. First, he outlined what the Conservatives mean by true Canadianism, and he strived to explain Canada's true position within the commonwealth of British nations, as Conservatives see it.
I also appreciated, Mr. Speaker, his reference to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent's statement that the province of Quebec is a province like all the others. Nevertheless,
I am sorry he omitted the substantial attribute added by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, when he stated that the province of Quebec was part of Canada, and Canada part of the commonwealth, so that the whole should be comprised in a single union, though not necessarily a unity, but that there should be union in diversity, without any part being subordinate to the other, so that this country might continue to march forward towards the bilingualism which was the aim of the Fathers of Confederation.
I wonder right now, Mr. Speaker, if the province of Quebec is a province like all the others, in the Conservative sense, when the leader of the Conservative party of the province of Quebec refuses university grants. Moreover, on reading over the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Now-lan) and those of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) in regard to "O Canada", a song which is so highly appreciated in Quebec, I wonder if that province actually is considered a province like the others.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we now have simultaneous interpretation in the house, a move which, as a matter of fact, I supported last year, together with all the other hon. members. However, Mr. Speaker, for all its present convenience, is not this system a complete admission of failure with regard to the progress foreseen by the Fathers of Confederation in a bilingual nation? Mr. Speaker, I believe that this system of simultaneous interpretation is somewhat like the case of a Christian who pays his neighbour to go to church for him. And on this point, I must say that I highly appreciated the position taken by the present leader of the opposition, when this system was up for discussion last year. He wished that the system would soon become unnecessary. I am sure all hon. members will welcome such time as we can probably appoint to the other place the gallant interpreters who are doing such a fine job of simultaneous interpretation.

As to Canada's position within the commonwealth, I wonder if it can be judged by the results of the Montreal conference, where there was more eagerness to get than willingness to give. Is it possible to recognize the true position of Canada within the commonwealth, in the statement of the Prime Minister who wanted-and I think I am repeating his very words-to divert to Great Britain 15 per cent of our trade with the United States.
( Text):
A few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I said that I should like to say a few words about the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday. First, I must say that I was much surprised when he began his speech by saying that the Leader of the Opposition had just repeated what he had been saying throughout Canada. On this score I should like to state that the Prime Minister has bettered that in that yesterday he repeated to us the speech he made a year ago in this very house. Hansard is there to check. First he began with an attack on a two year old motion made by the Leader of the Opposition when he was appointed leader of the party.


An hon. Member:: One year old.


Osias.-J. Godin: I should have said two sessions ago. That was the beginning. The Canadian people-I base this on confirmation I have received from my riding-were also very surprised that the speech contained nothing but doom, gloom, lamentations and the heritage of the government from the former administration.
Possibly his speech was slightly different from last year in the sense that he took ten minutes to introduce remarks concerning his trip around the world, but my recollection is that the only reference made to that tour since the house began was in the form of congratulations by two members who said we were happy to see him return in good health after such a strenuous and possibly fruitful visit. I am pleased at this time to add my word of appreciation on his return, and I am sure I will be supported in this by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) because I recall very well viewing a television performance in which the minister was running out of aspirins as the Prime Minister was away. Last year, during more genial moments, there was laughter brought about when reference was made to the Conservative backbenchers as trained seals. May I be permitted to give a word of warning to the frontbenchers, since they must know that during the course of his visit the Prime Minister has also become an elephant trainer?
The Address-Mr. Godin
Now in referring to this heritage which this present government claims it has received, I wish briefly to describe conditions around Nickel Belt. Firstly, however, may I say we fully recall a certain heritage in the history of Canada, and that was the one left in 1935. We all know that the talk of those days was not gloom and doom; the talk of those days was to rebuild Canada and to bring about the solution of social problems for which I am sure hon. members of the C.C.F. party were very happy to vote- such measures as family allowances and unemployment insurance. This was done, and the Liberal government carried Canada through an awful heritage, through the prewar period, through a very difficult war which was the costliest Canada has ever known, and through an equally difficult postwar period. This, the Canadian people all remember. The Prime Minister has produced statistics to show that everything is on the upswing, that there is no recession and no inflation. I have statistics of my own; they may not be all figures, but they are facts, and I think facts sometimes speak much better than figures.
The people in my area refer to the policy of the present government as an accordion policy; you squeeze both ends against the middle, and in the middle are the Canadian people. I say this because the facts I shall give will bear it out. We had a wealthy industry in our area in the Nickel Belt but the recession is doing something to it. The workers were accustomed to making demands for increases, and they did make those demands on account of inflation and the rising cost of living, but they could not obtain satisfaction. I must say this, and it is a known fact in my area: since the Conservative party came into power 11 voting subdivisions have been closed because lumbering industries have been closed and because there are no people living there. In addition, mines have closed and, with regret, I must say that four mines have been closed in my own area since the Conservative party came to power. These may not be statistics but they are facts. I say with regret that the Conservative candidate who opposed me was an employee of one of those mines which have closed, and that he became unemployed thereby.
The Prime Minister indicated to this house that he did not follow the calculation of the Leader of the Opposition when he stated that the old age pensioners had lost $2 of their pensions. I think I can better this, Mr. Speaker. Visiting my riding a short while ago I met an old gentleman of about 72. He had three sons. Of course, we discussed politics as people usually do when they meet their representative in parliament, and he stated

The Address-Mr. Godin that he was a supporter of the present government and that he was impressed by the $9-that was the major reason for his support of the party. That was his confession to me. He told me he wanted me to meet his three sons. I was introduced to the three sons, all fathers of young families, and then he said: "Sir, these three boys had been working steadily for 15 years, earning $300 a month each. What happened was I got my $9 by voting for the present government, but my family has lost $900 a month." That speaks more strongly than statistics.
Now I turn to the Inco strike. As I said earlier, I fully realize that this is a provincial matter and that it involves a dispute between labour and management, but the cause is very interesting to seek. What actually happened? Hon. members can check Hansard for last year, and they will find that when I had occasion to make my first speech in this house I asked the government to give us the accustomed Liberal prosperity, in which case they would solve 85 per cent of the problems in my riding. We have known for many years that we are a wealthy section, but we also know that we could lose all that very quickly. The people of my area remember what happened last fall. How did it occur?
The workers were asking for more because the cost of living was higher, and that was correct. However, the company felt that it could not increase its cost of production at that time because they had lost markets, possibly due to the diversion scheme, and because they were not able to sell to the extent they were selling before. Here I have a copy of a brief in which is set out a good foundation for the understanding of the problem which arose in the nickel industry. After 18 pages of statistics and an analysis of the conditions facing the company, the submission concludes with a passage which I would be pleased to call as a witness and make part of Hansard. It is the conclusion of the brief presented to the conciliation board, and I quote:
These current conditions have been clearly reflected in the company's profits. As compared with 1956, the year in which the last negotiations with the unions took place-
That is true. The last negotiations in the area in the industry took place in 1956 before this government was elected.
-the net earnings for 1957 were down by an amount in excess of $10 million. So far as the first quarter of 1958 is concerned, the net earnings were little more than one-half the net earnings for the same quarter in 1957. The net earnings for the second quarter of 1958 are substantially less than one-half the net earnings for the second quarter of 1957. In short, the net earnings of this

company for the first six months of 1958 are $21,401,000 as compared with $45,601,000 for the first six months of 1957-
And listen to this:
-and compared with $51,772,000 for the first six months of 1956.
That is the heritage which was left in 1956, and that is what the present government has done to it. I may say, further, that in a notice published in the local newspaper the company repeated the difficulties which it was encountering, and we read the following paragraph:
Against this background it was obvious that the company could not raise its production costs by continuing the unbroken record of substantial increases in wages and fringe benefits it had maintained over the past 14 years.
That is the heritage about which we are now complaining. That is what happened. Crude statistics cannot compare with a proper review of conditions in the Nickel Belt area.
On many occasions I have had the pleasure of discussing with municipal officials the problems with which they are confronted. It has been announced that within a few weeks that a program of winter work will come into effect to cure various problems. What problems will this cure? Winter work is nothing but relief. We are all happy to accept winter work for our municipalities because there is no doubt that the unemployed must find a means of providing food for their families but the tendency to rely on this type of program as a remedy for situations of this kind is an old routine. In my younger days I was employed in the same fashion under the Bennett regime digging ditches on highways and cutting brush along creeks. A program of this kind is not a valid solution to the problem which the Canadian people expect this government to solve.
The people of this country do not wish to be kennel dogs living off unemployment relief or family allowance checks and give-away winter jobs lasting three weeks. The Canadian worker wants instead to be a bird dog, one that can go out and catch a bird and thus feather the nest for his family. They want the opportunity of securing permanent employment. I realize that the unemployed worker must accept the employment offered him under programs of this kind in order to provide for the immediate needs of his family but his ambition is to find permanent work. I am surprised that the attitude of the present government should be one of patting the unemployed worker on the head and telling him not to worry because the winter works program will soon come into effect. The government has had many opportunities in the last seventeen months to undertake constructive measures to meet this situation. The attitudes

The Address-Mr. Weichel
presently displayed by members of the government are those we have witnessed before and they do nothing to alleviate the hardships created by the problem of unemployment.
A matter of some interest to the people of my riding is the objection this government had to a motion which I had occasion to bring forth at the time when the question of income tax deductions was under discussion in this house. A little bait was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in that the cost of an ambulance to a licensed hospital was to become deductible from income tax. I have discussed this with people in my riding and they asked me to come back and tell this government to amend this statute further. Of course the government had ample opportunity to do it last year. The deductibility of fees for ambulances to licensed hospitals extends to a small group in Canada and applies to a group that does not need such assistance. We know that ambulance service exists only in the larger centres in Canada and extends only within five or ten miles of a licensed hospital.


Mr. Fraser:: You are wrong there.


Mr. Ricard:: He has been wrong all along.


Osias.-J. Godin: I have no figures to produce but there is no ambulance service whatever in my riding. My riding is five miles from Sudbury. You can call an ambulance to Foleyet but it will take two days to arrive from Sudbury and will have to traverse five ridings in order to get there.


An hon. Member:: But it will be deductible just the same.


Osias.-J. Godin: But a man injured in the bush will be dead by the time the ambulance arrives or at least by the time it reaches the hospital. I see no argument against extending this principle. It is definitely a flaw in that legislation as it stands. A person who lives far from a licensed hospital receives no benefit from this provision.
Hon. members appear to want to ask me questions and I would like to have the same right at this time. I want to know why only those people who can obtain ambulance service are entitled to make the deduction?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are you against it?


Osias.-J. Godin: Let the Minister of Finance explain to this house why only the cost of ambulance service should be deductible. We know that in cases of emergency people must sometimes be flown to hospital.
I could speak of many other problems that confront the people of my riding but
I realize that I shall have other opportunities to bring them to the attention of this house. I am pleased on this occasion to support the amendment presented by the Leader of the Opposition. This amendment provides the government with an opportunity of thinking things over and bringing about concrete solutions to the serious problems it is called upon to remedy. I noted that the Prime Minister begged from the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members advice as to what solutions might be introduced by it and I recommend to them the words of my leader. But at the same time I note that the Prime Minister refuses to permit the adjournment of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in order to discuss concrete measures which this government might adopt to meet the grave and pressing problems besetting the Canadian people.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the older of the new members, I wish to congratulate you, your deputy and the chairman on your appointments to the important positions you hold in this house. In your office as Speaker you have the responsibility of upholding the rights of both the minority and the majority and we are all confident that you will as you have demonstrated in the past.
This is my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, and I deem it a great honour to be standing up here in the House of Commons only a few seats from where my uncle, the late W. G. Weichel, sat more than two score years ago. As a young boy, I avidly followed the career of my uncle in parliament and never dreamed that some day I would succeed him. As it turned out, I was elected the first Conservative member in my constituency since my uncle was defeated in 1917. I hope that my stay here in Ottawa will be as productive as was that of my uncle and that he, as the parliamentarian he was, will be proud of my efforts here. Even over that long span of 41 years, there are still members in this house, like the hon. member from Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) who remember my uncle in parliament.
I would like to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the speech from the throne. I am sure that the country will hail the many worthwhile things the government expects to do in this session as outlined in the throne speech. Probably of most significance to my riding of Waterloo North were the planned aid to farmers, the boost for home building and the assistance to exporters, veterans and the unemployed.
The many exporters in my industrial riding of Waterloo North probably see much good

The Address-Mr. Weichel in the government's aim to change the Export Credits Insurance Act, which will help to insure them against non-payment by foreign buyers. Farmers, too, gained much hope from the contents of the throne speech. The move to institute farm crop insurance and the planned review and revision of farm credit legislation should be a boon to my agriculture-conscious riding, as well as to others.
Although Waterloo North has not been hard hit by unemployment, the changes proposed in the Unemployment Insurance Act prove the intention of this government to deal effectively with this problem. I cannot pass by this opportunity to congratulate the government on its proposal to establish a national energy board. Oil and natural gas interests have been awaiting this move and the formation of such a body will regulate the proper use of these important resources.
Before giving hon. members an outline of the highlights of my constituency I would like to say that it has produced some of Canada's greatest statesmen. The long-time prime minister Mackenzie King was born in Kitchener. His birthplace "Woodside" has been maintained by citizens who honoured and respected him. The hon. member of the Senate, W. D. Euler, was elected to this house in 1917, and since that time has sat either here or in the Senate. To continue my relationship with former members in this house, the Hon. Mr. Euler is my cousin. Not a relative, but a close friend and distinguished statesman, the Hon. Louis O. Breithaupt is also Waterloo North born and bred. As hon. members know, he served Waterloo North for many years before being elevated to the post of lieutenant governor of the province of Ontario. Another friend was my predecessor, Norman C. Schneider, who is known to many hon. members here. An old army buddy of mine in the first world war, Mr. Schneider served the constituency well during his stay here.
Waterloo North, which I inherited from Mr. Schneider, is one of the most heavily concentrated areas in Ontario in both industry and population. It boasts one of the best farming areas in the dominion. Waterloo North was settled by Mennonites of Pennsylvania German extraction, who came to our district on a 600-mile-long trek in Conestoga wagons from Pennsylvania. They were joined by British settlers and down through the years by Polish, Ukrainian, Hungarian, German, Austrian, Italian, Jewish and many others, making this one of the most cosmopolitan centres in Canada. The Mennonites of the district, a sect not unlike the Quakers, have stayed on and today operate a big portion of the rich farms of Waterloo North.

The twin communities of Kitchener and Waterloo, with a total population of some
80,000,	are the largest municipalities in my constituency. These two cities have a total of 280 firms manufacturing hundreds of diversified products. Kitchener, the larger centre, has 205 industries, with a yearly production valued at $181,321,000, a figure which places this city fourth in Ontario and ninth in the Dominion of Canada. Gross value of production has increased over 100 per cent since 1944.
With a large acreage of land now available for industrial expansion, indications are that many more firms from the United States, England and continental Europe will settle in the city. Many of those which now rate as the city's leading industries had humble beginnings and are managed at the present time by third or fourth generation descendants of the original founders.
Probably Kitchener's best-known industries are its rubber and meat packing firms. The meat packing plants are J. M. Schneider Limited and Burns and Company (Eastern) Limited. The rubber industries, B. F. Goodrich Canada Limited, Dominion Rubber Company of Canada and Kaufman Rubber Company, along with Kitchener Button Industries Limited, hailed the government's move last year to tighten anti-dumping laws. It was proof to them that the Conservative government is interested in all their problems. However, leaders of these firms and others look for more assistance in the future.
Another young and thriving industry in this city is the Dominion Electrohome Industries Limited which has expanded considerably recently because of the publics interest in its products, namely television and electronic devices.
In an effort to keep these factories humming, the Kitchener chamber of commerce has designated February 13 to February 23 as Kitchener's products week. Every retail store in the city will donate a window for the display of products made by Kitchener workmen. To lend novelty to the mass merchandising display, a jewellery store will display meat products, for example, and possibly a ladies' wear store will show tires. It is hoped that the displays will encourage area consumers to buy Kitchener-made goods and keep the home town workmen busy throughout what is usually the peak unemployment season.
Kitchener's twin sister, Waterloo, is probably best known as the Hartford of Canada. Within its borders are the head offices of six insurance companies employing about 1,500 people. Total assets of these companies exceed $750 million. No other city in Canada has

such a large percentage of its economic activity embodied in the insurance business. Their business covers the length and breadth of Canada and includes branches in several foreign countries.
Although insurance rates as Waterloo's chief industry, the city's fame has also been spread through the manufacture of alcoholic beverages. Joseph E. Seagram and Sons Limited, which celebrated its hundredth anniversary last year, has grown to become the world's largest distiller. The Seagram organization includes not only six large plants in Canada but others in the United States, Scotland, Jamaica and Puerto Rico.
On the other side of the thirst-quenching scale, Waterloo also produces beer from the large concern of Carling Breweries Limited. It employs 385 people in its Waterloo plant and its annual payroll is $1,450,000. Another well-known brewery, Dow-Kingsbeer, makes its home in Kitchener.
Waterloo College associate faculties is the centre of one of the newest experiments in higher education being conducted in Canada. Two years ago it introduced a co-operative engineering course that combines periods in the classroom with alternate stays in industry. The co-operative plan, revolutionary in Canadian education, has focussed a great deal of interest on the Waterloo College campus. By 1965 the college which now has close to 1,000 students expects to expand to have an enrolment of 3,500. Coupled with this is an energetic construction program which will give the campus 19 new buildings in the next seven years. It is expected early in the new year that the Waterloo institution will be given a degree-granting charter and become Waterloo university.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Oscar William Weichel: May I continue my remarks about the city of Waterloo, Mr. Speaker? Waterloo is also the home of the biggest band festival in Canada, and probably in the world. This band festival yearly attracts to the city between 15,000 and 20,000 people and provides competition for over 1,000 young musicians taking part in the brass, bugle, trumpet and reed bands as well as individual competitions, a real worthwhile effort to assist our youth in music. This year some 80 bands from Canada and the United States took part in the three-hour long parade to Seagram stadium, a $250,000 structure donated to the city last year on the occasion of the Seagram firm's centennial.
The Address-Mr. Weichel
While there naturally is friendly rivalry between cities set so close together, there is also co-operation. The cities derive the benefit of a common hospital, a common secondary school educational system, trolley bus service, orphanage, service clubs and sports organizations. Thousands of Kitchener and Waterloo residents travel between the two cities daily to and from their employment. As an illustration of the complexity of the situation, I may say that only a few years ago the mayor of Waterloo worked in Kitchener, while the mayor of Kitchener lived in Waterloo. Twin city residents are proud of their homes and they are great churchgoers. More than 90 per cent of the people belong to the many churches situated there, and the cities rank among the top three in Canada in home ownership.
In discussing my constituency, I cannot forget my home town of Elmira where I was supervisory postmaster for over 35 years. I might say that at the moment my brother is the mayor of Elmira. It is a thriving little centre of some 3,000 people and its largest industry is the Naugatuck Chemical Company which pioneered in the production, so far as the British empire is concerned, of a type of synthetic rubber, 2-4D, and D.D.T. Under the direction of the Elmira recreational council, this town has won some 15 Ontario hockey association and Ontario minor hockey association championships. The Ontario minor hockey association, of which I had the privilege of being president in 1952 and 1954, is the largest minor hockey organization in the world, and sponsors almost 30,000 boys yearly. I might mention too that it has been my privilege to be associated with the Ontario hockey association, and the Toronto hockey league, two of the finest organizations in the world.
Whatever I am now, and whatever I have been in life, Mr. Speaker, there are two things I most assuredly am, a sportsman and a veteran. There is a tie-up between those two things because it was the loss of my right leg in the trenches during the first world war that cut short a possible professional sports career for me. It is on these two subjects, sports and the world of veterans, that I should like to speak now.
In the last few years international sports have become of increasing importance to countries. Russia, which has made amazing strides militarily, economically and scientifically in the past three decades, has vaulted into the spotlight of the sports world through its Olympic victories. Canada, too, has gained a good share of that spotlight, largely through the winnings and losings of her hockey teams

The Address-Mr. Weichel in international competition. My own constituency of Waterloo North was proud to send its Kitchener-Waterloo Dutchmen to Cortina in 1956 to compete in the Olympic games. Although the Dutchmen lost, they added to Canada's stature by the good impressions they made in Europe when they played in Germany, Czechoslovakia, France, Holland, Italy and Great Britain. Everywhere they went they were hailed as sportsmen, fine competitors and good ambassadors for this country. Mr. George Dudley, veteran secretary-manager of the Canadian amateur hockey association announced on January 2 that the Kitchener-Waterloo Dutchmen were named as Canadian representatives to compete in the 1960 winter games at Squaw Valley, California. They will be noteworthy representatives of Canada, Mr. Speaker.
These teams are always hampered by lack of funds. While the governments of other countries back sports development programs financially, our federal governments so far have offered no encouragement to athletics. The big stumbling block is money. It takes a lot to provide adequate facilities and operate a development plan. So far the federal governments have not assumed any portion of the costs of either training athletes or sending them to international competitions. Organizations such as the Canadian amateur hockey association in hockey and the Canadian Legion in track and field, and individuals, have had to carry the heavy financial burden. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that it is now time for our government to take a look at things. A ministry of sports and athletic development might be the answer. With government assistance, we might reach the day when we could send national teams abroad without forcing their leaders to go begging for funds to make the trip.
Millions of dollars are spent each year on cultural development in this country. I am in total accord with this, as any fair-minded sportsman would be. I also feel, however, we should spend a similar amount on the physical and athletic development of our young Canadians. Let the government look at the by-product of sports events. There is the goodwill the competition fosters for Canada; the easing of international tension through international sports; the raising of the prestige of the country through participation; and the example the sportsmen on these teams set for our youth. So far Canada has not achieved the place in international competition which the potential we have warrants. However, with proper assistance that goal is attainable.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am a veteran, and as a veteran I have strong feelings about Remembrance Day and its observance. Although I feel in my own heart that a day with such resounding significance as November 11 should be observed as a holiday,
I realize that this is not the wish of all veterans' organizations. Both these organizations, however-and I join them-strongly urge the government to lead the country in a proper observance of this day that means so much to us. Perhaps the main thing this government can do is to stifle any move to shift the observance of November 11 to the nearest Sunday. If the observance of this occasion were moved to any other day, it would be to brush off with little thought the contribution our veterans have made by laying down their lives for our freedom. I, as a veteran who has hobbled on one leg for longer than I walked on two, cannot forget the contribution of those who lost eyes, arms, legs and even their minds in past conflicts. I cannot see how any group would back a move to lessen in any way the importance of our Remembrance day.
It is beyond my comprehension why some school officials, who have backed a move to abolish Remembrance Day as a school holiday, are still content to let the children out of school on days that have no significance to them, such as Victoria day which is not even recognized in England, the home of that gracious queen. It has been said that school children cannot understand the significance of Remembrance Day. Those who have fathers who were wounded or who died in past conflicts surely have some comprehension of it. If the others do not, it is time they were taught in the schools. A child's mind can comprehend much more difficult things than that.
I plead, therefore, with the government to lead this country in a more significant remembrance of those days in 1918 and 1945, so that Canadians do not fall into a lethargy in which praise of our dead becomes merely a sentimental practice.
(Translation):


Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I want to associate myself with previous speakers in tendering my most sincere congratulations to the hon. members for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) who respectively moved and seconded the address in reply.
As I am one of the first if not indeed the first, member from the provincec of Quebec to rise in this debate, I would reserve the

right to comment on certain parts of the speech made by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet.
In my humble opinion, the speech from the throne contains nothing which might restore that confidence and feeling of security given to the Canadian people by the former government.
Yet, in this period of uncertainty, the people of Canada had reasons to count on government action to solve, if not entirely, at least in part the problems we are facing.
I have listened with great attention to the speech which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) made last night and he left us with the impression that everything was going fine in this country. I wonder whether, if he had made the same speech before an audience made up of unemployed people or of farmers hard pressed to dispose of their products, he would have scored as much success as he did achieve in this house, before his numerous supporters.
I believe the picture drawn by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) gives a much better idea of the economic situation confronting us at this time. Unemployment is an evil which is still rampant in Canada, and our workers are in a situation they are helpless to relieve, since it is largely a responsibility of our leaders and it remains with the federal government to do something about it. In fact the federal government has recognized its share of responsibility, and brought down at least one measure designed to check that plague. I refer here to the action proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister shortly before his trip, and contained in a telegram which he sent to the premier of the province of Quebec, as well as to all the other premiers of the provinces of Canada, I suppose.
It was an offer by this government to take care of 50 per cent of the salaries and wages to be paid directly by municipalities to their contractors from December to April inclusive, on works which normally would not be undertaken in the wintertime.
On November 20 last, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) sent us copies of federal government proposals in connection with its program for promoting winter employment in our municipalities. The suggestions were contained in the copy of a letter addressed to the provincial premiers.
After considering that offer of encouragement by the federal government, our municipalities were alarmed at the scanty benefits
The Address-Mr. Racine provided by that federal assistance offered as an encouragement, and instead they gave way to despair.
The financial situation of our municipalities is most precarious, and we have only to glance at the statistics to realize that, far from getting better, the situation is getting worse. Thus, municipal liabilities which amounted to 466 million dollars in 1945, exceeded one billion dollars in 1956.
In the present state of their finances, municipal corporations and authorities will be largely compelled to forgo this program. The share promised by the federal government will be of no use to them, because the works recommended have to be carried out in winter time, will therefore cost more than if carried out in the summer time, and the percentage of this extra cost is far in excess of the proffered federal assistance.
Some of the permissible works can be carried out in winter, but engineers agree that they require so much additional care that the percentage provided by the federal government is way below the actual costs involved.
It is no easy matter to put in waterworks and sewers, especially in heavy snow, and I suppose that the Montreal authorities are perfectly aware of this just now. It is no cinch either to build sidewalks in a temperature of 20 below zero.
In our district, at least, those projects will in no way contribute to relieve unemployment, because our municipalities will not be able to take advantage of them, and will act wisely in not overlooking the fact that if the federal government offers to pay only half of the salaries, and the municipality has to pay the other half, in addition to other costs, they will be compelled to borrow at rates which are currently higher than they have ever been in Canada.
In my humble opinion, the program proposed by the federal government will fail of its objective and will in no way help relieve unemployment.
If the government really wanted to help the municipalities, it would loan them the necessary funds, without interest, or at least at a very low rate, to enable them to undertake municipal works at any time. This would also help relieve their financial burden and would enable them to provide certain urgently needed services in many communities.

The Address-Mr. Racine
Another problem which I should like to point out, one which is highly prevalent in my area, is the problem which faces thousands of people in my riding and, of course, in the whole area, who have to go across the border to work in the bush camps of Maine and New Hampshire.
I discussed this matter at length last session and pointed out to the Minister of Labour the situation facing these thousands of bush workers who could not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits.
I understand that agreements now exist between Canada and the states of Vermont and New York, and I urge the Minister of Labour to do whatever is required so that these thousands of people who earn wages in the United States and spend them in Canada may qualify for unemployment insurance.
On this particular point, I hope the hon. members representing this area, who were joined recently by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, will take a stand on this issue, and will urge the federal government to get in touch with the authorities concerned, in order that an agreement be reached as soon as possible for the benefit of the many citizens of our area.
I also wish to submit to the house a resolution I have received from the local employment advisory committee of Beauce county, urging an increase of the allowable earnings, for the purpose of unemployment insurance. This would have the effect of stimulating the workers' search for employment.
In this same connection, it would help if December were added to January, February and March for the purposes of seasonal unemployment in rural areas and if November were considered the waiting period. These changes would allow contractors to keep their heavy equipment in good repair and would more effectively interest them in the matter.
Last year, the government made a substantial attempt to promote housing construction in this country, but unfortunately, this effort has not been and will not be as successful outside the cities.
Housing capital is largely supplied by life insurance companies, and these are hardly interested in rural investments.
It might be a good thing if the federal government were to guarantee housing loans

made by credit unions on the same basis as it does for life insurance companies, so as to favour construction and give all families a chance to become house-owners. Indirectly, this would surely ease the pressure of seasonal unemployment.
In the field of agriculture, recent statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) have puzzled many farmers.
In a Canadian Press dispatch published in Le Droit, last November 12, the hon. minister is quoted as saying:
If surpluses become so large that they can't be disposed of or even, in some cases, given away it will be impossible for us, under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, to keep prices at present level, and even less to increase them.
And the hon. minister added:
I do not believe that the Canadian people would accept quotas on farm production; my own convictions and those of the government are entirely opposed to such a regimentation of the farming industry.
And the minister goes on to say:
There is no other choice but educational work, propaganda and the pressure you can put on those you represent, so that they voluntarily refrain from producing more than Canadians are capable of consuming, and than our world export markets are able to absorb.
The minister stated these gloomy findings in connection with the federal-provincial conference of the ministers of agriculture, which took place in Ottawa last November 12.
I do not know which particular product the minister had in mind, but it must be admitted that it is difficult to see how our farmers, either in my riding or in any area of eastern Canada, could possibly cut down their production which in some cases, at this time, already yields them inadequate revenues.
I hope and wish that the government will take every appropriate action to dispose of our farm produce, for if our eastern farmers should decrease their production, I am afraid it would mean the death knell of farming in our area because farmers would not earn enough to stay on the farm.
I cannot possibly talk about agriculture without drawing the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a problem which exists in and around the constituency of Beauce. Hon. members will not be surprised if I say a few words about maple products.
It certainly will be no surprise if the member from Beauce talks about maple products. Besides, my predecessors have done so in the past, and last session I personally drew

the minister's attention to this matter. If I find it necessary to bring it up again it is because there has been no change in the picture. However, one thing did change, and it seems to me that hon. members of constituencies where maple products are on the increase are less insistent than some of their predecessors in requesting that the government include those prices in the agriculture stabilization act.
I do hope that several members will cooperate and urge the government to make it possible for our farmers to take advantage by next spring of legislation which surely would help them out.
And whatever importance may be attached to the material aspect, one should not overlook the intellectual aspect. It seems to me that a good way to assist in the field of education would be for the government to raise the age limit of those qualifying for family allowances.
Family allowances now range from $5 to $8 a month and stop at age 16, an age when a youth still in school needs them most, and at a time when parents' obligations are heaviest if they want their children to carry on their studies.
It would therefore be most important to provide parents with the means of dealing with the situation, and the best way to do so would be to prolong and increase the family allowances for students, male or female, aged 16 or more, who are carrying on advanced studies.
Such a solution would certainly help many Canadians and facilitate access to high school and university education.
Furthermore, the detailed implementation of such a system would be accepted by all and would not involve any problem of intervention or autonomy, while respecting, under the circumstances, the authority of the parents.
Finally, I should like to make a few remarks about certain points raised in the speech made by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, particularly in regard to federal-provincial relations and more especially in regard to the province of Quebec.
As a matter of fact, the speech made by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet is, on several points, at variance with statements made by his colleagues of the provincial government in our province.
The Address-Mr. Racine
Among other things, he had this to say about the Colombo Plan:
That is why I believe that the first duty of the Canadian nation is to accept generously the sacrifices which may be asked of her, sacrifices which will allow us to help those under-developed nations, so that at last they may turn away from communist propaganda, and may once and for all see the light that is being held out to them by the free nations.
Here is now what he had to say about immigration:
We, in the province of Quebec, have witnessed a complete transformation of our economy, often due to the new Canadians who have come in our midst. In the political field, a mere glance around this house reveals that all Canadians, of whatever origin, have sent here members of different origins, who are a new asset to this parliament.
And then the hon. member added that the province of Quebec was not different from the others, and I quote another passage from his speech:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I express quite frankly and quite sincerely the true feeling of the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec is a province like any other province.


Mr. Fortin:: Quite true.


Jean-Paul Racine: I am glad to hear this applause by many members from the province of Quebec when I say that the province of Quebec is like the others. As recently as September 9, 1958, according to a Canadian Press dispatch, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) stated that Conservative members from the province of Quebec were of the opinion-as are Mr. Duplessis and the provincial cabinet-that federal subsidies were an encroachment on provincial rights in the field of education.
What then shall be done with the millions of dollars earmarked for us if, on the one hand, Quebec is like the other provinces? I wonder why we should not accept those grants. If, on the other hand, the province of Quebec is different from the others, I wonder why Conservative members from that province have not laid down any conditions when, at the last session, those grants were increased.
As far as gifts under the Colombo plan are concerned, why did Conservative members from Quebec, during the last session, vote in favour of an increase while saying in their province that the provincial government gave to Quebec and the federal government to foreign countries?


Mr. Tremblay:: This has nothing to do with the matter.


Jean-Paul Racine: There are many questions we could put to Conservative members from Quebec!

The Address-Mr. Racine


Some hon. Members:: Put them.


Adrien Meunier: You never answer.


Jean-Paul Racine: It might be well to repeat what the Right Hon. Prime Minister said yesterday when he stated: "they remind me of cuckoos who repeat themselves and whom nobody listens to". This sentence could well be applied to hon. members who are always butting in.


Mr. Johnson:: Would the hon. member from Beauce permit a question? I heard him say several times a few moments ago-he even quoted the hon. member from Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) amongst others-that to his mind the province of Quebec was like all other provinces. I would like to know if the hon. member for Beauce shares the views of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet?


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly answer the hon. member who just asked me a question. In the past we did approve the policy of the former Liberal administration; we approved it in the province of Quebec as well as in other parts of the country. We did not have one policy for the province of Quebec and a different policy for the rest of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh! Answer the question!


Jean-Paul Racine: Now that we are a province similar to the other provinces, will we take advantage of a piece of legislation passed in 1955 by the Liberal government, providing for the payment of a special financial allowance to the unemployed who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits or do not qualify for such benefits? The federal government pays 50 per cent of these allowances which are enjoyed by the provinces other than Quebec.
I also ask the Conservative members of Quebec province whether our province shares in hospital insurance and in the extension of the trans-Canada highway.


An hon. Member:: Ask Mr. Jean Lesage.


Jean-Paul Racine: We would be most interested to know the position of Quebec Conservatives on these various matters during the present session.
In a word, to summarize the speech from the throne, I would refer to an editorial which appeared in the Gazette of January 19, over the signature of Mr. Arthur Blakely. I quote this statement which, to my mind, contains that which certain Conservative
members regard as most important and most interesting:
(Text):
You can bet your bottom dollar that as far as some 175 members who are concerned the most interesting question of the speech from the throne was the one which gave notice of the government's intention to seek the passage of a statute to authorize the appointment of parliamentary secretaries to ministers of the crown.
(Translation):
It is high time that members of the government come out of their lethargy. It is high time that they stop making speeches and take positive steps likely to bring wise and worth-while solutions to the many problems which have spread anxiety and concern among the people of Canada. Let them do that before trying to prove that the government is dealing with existing problems, and is not entirely taken up in playing politics.


Mr. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temiscamin-gue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish, first of all, to
offer my warmest and sincerest congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Fortin). What impressed me most in these two speeches, was first of all the true personality of those two young members. They represent here very dissimilar parts of this country; they have different cultures and professions, different family backgrounds. The member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) is, I think, of Nordic origin; thus, he represents quite gallantly this valiant Scandinavian race from the North and others who have come to this country during the last few years, and particularly since the beginning of the century, and who have contributed, like other groups of this country, to our development. On the other hand, the member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) represents the French Canadian race. He is a descendant of the pioneers of this country, whose grandfather and father sat in this very house. One of them represents a western riding, Provencher, in Manitoba, gateway to the great prairies which comprises such a promising area and which is now blessed with a remarkable development. On the other hand, the member for Montmagny-L'Islet represents a riding lying at the very heart of this country. It is linked with the fertile lands of the St. Lawrence river and is quite close to the old capital city of the province of Quebec, close to the citadel which Canadians know, admire and in which they find inspiration.
Those two members have a different culture. One of them, in addition to being

a farmer, is a farm leader who knows how to express himself and who discussed agricultural issues with such accuracy and clarity that it was stated on the floor of the house that his was the best speech made on agricultural problems.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet is a young lawyer. Although he comes from a family of professional people he has developed an interest in problems encountered in all walks of life.
Those two young men speak different languages, but they speak it with the same accent, the same ideal and the same love for our Canadian country.
That is a living proof, I submit Mr. Speaker, of national unity. Incidentally, it is not by stirring up strife and quarrels such as some members have tried to raise, that national unity which we cherish so much will ever be achieved.
Mr. Speaker, a great leader of our party, and also a great Canadian, one of the makers of this country, one of the fathers of confederation, once said that the Conservative party would be a national one, or would not exist at all. Nowadays it is again the spirit of our party, in the person of a great Canadian, the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, our present Prime Minister, who was able to introduce unity into this diversity, has restored our country to the rank of nation and will direct her towards the destiny which we know to be in store for her.
This is the reason why we are going to struggle and work to solve the serious problems which face our country today.
Mr. Speaker, wailings and lamentations were not a creation of the Liberals. They have always existed.
If we study the history of an era not so remote, the end of the Middle Ages, the period of great discoveries, for instance the time when the discovery of printing had spread new ideas and also the time when adventurous men looked beyond known frontiers and moved towards the unknown, an era when men were not afraid to go forward and discover America and that era of prosperity, of adventure and of greatness that humanity has known, we note that there existed then, just like today, calamity howlers. Moreover, if we draw nearer to our time, again we find calamity howlers. At the end of the last century, those calamity howlers took pleasure in saying that the end of the world was at hand.
When the first motor vehicle and other such inventions were launched, those calamity howlers then declared:	"You cannot make
The Address-Mr. Martineau use of those things, because man was made to travel at a maximum speed of 28 miles an hour. If you exceed this limit, you are exposing yourself to danger and you will perish.''
However, we now live in the 20th century and we know what progress has brought, not only to Canada, but to the whole world. One thing is remarkable, the more we hear lamentations, the closer and the greater the ensuing progress.
That is why I am inclined to think after hearing the Liberals' continuous wailings ever since we came into office that once again we are on the eve of an era of unheard of progress.
Mr. Speaker, the new members, and I am one of them, are determined to find an adequate solution to the problems now facing us and it seems to me that the amendment moved yesterday by the leader of the official opposition in the house is in no way a program of recovery.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, at this point I should like to continue in the English language. I wish to put forth the proposition that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke yesterday and proposed his motion of nonconfidence in the government, supported by lengthy arguments and a brilliant discourse, he was not serious but was only fooling. I shall endeavour to establish that premise by arguments which I believe are solidly based.
First of all I wish to make it clear that I would be the last person to attempt to belittle the personality of the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly he has won great renown as an international statesman, diplomat and minister of external affairs. I also know that he is a ball player of some repute.


An hon. Member:: Foul ball.


Paul Raymond Martineau: But what is less generally known, I believe, is that the Leader of the Opposition is also an accomplished comedian of more than mediocre talent. He is, I submit a first-class jester. He displayed that talent not only yesterday but on previous occasions and it began to emerge more apparently since he became Leader of the Opposition.
We had yesterday a motion of non-confidence in this government. I seem to recall that just about a year ago, almost to the day, a similar motion was also put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Do you know what that motion contained? It contained an invitation to the Conservative government to resign its place, to abdicate to the Liberal party, and all of this without the benefit of

The Address-Mr. Martineau an election. We know what became of that joke and we also know the answer the Canadian people gave to it.
Our jester has certainly gained in experience in the last year. The jokes our comedian makes today are somewhat less crude. He is a much more practised comedian although I submit he is still the same old jester, the same old beguiler with his wonderful, engaging and charming smile. And all the time he is painting a dark picture of gloom and despair and listing the catastrophes that are besetting the nation he beams his engaging smile. If these calamities were really about to happen do you not think he should wear a somewhat less happy expression? Should his smile not be replaced with a serious expression of concern? But no, only a smile lights the rather engaging face of the hon. gentleman as he speaks his words of gloom and doom.
In effect the Leader of the Opposition is saying, "Now, fellows, do not take me too seriously. You know I have to tell you all these things. You know what politics are. I do not really believe a word of this." That was certainly evident if you examined with care the words and more particularly the facial expression and the broad smile of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke yesterday, as I am sure you did, Mr. Speaker. For this reason I repeat that he was only joking yesterday and must not be taken too seriously.


Mr. Habel:: Do you think he was joking when Cardinal Leger wrote his pastoral letter?
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be appropriate for me to continue in French, particularly in view of the hon. member's interjection. He has spoken about unemployment. Well, we too are going to speak of unemployment. It is a serious problem. Like the hon. member, I also have read the pastoral letter of His Eminence Cardinal Leger. It is certainly a document full of concern for the lot of the workman. It must, however, be noted that it rises far above partisan politics. That is precisely the position we want to take when speaking of unemployment and our reason for setting the facts in their true light.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: This is why your leader does not want to hear about it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Our leader wants to hear about it and we want to discuss it. We wish to co-operate in finding a remedy to end the plague of unemployment. Unemployment was not invented yesterday and does not only exist since 1958, 1957 or even 1956. It is part of our economy. We are a northern country

where every year business slows down in the wintertime.


Azellus Denis: You said you were going to settle the matter of unemployment; well, go ahead and do it!


Paul Raymond Martineau: Let me go on with my remarks, please.
Let us go back to the pastoral letter of His Eminence Cardinal Leger. In this letter, His Eminence states that the first responsibility for settling the unemployment crisis lies with the people themselves, i.e. in the co-operation of employers with the labour force. It is the duty of employers, their essential responsibility, to find employment for workers. He also said that it is up to the state to see that an atmosphere most favourable for employment is created. The part played by the state in this unemployment crisis is only that of a supplier. Neither His Eminence the cardinal nor this government ever thought of taking the place of the employer and of hiring collectively the whole unemployed population.
It was stated that nothing was being done to cope with unemployment. An attempt was made to suggest that the Prime Minister was contradicting himself when he stated: "As long as I am prime minister, nobody in this country will suffer from unemployment." It is true that he did say so. But the Prime Minister did not mean there would never be unemployment in this country. He did not say that. That's not what he meant either-


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Paul Raymond Martineau: -in the construction you put on his words.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: What did he mean then?


Paul Raymond Martineau: What the Prime Minister did promise, and the promise which he made, which he is anxious to keep is that his government will take every strong measure to remedy unemployment and check its disastrous effects.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Paul Raymond Martineau: But what we now see and what we are going to go on witnessing is the spectacle of those who, today, do the greatest disservice to our country by spreading this lack of confidence. The phrase was used by His Eminence the cardinal himself, when he said that the crisis stems mainly from a lack of confidence. And who is responsible for this lack of confidence? Precisely such people as the members of the opposition who do not hesitate to exploit the difficult situation created by unemployment to attain their political ends. You have there the true answer.
(Text):	-
To continue with the economic picture of our nation at the present time, I should

The Address-Mr. Martineau
like to repeat that the Leader of the Opposition again committed grievous sins of omission yesterday when he painted a picture of gloom with regard to our economic condition. After all, in this country we have economists and we have specialists in various departments. They have gauged and they have analyzed the economic trends in this country. As far back as 1957, they predicted a decline in the affairs of our country and yet yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), on the basis of figures that have been verified, could point out that despite those predictions the year 1958 was actually a better year than had been predicted. It cannot be denied that in the year 1958 more Canadians were working, more Canadians earned more, spent more and saved more. When these conditions exist, Mr. Speaker, there are certainly not the gloomy prospects that we are asked to believe in. Moreover, even last year we were one of the few nations that was able to hold its own in foreign trade. Our exports almost matched the record year of 1957. If you analyze the figures, if you analyze department by department and industry by industry, you will find that 1958 was one of the greatest years in our history since confederation. I am sure that when we compare the statistics in the years to come we shall find that 1958 will certainly not rank among the dark years of our history.


Harold Edward Winch: What can a dead man do with a statistic? There are 449,000 out of work. How about that? Is he just a statistic when he is dead and buried?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Another proof of the levity of members of the opposition is seen when they talk about inflation, when they tell you that it is terrible and that we have a shrinking dollar. It is true that the value of the dollar may be shrinking; no one refutes it. The Leader of the Opposition said that someone had placed an inflationary time bomb under our economy. I would like to point out that time bombs take quite a while to explode, and that time bomb was planted there many years ago and we are beginning to feel some of the effects of that inflationary time bomb which was placed under our economy by an administration which had been in power for 22 years.
Then, Mr. Speaker, they tell us that we must cut down on expenses; we must reduce taxes. They also say that we must increase social benefits; we must increase defence spending; we must do all kinds of things, and yet they allude to some of the
difficult problems which have been created in the economic life of this country. These problems are found not only in this country but in all modern countries. A great struggle is going on and a great battle has been joined. Some members of the opposition do not seem to have taken stock of that reality.


Harold Edward Winch: Including yourself.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I have not found the solution, but at least I am trying to look the facts squarely in the face.
Today, we have recurring unemployment. We also have a threat of inflation. We have serious defence decisions to make as a result of situations beyond our control. We must think, first of all, about automation in industry, and of the spectacular revolution that has occurred during the last few years in production methods. What remedies are the members of the opposition going to suggest for the problem of automation? What suggestions have they for putting an end to the spiral of rising costs, often driven upwards by the excessive demands of unions. How are they going to counter the effects on international trade of the new common European market? How are they going to counter the effects of the resurgence of these new industrial giants of Western Germany and Japan? How are they going to ascertain how to pacify these new nations of Asia? Even more important, Mr. Speaker, what suggestions have the members of the opposition put forth to solve the trade war which has been launched by soviet Russia?
These are the real facts at the bottom of the crisis, if the word is not too strong, that exists in the Canadian economy today, and not only in the Canadian economy but in the economy of the western world. Yesterday the opposition said that the government had made a mess of defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I submit that the only messy thing about defence right now is the way the opposition has tried to use a very, very important decision this government must make in order to gain political ends; that is the messy part. The only fault the opposition had to find with the government in so far as defence is concerned is that there may have been some delay in arriving at a decision on the production of the CF-105; that is the only reproach that can be made by the opposition. However, the majority of opposition members admit that the decision must be serious; that its effects will be felt not only today, not only in the next election, but for generations to come. Do they

The Address-Mr. Martineau also admit that revolutionary changes are occurring in defence and in defence production? Nobody but a stark-eyed lunatic would refuse to admit that defence methods are changing. Every day and every week we read about and we see the discoveries brought about by nuclear science.
We see the arrival of the space age and space travel. We see the intercontinental missile being thrown all about this planet. Not only is this planet being threatened by invasion, but also other planets and other systems. These things are not fancies, are not dreams. When you look up at the sky, you see these new engines that are girdling this globe. I submit that under such circumstances any decision taken concerning the production of manned interceptors, the Bo-marc missile and so on, must be taken only after the utmost scrutiny.
There are other problems involved. There is the problem, for instance, of safeguarding our sovereignty. What suggestions will the opposition make to the government for safeguarding our sovereignty in a world that has suddenly shrunk in the way it has? What limits must be placed on defence expenditures today, having regard to the resources of our country? These are the reasons why it is most wise, before the final, irrevocable decision is taken, that careful consideration be given to these matters; that is what we are doing.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proof that the Leader of the Opposition was joking yesterday when he painted the gloomy picture he did paint is found in the type of speech which he made. He was asked by members of the government, what are your proposals? He said that proposals are not made by us; we are the opposition. It is not up to us to suggest remedies to today's problems. That may be true, it is no doubt true, but I submit that if the dire emergency which was outlined to us yesterday really exists then it is the sacred duty of the members of the opposition not to make political capital of it but to come out in the open and make suggestions for improvement.


Harold Edward Winch: What do you think you have been doing for the last 40 minutes?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have been probing the climate in a serious and sincere attempt to try to find answers to our problems. If the population of Canada has relegated both opposition parties to the miserably small space they occupy in this house, it is because those parties tried for too long to fool the people. This reminds me of the words of Abraham Lincoln who stated:
-you may tool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time.

There was a declaration made in the press a few days before this session started by members of the opposition who said that this is going to be a fighting session. The manner in which they have acted so far has not indicated any fighting, but I can assure you there will certainly be fighting done by members of this party. They will be fighting, not to establish position for the next general election but they will be fighting to find a real solution to the problems of this country. The other day I saw an article which was not the result of any vision by the Prime Minister or any members of the government, but of hard thinking of a political journalist in Britain. The article was reproduced in the Ottawa Journal and it was entitled "1999". It was stated that by 1999 our country will-


An hon. Member:: We will all be dead.


Paul Raymond Martineau: No, not all-our country will have a population of some 70 million. It will be inhabited by a vigorous, forwardlooking and adventuresome population such as that which we have today. It will be the envy of the world. In his heart of hearts the Leader of the Opposition, who is most certainly an intelligent man and a great Canadian, I am sure knows that that is true. He knows that our country is the envy of the world. We know that we have problems. Today the problem may be unemployment; tomorrow it may be inflation or a combination of both. But nevertheless we on this side of the house have found something which is precious, something which will not fall apart. I refer to the union of the best forces and the best brains of this country in order to find a solution to our problems so that we may forge ahead. May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if anyone is swinging hula hoops by the time the next election rolls around, it will be members of the opposition.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I am sure it will be proper for me to congratulate both the mover and the seconder (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin.)
The hon. member for Provencher, speaking with moderation, endeavoured, above all, to outline and praise the agricultural policy of the government.
I was particularly pleased with the speech of the hon. member who supported the address, the new representative for Mont-magny-L'Islet. I was equally pleased to read it over in the official record. I had the

honour to meet him during the by-elections but, as you will readily understand, Mr. Speaker, we were not on the same hustings. The new member made a courageous speech and we, from this side of the house, were particularly happy to hear a different note from the one we had heard in the past, both here and outside this house.
Most particularly, I wish to convey my sympathy to the families of members who have passed on. I want to associate myself with all my predecessors in congratulating the newly elected members and, you will understand, more particularly the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).
While listening to the hon. member who spoke before me, I thought it proper to make a brief incursion into the political history of Canada. Thus I realized that from 1896 to 1911, the Liberal party was sitting on the other side-


Mr. Parizeau:: Unfortunately.


Gabriel Roberge: The same situation prevailed from 1922 to 1930 and from 1935 to 1957.


Joseph Aimé Roger Parizeau: That was when disaster broke out!


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What a marvellous historian!


Gabriel Roberge: During those periods, Canadians have known eras of prosperity as they had never known before. However, if we recall those periods during which a Conservative government was presiding over the destinies of the nation, we realize that we have lost ground during the period from 1911 to 1921. We found ourselves in the depths of an abyss from 1930 to 1935, and unfortunately, we are sinking again at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, there was talk, recently, about the function of the government and of the opposition. I just happened to read today, I believe it was in the Citizen, that the role of the opposition, as defined by the present Prime Minister, is "Hit hard, hit always". We intend to do just that. That is what we have been doing since this session started, and that is what we will continue to do. We will play our part as Her Majesty's opposition.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That suits us fine.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, we have reached mid-January, and so far this winter, there have been heavy snowfalls in the province of Quebec, as in the rest of the country.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Listen to the great historian!


Gabriel Roberge: Spring will soon be here-
The Address-Mr. Roberge


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: What an amazing historian!


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that a university professor, particularly a professor of French, would show more intelligence and perhaps better manners.
As I was saying, before I was interrupted, that spring will soon be here, which is a fact-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: That is something new.


Gabriel Roberge: The hon. member for Roberval is also something new in this house.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec particularly, and part of Ontario, part of Nova Scotia and part of New Brunswick are approaching what we, at home, term the sugar season, an event which is of no interest to the member for Roberval.


An hon. Member:: He has never heard of it.


Gabriel Roberge: Last year, my colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine), and myself discussed this matter of maple products, and we called for something which we feel would benefit producers of maple products.
The members from the Quebec area, and not those from Lake St. John, used to rise here to call the attention of the government to the problems facing maple producers. I regret, as my hon. colleague a few moments ago, that last year we were alone, I believe, in making representations on behalf of maple sugar producers. The member for Bellechasse (Mr. Dorion) and the member for Dorchester (Mr. Drouin) could have very well dealt with this problem, since the farmers in their respective ridings are affected like the farmers in our districts.
I will not repeat the statistics that I put on record last year at pages 2947 and 2948 of the English text of Hansard. The speech is published in French on those pages and since the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) can read French, I invite him to read them.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I do not understand that brand of French.


Gabriel Roberge: May I say however that, last year, as the year before, the production was mainly of maple syrup rather than of maple sugar. Perhaps the member for Roberval would like to sweeten his tongue. I may say also that the marketing of last year's production was perhaps more difficult than the year before.
130	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Roberge
We have here, Mr. Speaker, a difficult problem, and the government should tackle it right now. The maple season will start in late February or early March and, while I am no expert in the matter, judging by the quantity of snow that has fallen and by the present temperature, I feel we should have a pretty good crop.
So much the better! But, let us not forget that if the trend of past years increases, those products will not be so easily disposed of and our farmers, this spring, will consider either giving up production or a cut down in production, for if they have to keep their sugar all summer they will sustain a heavy loss.
The various solutions that come to mind would probably not bring any definite results, but would be at least temporary measures that would help maple sugar producers both in the province of Quebec and in the parts of the other three provinces who are engaged in this industry.
I can do no better than to repeat, at least in part, what I said last year concerning those different solutions and I refer to pages 2947 and 2948 of Hansard of August 1, 1958.
Here is what I had to say:
In fact, I have realized that the best way to facilitate the marketing of maple products was to carry on a proper sales promotion campaign on a national scale, not one limited solely to the province of Quebec. The campaign might also extend beyond our own borders.
That is why I think that every Canadian citizen should be able to buy those maple products at his local grocery or supermarket. No better way can he And of satisfying his palate.
And, may I add, the palate of the member for Roberval.
In doing so the consumer would help to a considerable extent those farmers who, each spring, are engaged in this particular phase of agricultural operations.
And I quote again:
Mr. Chairman, the central government should take particular interest in a sales promotion campaign of this type. This matter could be considered at meetings between provincial and federal agricultural ministers. In this way an integrated sales promotion effort could be launched in all provinces to the advantage of farmers engaged in the production of maple syrup or maple sugar.
There is another way of helping the maple producers and that is through price support. This might not perhaps be fully efficient, in view of the ups and downs of the market, but it would be a good thing, in my opinion, and not later than this year-
Because, since last year, I can say not later than this year-
-to establish a support price for maple products. This would allow farmers engaged in maple product industry to make both ends meet and earn enough


to meet their production costs. If the support price I am suggesting were inefficient-as I fear it would be-it could be replaced by an adjustment grant on deficiency payment.
In my opinion-
And I am still quoting from my speech of last year.
-it would be proper to extend throughout the whole country the price adjustment legislation enjoyed by prairie farmers.
As I see it, it is not just the western farmers who should derive benefit, as at present, from the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; all our farmers should enjoy these adjustment grants. This would not only mean that the maple industry farmer would be just as sure of obtaining deficiency payments for his maple, but also that during unproductive years he would have the incentive to work on his maple trees- and also to hire helpers (for it is only fair to bear in mind that often, in such years, he works all around the clock). In this way he could increase his annual income, and could more easily make ends meet.
I note in the speech from the throne the following sentence about the measures that the government wants to adopt in the field of agriculture.
A measure will be laid before you to institute a system of crop insurance in co-operation with such provinces as so desire.
The province of Quebec being now a province like any other, as repeated by the member for Montmagny-L'Islet, after the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I hope that the government will be in a position to include maple products in the crop insurance plan and that the government of the province of Quebec, with the recommendation of its friends in Ottawa, will decide to co-operate in this regard.
Incidentally, may I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for considering the extension of crop insurance legislation to all provinces.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to touch upon the employment situation in my riding of Megan tic which, as I mentioned last year, is half urban and half rural. The employment situation in our industrial towns is no better in 1959 than it was at the same period in 1958. I therefore urge the government to take action to correct this situation. Personally, I do not believe that the winter works program offered to municipalities settles the matter, but I hope nevertheless that the forecast made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) will come true.
(Text) :


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member know that the number of unemployed in Megantic this year is more than 300 below the number at the same time last year?


Lionel Chevrier: But in the province of Quebec unemployment is worse than in any other region.


Michael Starr: He is talking about his riding.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister not know that?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Who has got the floor?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Megantic has the floor?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the minister make his own speech.
Mr. Pallet!: He is just getting the right figures on the record. That is all.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: There will be nothing left for you to say when he is through.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: I know, Mr. Speaker, that at the unemployment office in Thetford Mines, there are perhaps less unemployed than last year, and also that the Minister of Labour is aware that a section of the constituency of Megantic comes under the Victoriaville office; and then there is no way of striking a proportion. Another part of Megantic comes under the Lac Megantic office, in the constituency of Compton-Frontenac. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that the prediction made by the Minister of Labour this morning will come true.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a huge difference between what government supporters said in 1957 and 1958 and what the government has done in many fields since it took power. What I just said applies most especially in the province of Quebec where, unfortunately, the keynote of both the 1957 and 1958 campaigns was a far cry from what it was in other provinces.
It is particularly true in the field of dominion-provincial relations. Throughout the electoral campaign of 1957, the Prime Minister and his colleagues at the time kept repeating that once in power they would immediately settle that question of the fiscal relations between the dominion and the provinces.
Before that period, on January 18, 1957, the present Prime Minister who was then leader of the opposition, dealt with the matter during a debate on a resolution to present legislation providing for the establishment of a council for the advancement of the arts, humanities and social sciences in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Roberge This is what he said, as can be seen in Hansard, page 400 of the English edition:
What is envisaged here will simply postpone the day. The whole question of dominion-provincial relations will have to be faced.
Criticizing the government of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, the then leader of the opposition added:
We simply postpone again facing the problem that must be faced in this country, a problem which cannot be faced by bits and pieces, but which must be faced at an early date.
Hence the promises and statements throughout the country on the matter, which I have mentioned before and which, as a matter of fact, my leader has discussed in his eloquent indictment of the government, last Monday.
What did the government do by way of keeping its promises? A conference was held on November 25 and 26, 1957, a little more than five months after the 1957 election, a conference which-so the Canadian people had been told-was to settle all taxation problems facing the federal government and the provinces. At that conference, the provinces made their representations and claims. At the end of the meeting, the Minister of Finance said it was impossible to grant what the provinces were asking. And, at that time, a solemn promise was made to the effect that a new conference would be held in January 1958.
What happened on that date? Has any conference been held in accordance with the promises made and the solemn pledge taken? On the contrary, a mere telegram, as was recalled by the Leader of the Opposition, was sent to the provincial premiers, saying: "Here is what the federal government is doing or has decided to do." A unilateral conference and, if I may add, a one-party conference. Were the provinces satisfied with that arrangement? Certainly not, if we go by the comments of the provincial leaders of that time. The same promises were made on the occasion of a new election. Did a new conference take place? Not at all.
The speech from the throne however tells us that the government intends to do something to solve those problems. But how are they doing it? Once again unilaterally. Let me quote the relevant part of the speech from the throne, on page 3 of Hansard. It reads:
My government will recommend an amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act to extend for another year the increase made last year in the provincial share of personal income tax revenue.
132	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Roberge
My government proposes that the entire subject of financial relations between the dominion and the provinces shall receive continued active co-operative study. All provincial governments are being asked to agree to the use, for this purpose, of the machinery of the existing federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal and economic matters working under the direction of a committee consisting of the Minister of Finance and all provincial treasurers.
On the same day, January 15, the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers of the different provinces, simply quoting this sentence from the speech from the throne, and inviting the provincial treasurers to co-operate with the Minister of Finance within the continuing federal-provincial committee on fiscal and economic matters.
We are very far, Mr. Speaker, from the statement made by the then leader of the opposition on January 18, 1957, which I quoted earlier. Again, it is the statu quo; the government hesitates, takes indifferent action, and fails to face the problem squarely. These are new contradictions between election speeches and the action taken.
To this problem of fiscal relations, Mr. Speaker, is related another problem that is essential to our cultural development, that of the assistance to be given to the institutions of higher learning. I spoke briefly on that matter last year and I would like now to discuss it further, and express the opinion not of a jurist, but of a lawyer who thinks that constitutions are made to be changed rather than to remain static. I feel I should repeat now what I said last year. I refer to Hansard of May 22, 1958:
The right to education belongs first of all to our children and should not depend on the financial means of their parents but on the young people's talent and future opportunities. With regard to this right there is, of course a corresponding obligation on behalf of parents to provide this education. The state however should play a supplementary part, which belongs in the first place to the provinces.
However, in 1958, when science is fast developing, when artificial moons circle around the earth, when long range missiles can be launched farther and farther, education is becoming more and more an intercontinental problem, and at least an interprovincial problem. I do not see any reason why the central power should not contribute its share in this field, without infringing upon the rights of parents and of the provinces.
If we must give assistance to the children who want to go to university, it is also imperative to assist our universities themselves, which at the present time all complain of lack of funds.
In this respect, the Liberal government of the right honourable Louis St. Laurent had provided a sizeable financial help to universities; but, unfortunately, the universities of my province have been able to benefit from those grants only once.
And later, I said:
As far as the children are concerned, the federal government could, while respecting the autonomy


of the provinces as well as the rights of the parents in the field of education, as I have already said, give substantial assistance to those who have talent, as well as the will to succeed and to prepare adequately for the future. This government help could well be implemented through the agency of the national conference of Canadian universities. The government would then have no control whatever over anything save over the amounts which it could put at the disposal of that conference.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, there is always that complicated problem of provincial autonomy in the field of education. It seems now that there is unanimity on that matter and that federal aid to the institutions of higher learning is not an infringement of provincial rights in matters of education since the provinces retain the right to control and supervise the establishment of institutions and the drawing up of programs in certain matters. Going back to September 4, 1958, we see that members of all parties voted the appropriations asked by the Minister of Finance for help to the universities. In fact, a vote was taken in committee and there was no dissenting voice.
Two days later, the Minister of Finance asked that this appropriation be increased by 50 cents per capita or from $1 as it stood, to $1.50. The hon. minister stated on that occasion that his government would always respect the autonomy of the provinces in this matter. This statement is in no way contrary to all the statements made in the past by the Right. Hon. Louis St. Laurent when this appropriation was introduced for the first time in 1951, and was voted every year thereafter.
Since 1951, therefore, all universities throughout the country have been able to receive from the central government, either directly or through the national conference of Canadian universities, or through the provinces, quite a substantial amount out of taxes collected by the central government. Therefore, we find that only the universities of the province of Quebec have been unable to receive their share, except in one instance.
From a practical point of view, the problem is therefore still with us, and I feel I must lay stress on two aspects of this problem, first the legal side, and second the practical side.
I read with close attention the brilliant speech made last year, on September 4, 1958, by my colleague from Hull (Mr. Caron)-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Brilliant!


Gabriel Roberge: -a speech-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: A masterpiece of ignorance.


Mr. Caron:: Tremble, the ground is splitting open under your feet.


Gabriel Roberge: This speech contained a number of statements and quotations, and I do not intend to repeat these statements and these arguments here, although it might do some good to a certain member.
I wish, however, to put on the record a personal interpretation which I think is valid, whatever the hon. member for Roberval may think, and which, I trust, will be agreed to by all members of this house, and by all those who are interested in the matter of federal grants to institutions of higher learning.
It cannot be denied that the provinces have a fundamental right in the field of education. However, I believe it can truly be said and reiterated that all governments have the responsibility to give assistance.
On January 18, 1957, during that same debate I mentioned a moment ago, the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent, in expressing his opinion on this matter, made the following statement as reported on page 398 of Hansard.
But at the same time we recognize that the wealth of the mind expressed in the arts, humanities and social sciences is not a private prerogative but may rightfully belong to all people who wish to seek for it. Therefore it seems to me that governments have a duty to assume some responsibility of providing not control and direction of the arts but leadership in making available the assistance which is so greatly needed.
When we look closely at Section 93 of the British North America Act, we have reason to believe that the fathers of confederation, in 1867, could not foresee and in fact did not foresee what the situation would be in 1950. Actually, the main paragraph provides that the legislatures shall be allowed to enact exclusively legislation in the field of education, on and in accordance with the following conditions. Four paragraphs follow, of which the first three refer to separate or dissident schools, and to school trustees. One readily realizes that, at the time, schools and not institutions of higher learning were considered. Besides, if I am not mistaken, universities at the time were private institutions. At least, it is a well known fact, in so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, where, for instance, Laval University had been established in 1852 by the Quebec Seminary. In 1867, that university had but a few faculties, namely Law, Medicine and Theology. Therefore, I repeat that in my opinion the fathers of confederation, in good faith, did not think in terms of universities, when section 93 was enacted.
The Address-Mr. Roberge
The following legal point is now raised: Has the federal government the right to levy taxes, and then earmark part of those funds to help universities? Or else, to put it differently, have the provinces alone the right to financially help institutions of higher learning?
I must say, at this point, that I am not approaching the matter from the standpoint of autonomy or centralization, but that I am merely trying to find new arguments to solve the problem. Section 91, paragraph 3, of the British North America Act, gives the following right to the central government:
The raising of money by any mode or system of taxation.
On the other hand, section 92, paragraph 2, gives the following right to the provinces:
Direct taxations within the province in order to the raising of revenue for provincial purposes.
Therefore, it seems that the provincial right of taxation is limited to the levying of funds for provincial purposes.
On the other hand, section 91, paragraph 3, makes no restriction.
Therefore, I believe that one may draw the conclusion that the federal government has always the right to financially help the provinces through subsidies-besides, that was one of the foundations of the con-federative act-and also to financially help the institutions located in the provinces.
This right may as a matter of fact be reversed, and nothing is said about a province not being entitled to help the institutions of the neighbouring provinces. In any way, this has been done in several cases. I do not think I am mistaken when I say that all funds provided by federal taxation are converted in the consolidated revenue fund. It is then up to this house to decide in which manner these funds will be distributed.
In concluding this part of my remarks, I hope that my fellow lawyers, particularly those from my province, will take my comments in good part, because I am making them in good faith. I also hope that my speech will not exclude any other discussion and I trust that others will also deal with the matter.
I am now coming to the practical side of the assistance for our universities. Is that assistance necessary or superfluous? May I quote again the resolution voted by the national conference of Canadian universities in 1956:
Resolved:	that the representatives of Canada,
having given full consideration to the matter, express the opinion that it is their responsibility to give urgent warning to the people of our country

The Address-Mr. Roberge that the problem facing the universities has taken the proportion of a serious national crisis, which is indeed jeopardizing the advance of our country and its place amongst the nations of the world. They also are of the opinion that only an immediate and vigorous intervention and the co-operation of all governments in our country, of business, industry and private employers will solve this problem.
I also would like to quote part of what Mr. N. M. A. MacKenzie said in "Government Support of the Universities":
From these important viewpoints, the universities are an essential element of our provincial institutions and therefore have to seek an important part of their financial resources on the local and provincial levels. However, it cannot be said that the work of a university is circumscribed by the boundaries of a province, neither with regard to its scope nor with regard to its significance. There is not a single great university in our country which does not take students from all provinces. In some eases, students coming from other provinces can make up a third of the student body. Likewise, the graduates of our universities are scattered throughout our national territory.
I shall not quote further for time is short. Consequently, it is undeniable that the universities lack not only money, space, and the necessary equipment for education but they also lack personnel.
In view of the arguments submitted and the extraordinary scientific development which has taken place, the federal government cannot turn a deaf ear to this appeal by the institutions of higher learning. The government and especially the Conservative members of the province of Quebec must do everything in their power so that the institutions of the province of Quebec may benefit from those funds which are at present available to them.
As the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent once said: "Quebec is a province like the other provinces." We recall how sharply he was criticized at the time by his opponents, especially in his own province.
"Quebec is a province like the other provinces", the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet stated last Friday. I am convinced that he does not regret that statement. I am also convinced that with his talent and his capacity for persuasion, he will succeed in persuading his colleagues really to set down to work and to solve that question which is so close to our hearts.
I remember that in the early part of last September, the member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) stated that federal assistance to institutions of higher learning could perhaps take the form of assistance to scientific research or to construction. The point is not to seek reasons for or means of evading the


question, but to consider it squarely with courage and with the same good faith which inspired the fathers of confederation in 1867.
We all hope to see a true form of Cana-dianism develop in this country. No particular group favours the assimilation of other groups, but all favour the enrichment of the nation through the diversity of cultural contributions.
If all are agreed that from a practical point of view, as was proved in this house last year, the federal government must do its share to help this enrichment process and to develop Canadian culture, there should, I think, be a way to reach unanimous agreement from a legal point of view.
I said that the Minister of Finance and the provincial treasurers have been asked to get together. When this happens, and I hope it will be soon, they will have to discuss this matter. If there is any doubt as to the interpretation to be given to the Canadian constitution, let us take the necessary means either to clarify it or to amend it accordingly.
Those who founded Canada in 1867 did not fear to take their responsibilities. We, their sons, and those who now direct the course of the nation and of the provinces, must not lack courage and refuse to find solutions.
When the matter is finally settled, Canadians, whatever their origin, will continue to live together, to enrich one another intellectually and will contribute to give this country the choice position it deserves.
(Text):


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their clear thinking and on their clear delivery. I would like also to add my congratulations to the new members from Grenville-Dundas, Mont-magny-L'Islet and Springfield. Of course, I must include my friend and former opponent in Davenport, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). I regret that he is sitting on the Liberal side of the house but I hope that we may pursue our political differences on the floor of this house at the same high level that we were able to pursue them in the constituency of Davenport.
I note with some satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, the theme of the speech from the throne and that many of the hon. members who have spoken recognize the urgency and the importance of the threat of communism to our

way of life and also the importance of meeting the competition of Russia and her satellites. We must unfortunately accept the premise that the Russians intend to spread their version of communism throughout the world. It is not necessarily a struggle which will culminate in an armed conflict although we must be prepared for that military eventuality. The main issue will be on the economic and scientific front. When we consider the scientific and economic front, it is not my purpose at this time to count our many blessings but to speak briefly on two problems which show our system to disadvantage. The question is whether we can today by self-discipline, co-operative planning and hard work do what the Russians and communist China are doing by compulsion. In many ways we still maintain advantages. We start off with better economic conditions; the individual is given more respect.
The two problems which I wish specifically to mention are those of recurring unemployment and the needs of our educational system. It is not sufficient for the opposition to taunt us with not solving the unemployment problem in one year and a half. It is no answer for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to pussyfoot on both sides of the economic fence as to whether we should solve unemployment or inflation. The record of the former Liberal government is not such that they can sit back in a hypocritical and complacent attitude and heap ridicule on the present government. We recall the past crisis. The great depression is mentioned in the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, the depression of 1929 to 1933, the recession in 1937 and 1938, the recession in 1953 and 1954 and the recession that started in 1957. Who was in power at that time? The Liberals. Therefore, they knew unemployment was a recurring problem. Yet, in the 25 years, with their
The Address-Mr. Morton lengthy experience and their brain trust, they did nothing to solve either unemployment or inflation. Now they expect us to solve in one-half year what they could not do in 25 years. I thank them for the compliment of expecting us to be able to do it.
We cannot solve this problem, Mr. Speaker, by hurling abuse across the floor as to who is to blame.


Lionel Chevrier: You are doing pretty well.


Murray Douglas Morton: I am reminding hon. gentlemen opposite that when they hurl abuse at us they must look at their own record.
Our Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), with the co-operation of the various groups across the dominion, has been endeavouring to set up temporary work programs to ease the periodic unemployment. Our ministers have been on trade missions; they have been busy in trade conferences. However, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us must admit that public works programs, essential as they are, are not the entire answer. They are like an aspirin to deaden the pain of a headache but they do not solve the problem. I think there is a challenge, as there never was a challenge before, to the various labour leaders, industrial leaders, manufacturers and political leaders of all levels of government to sit down with specialists to consider the problems that create unemployment.
The problem is how to produce without pricing ourselves not only out of our own market but out of the markets of the world. Employment depends on trade and the ability to sell our services and products at competitive prices in Canada and abroad.
On motion of Mr. Morton the debate was adjourned.


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

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

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did an inspection engineer of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys visit the following mines in 1958 in connection with the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act: Cochenour Willans Gold Mines Limited:	Dome
Mines Limited; Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (Hollinger); Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (Ross); Aunor Gold Mines Limited; Delnite Mines Limited; Kirkland Minerals Corporation Limited; Lake Shore Mines Limited; MacLeod-Cockshutt Gold Mines Limited; McIntyre Porcupine
Mines Limited; McKenzie Red Lake Gold Mines Limited; New Dickinson Mines Limited; Pamour Porcupine Mines Limited; Pickle Crow Gold Mines Limited; Preston East Dome Mines Limited; Renabie Mines Limited; Starratt-Olsen Gold Mines Limited; Sylvanite Gold Mines Limited; Tech-Hughes Gold Mines Limited; Upper Canada Mines Limited?
2.	If so, what were the names of the inspectors, the dates of their visits and the duration of their visits?
3.	What were the technical qualifications of the
inspectors?
4.	At how many of these mines in 1958 did the inspectors enter upon and examine the underground works and premises?
5.	What mines were so entered and examined in 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Comiois (Minisier of Mines and Technical Surveys):
1. Yes, with the exception of Starratt-Olsen Gold Mines Limited which ceased operating in July, 1956.
Name of inspection
2.	Mine	engineer
Cochenour Willans Gold Mines Limited.. J. W. Patterson
Dome Mines Limited	 T. W. Verity
Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (Hollinger)	 T. W. Verity
Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited (Ross)	
T.	W.	VerityAunor Gold Mines Limited	
T.	W.	VerityDelnite Mines Limited	
T.	W.	Verity
Kirkland Minerals Corporation Limited. . T. W. Verity
Lake Shore Mines Limited	 T.	W.	Verity
MacLeod-Cockshutt Gold Mines Limited J. W. Patterson McIntyre Porcupine Mines Limited .... T. W. Verity McKenzie Red Lake Gold Mines Limited J. W. Patterson
New Dickenson Mines Limited	
J.	W.	PattersonPamour Porcupine Mines Limited	
T.	W.	VerityPickle Crow Gold Mines Limited	
J.	W.	PattersonPreston East Dome Mines Limited	
T. W. VerityRenabie Mines Limited	
J.	W.	PattersonSylvanite Gold Mines Limited	
T.	W.	VerityTech-Hughes Gold Mines Limited	
T.	W.	VerityUpper Canada Mines Limited	
T.	W.	Verity
The duration of each visit was generally half a day.
Date of visit
April 8 Feb. 27
Feb. 28
Feb. 25 March 1 March 3 March 4 March 4 March 31 Feb. 28 April 8 April 9 Feb. 26 April 1 Feb. 27 April 14 March 5 March 4 March 5
3.	The inspection engineers are graduates of Canadian universities in mining engineering and mining geology with several years experience in underground mining practice.
4.	Of the mines listed under 2 above, none were examined underground.
5.	During the inspection of the San Antonio Gold Mines Limited property at Bissett, and the Britannia Mining and Smelting Company Limited mine at Snow Lake, Manitoba, an underground visit was made by the inspection engineer.


MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1. For each of the years 1957 and 1958, and with respect to grants pursuant to the Municipal Grants Act and for each of the village municipalities of Terrace, Smithers, Hazelton, Telkwa, Stewart, Houston and Burns Lake; the city of Prince Rupert and the district of Kitimat, what was; (a) the accepted value of the federal government's property; (b) the amount of the grant; (c) the dates upon which the grant was paid or if paid by instalments, the amount of the instalments and the date upon which they were paid?

Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1. Of the municipalities listed, no grant is payable to the village municipalities of Ter-
Year to
Name of Municipality which grant
relates
Village	of Smithers	
1957Village	of Burns Lake	1957City of	Prince Rupert	
1957District	of Kitimat	
1957
Questions
race, Hazelton, Telkwa, Stewart and Houston. Grants paid under the Municipal Grants
Act to the other municipalities		are:	
(a)	(b) and (c)		
Accepted value of	Payment and		
federal property		date	
$ 82,680	$ 2,165	Sept. 16,	195782,680	2,081	Oct. 30,	19585,400	158	Sept. 16,	1957grant not yet	paid	448,205	10,000	Feb. 6,	19586,557	Nov. 4,	1958456,935	18,829	Nov. 4,	1958112,338	3,302	Nov. 12,	1957118,250	3,646	Dec. 19,	1958
139

Wednesday, January 21, 1959