1959-01-28

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J, G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition as recorded on page 358 of Hansard for January 27, 1959, when he referred to the omission of the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull from the national capital commission. On that occasion I said, speaking from memory, as follows:
In the Federal District Commission Act provision was specifically made that the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull should be members of the commission.
I now find that the statement I made was inadvertently incorrect. Under the act as it originally was, section 3, subsection 3, provision was made as follows:
One member shall be appointed by the corporation of the city of Ottawa to hold office during pleasure-
Under subsection 4 of the same section we find this:
One member shall be appointed by the corporation of the city of Hull to hold office during pleasure-
In view of the fact the mayors of the two cities had been members of the federal district commission, I associated that section with the fact they were members and thought it made provision for the mandatory appointment of the mayors, while in point of fact the appointment was made by the council of each of these cities. I thought I ought to point out my inadvertence of yesterday.

Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: I rise on a question of privilege which is related to yesterday's proceedings. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) rose in his place and raised a question of privilege in connection with a statement I had made regarding the dominion bureau of statistics figures for unemployment in December, 1958. In Hansard I am recorded
as using a figure of 509,000. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate pointed out with some urgency that the figure should have been 597,000.
I did not rise yesterday because I wanted to be absolutely certain of my position. I have taken the trouble to check with the debates branch, Mr. Speaker, and in the original notes of the Hansard reporter I am recorded correctly as saying 590,000. The mistake was made in the transcription. The actual figure, Mr. Speaker, was 597,000. I admit that I was short 7,000, and I hope this will set the hon. member's mind at rest.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I thank the hon. gentleman. I did not intend to do any injustice.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could he tell us whether anyone attended the meetings of the C.B.C. board of directors, as a director, as well as the meetings of the executive committee, as a member of that committee, without previously taking the oath of office as provided under section 22, paragraph 6 of the Broadcasting Act?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the foggiest idea in the world as to what meetings the hon. member refers to. I have taken no part in meetings of the C.B.C. in any way, shape or form except that a month ago, when the C.B.C. directors met in Montreal, I met with them and thanked them for having accepted the responsibilities of the office. Other than that I have done nothing, and I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member should get his facts more in line before he makes these fiery and impassioned speeches such as the one he made yesterday afternoon.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the minister did not even listen to the translation of the question.


George Clyde Nowlan: I listened to the translation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: If he had done so he would not have made the reply he did. The question was not addressed to him in his personal capacity. The question was addressed to him in his official capacity, as to whether or not a member of the board of administrators of the C.B.C. had taken part in the meetings that have been going on without having taken the oath of office in accordance with article 22, paragraph 6 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. Can the minister answer that question or can he not? It is a perfectly logical question, to which the house is entitled to a reply.


George Clyde Nowlan: I admit that, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to the hon. member. I thought he was referring to me personally. When he refers to the board of administrators, may I say that I do not know just what term he is using. Perhaps he will look up the act, see what the definition should be and then ask me another question.


Lionel Chevrier: May I asK the minister whether any member of the board of broadcast governors is in the position that I defined in the original question.


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not looked over their shoulders or anything of that kind, Mr. Speaker, but as far as I know there is no member of the board of broadcast governors who has not taken the oath of office pursuant to the form which is set forth.


Lionel Chevrier: Or the board of governors?


George Clyde Nowlan: The board of broadcast
governors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or the board of directors.


George Clyde Nowlan: Or the board of directors?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: As far as I know there is no member of the board of directors who has not taken the oath. However, I was not present. I was present when the board of broadcast governors took the oath, because it was done right down the corridor here. I was not present when the board of directors took their oath. However, according to my information I believe, and have every reason to do so, that every member of the board of directors took the oath in accordance with the act. If they did not do so it is something of which I had no knowledge whatsoever until it was drawn to my attention this minute.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister inquire?


George Clyde Nowlan: I certainly will inquire.
[Mr. Nowlan.1
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO MEETINGS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? Has the C.B.C. board of governors held a general meeting since the beginning of the dispute between the C.B.C. and its producers in Montreal?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I am sorry, but I did not
catch the first part of that question.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Has the C.B.C. board of govern-nors held a special general meeting since the beginning of the dispute between the C.B.C. and its producers in Montreal?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is referring to the board of governors. I presume he means the board of directors.


Azellus Denis: Yes, the board of directors.


George Clyde Nowlan: The board of directors as such have not met, so I am told-


Azellus Denis: Since the strike began?


George Clyde Nowlan: Since the strike began. There is a meeting of the board of directors which was arranged some time ago for Toronto. I have forgotten the date; it is either Monday or Tuesday of next week. A suggestion was made to the executive committee, which has been meeting on various occasions, that the full board should be called together, but it was ascertained that for some of the members of the board it would be an impossibility to attend because of other commitments. Hence no meeting of the full board was called. But the arrangement which was made at the last meeting in Montreal about a month or five weeks ago, or something like that, was for a meeting early in February. I understand that meeting is going to start on either Monday or Tuesday of the coming week. (Translation):



MEETING OF MEMBERS OF CABINET WITH PRODUCERS DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General of Canada. Could the minister tell the house if he met yesterday with members of the C.B.C. employees' delegation from Montreal to discuss the dispute between the producers and the corporation?

If so, could he report to the house on that meeting and tell us whether he intends to urge his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to intervene in the dispute?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, together with other ministers and members of the house I met with certain representatives or members of the delegation from Montreal. Our talks were unofficial and I am not in a position to report to the house about them.


Azellus Denis: I don't believe the Solicitor General is answering the question put to him by the member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau). He was asked if he personally made representations to his colleagues as to the legality or illegality of that strike.


An hon. Member:: That is none of your business.


Some hon. Members:: Order!
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From the other side of the house has come an interjection to a question raised by the hon. member for St. Denis, "It is none of your business". This is a serious matter. It is not only the business of the opposition but the business of the house and the business of the government, and I protest very strenuously against that kind of intervention. (Translation):


Azellus Denis: In claiming this is no business of mine, you are not minding your own business.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Azellus Denis: Yes, I am going to ask the hon. member a question, but I think according to the rules I have no right to ask a question of a member of parliament when he intervenes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman is quite right. There is no practice of asking questions of private members unless the question relates to some matters before the house over which they have custody or which are in their charge.
(Translation):
(Later:)
On the orders of the day:


Guy Rouleau: I should like to direct to the hon. Solicitor General of Canada a supplementary question arising out of his reply concerning the delegation which came to Ottawa yesterday. Is it the hon. Solicitor General's intention to intervene with the Minister of Labour and to make recommendations for the settlement of this dispute?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour and I met the delegation of C.B.C. producers. There have been other meetings at which we all worked towards settlement of the strike. I believe that the efforts made by the government and by members sitting on this side of the house will do more to bring about a settlement of the strike than all the questions and speeches of my hon. friends opposite.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Raymond Eudes (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour. Could he tell the house whether, since the beginning of the dispute between the C.B.C. and its producers, he has met with C.B.C. official representatives to discuss the current dispute?
If so, how many such meetings were held, where and on what dates?
(Text):


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if I accurately understood the hon. member's question he wishes to know if I have met with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in regard to this dispute. I have not met with the C.B.C. in regard to this dispute to talk over the possibility of a settlement.



INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED ACTS OF VIOLENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the minister's remark as contained in Hansard of yesterday, referring to violence on the picket lines in the C.B.C. strike in Montreal, and in view of the very peaceful demonstration of approximately 1,500 strikers and sympathizers in Ottawa yesterday, can the minister inform the house whether a thorough investigation has been made to ensure that any alleged violence was in fact caused by picketers and not by people known as les agents provocateurs?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of this question a few moments ago. There has been no alleged violence; there has been violence. Let us clear that up at the beginning.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Now, in so far as an investigation as to whether they are members of the picketers or les agents provocateurs is concerned, I am told by the police that it is very difficult to discover them because they immediately disappear after they have committed the acts of violence. If it were easy to determine they would be in the police court themselves rather than the subject of discussion and questions such as we have now. One might raise the question, too, if one were in a questioning mood, as to who-if they were agents provocateurs-employed them as such.
(Translation):



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance. Is the hon. Minister of Finance considering the possibility of imposing permanent entry rights on potato imports from the United States?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming:: I thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. We are now considering, together with the United States representatives, some recommendations made by the tariff board concerning fruits and vegetables, including potatoes.
(Text):



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, 1959 the Leader of the Opposition asked the following question:
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any representations have been made to the United States government concerning the revival of the Hyde park agreement and particularly the combined defence production board which operated so successfully under that agreement during the war.
My answer is that there have been no representations made to the United States government concerning the revival of the Hyde park declaration of April 20, 1941, and the reason for the lack of representations is that representations were not required. The Leader of the Opposition will recall full
[Mr. Nowlan.l

well, I am sure, that there was no terminal date to the declaration, the text of which, I set forth for the record, may be found in the Canada treaty series, 1941, No. 14.
Provision was made, however, for the continuance of the principles of the Hyde park declaration into the post-war period in an exchange of notes with the United States government in May, 1945. The text of this exchange is contained in the same series, 1948, No. 1. The purposes of the exchange were explained to the house on February 13, 1948 by Mr. St. Laurent, who was then secretary of state for external affairs.
Again in October, 1950 provision was made for the further extension of the principles of the Hyde park declaration in the statement of principles for economic co-operation. The exchange of relevant correspondence appears in Canada treaty series, 1950, No. 15.
Current discussions between representatives of the two governments on the question of sharing of defence production tasks have of course been carried out against the background and on the basis of these and related intergovernmental agreements.
The board to which I presume the Leader of the Opposition made reference must be the Canadian-United States joint war production committee which was established for specific purposes in November 1941 and which was dissolved on December 31, 1945. Representations have not been made to the United States government concerning the revival of this particular board. However, new machinery of consultation with the United States government on the question of defence production sharing has been established and is working to the satisfaction of both governments.
I understand that the Minister of Defence Production plans to make, in the near future, a comprehensive statement on the question of the sharing of defence production tasks in North America, which will provide further details on this subject which may be of interest to the house.


NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the fact that 4,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia are faced with a lay-off on Sunday next, four days from now, can the minister tell the house whether the cabinet has dealt with any recommendations from the dominion coal board to increase subventions on coal?

(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comlois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) that last week I instructed the president of the dominion coal board to proceed to Halifax this week and to discuss this matter of coal with the premier of Nova Scotia and the mining companies. As soon as he reports on the results of his trip I shall review the matter and as soon as a decision is reached by the cabinet or by the government, I will so advise the house. (Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In view of the statement made by the minister that he has asked for definite recommendations from the chairman of the dominion coal board, will the minister make inquiries to determine whether A. V. Roe made specific proposals to the dominion coal board respecting methods to prevent such a lay-off, and if such proposals were made will the minister tell us on what date and also if the proposals have been dealt with by the coal board?
(Translation):


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire into the matter as suggested by the hon. member.
(Text):



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain why no member of the cabinet is now in Nova Scotia attending the conference being held in Halifax today between representatives of the provincial government, labour and management on the coal situation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as the
cabinet minister from Nova Scotia may I say in the first place that no cabinet minister was invited to be present at this conference, convened at the request of Dosco and held in accordance with the constitutional responsibility of the provincial department of mines, and concerning which the federal government has had no notice whatsoever except a personal communication from the premier to myself of the fact that such a conference was taking place.
(Translation):



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Bissonnetle (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to
66968-9-28i
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith).
Following the statement he made to the house yesterday, in reply to the hon. member for Levis, reference was made to discussions being under way regarding the possibility that the federal government may transfer the administration of the Parc Savard hospital, at Quebec West, to the provincial government or to some other agency. Would the minister be prepared to state that efforts are being made at this time to guarantee continuous employment to federal employees of this hospital?
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. In reply I would say that the well-being of the present hospital staff is one of my department's main concerns in all negotiations. I can assure the hon. member that in the event of any changes every effort will be made to secure alternate employment and otherwise prevent inconvenience as far as our employees are concerned. If any changes do take place in the administration of Parc Savard I am anxious that they be effected without economic dislocation to the individuals concerned as well as to the community as a whole.


Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare propose to declare the hospital surplus so it can be transferred to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and put up for sale?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No decision has been made yet with regard to the hospital.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State arising out of the extended delay in the completion of the inquiry of the Ilsley royal commission on patents. Can the minister say when the inquiry will be completed and when the report will be made public?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secretary of State):: I wish to thank the hon. member for Assiniboia for giving me notice of this question. The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second is that according to the information I have, I can now say that it is hoped that the Ilsley report on patents will be submitted to the government this spring.

Inquiries of the Ministry .(Translation) :



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). I apologize for not giving him notice, but I know the minister will be able to reply immediately.
Could the minister indicate whether the George Pattinson firm, of Preston, Ontario, has carried out its plan to relocate its wool factory in Jamaica? Could he also indicate whether, as a result, 250 persons are now unemployed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this firm is known to me, as we have had some correspondence from time to time on this matter, and I know the firm was planning to move to the West Indies. I believe it has moved, but I am not yet sure.
(Text):



UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour or the appropriate minister. Has the federal government entered into an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It arises from the fact that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and myself have questions on the order paper relating to the Ontario-federal agreement involving the roads program. There seems to have been a premature announcement of this program by the provincial authorities, and I should like the minister to confirm that the announcement is premature and to ask him if he can give us the details of the agreement.


Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear last year that the general understanding we have is that there will be joint announcements by the provinces concerned and the federal government when programs are agreed upon. At the present time the final terms of the agreement between the province of Ontario and the federal government are still under negotiation, and until they are completed I do not feel free to make any announcement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister seen an announcement by the Ontario government on this matter?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Have agreements been
signed with any of the provinces up to the present?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: What provinces?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR RECONVENING TO DISCUSS FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if as a result of the letter sent to the Prime Minister last week by the premier of Saskatchewan asking for the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference, on the ground among others that this would be one way of dealing with the question of unemployment, he is in a position to say whether or not the government has formulated a policy that provides agreement with the proposal made by the premier of Saskatchewan.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the knowledge the hon. gentleman has of letters from the premier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was in the
papers.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I appreciate that.


Mr. Pearson:: We read the papers.


John George Diefenbaker: When and if a decision is made it will be announced.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government decided to give a second ship to the West Indies Federation, and is it a fact that the plans and specifications for the first ship are not yet ready?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would refer that question to the Minister of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: My apologies.


Mr. Caron:: The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) can answer everything.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have an answer to my question if it is possible.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is the Minister of Finance? What confusion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier has apparently forgotten the distribution of responsibilities on this side of the house. The administrative arrangements for this matter come under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I shall accept this question as notice and give an answer tomorrow.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I feel I owe the house an explanation. I asked a similar question last year and the answer was given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Therefore I directed the question to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More confusion.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in the face of many mishaps involving lost aircraft in northern Ontario, his department is contemplating making it compulsory to file flight plans for all aircraft as to route, destination and estimated time of arrival.
The Address-Mr. Vivian


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I received a copy of it just as I came into the house. It is not compulsory to file flight plans at the present time because it has been found almost impossible to enforce such compulsion. However, all pilots are told how important it is to file flight plans in the interests of their own safety, and everything possible is done to persuade them to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister always file a flight plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A correct one?


George James McIlraith: Winnipeg to Quebec, for instance?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker, especially when going to Quebec.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. Jorgenson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. Percy Vivian (Durham):: Mr. Speaker,
last evening just before ten o'clock I made reference to the commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal last September. To provide continuity with my remarks today and also because of the importance of the conference itself I wish to repeat in summary some of the observations I made last evening.
On the basis of fact the Montreal conference was unique, and I use that term "unique" in the sense of the definition in Murray's English dictionary where the word is defined as meaning not only alone of its kind, but more particularly in this case as meaning "standing alone in comparison with others". This conference was unique in a number of ways, of which I shall cite three.
First of all the representation from the commonwealth included all the older members plus many new ones from Asia and Africa with representation to, and therefore through, the United Kingdom; of Nigeria, the West Indies, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Hong Kong, to such an extent that the new members outnumbered the old.
It was also unique in that the agenda was not limited. It included the widest possible range of subjects in keeping with an expanding commonwealth in a world with a growing list of new states. Furthermore it was unique

The Address-Mr. Vivian in regard to the wide area of general agreement which was reached in these difficult times.
As to the results of this conference, I believe they are also unique. This opinion is based on occurrences immediately after the conference, last autumn, at the general assembly of the United Nations, which if they are true indicators, as I believe they are, foretell a new spirit and a new desire to deal with the problems of international trade in a way more beneficial than in the past to the world community as a whole. Again I make specific reference to the fact that the United States delegation to the United Nations general assembly committee on economic and financial matters accepted and supported the language of a resolution on international commodity trade which was subsequently adopted, the wording of which was taken directly from the commonwealth report. This is the farthest the United States has ever been prepared to go in such matters. I maintain that the results of the Montreal conference are already unique, but of course continuity of this kind must be maintained.
I must point out that actions taken at the United Nations general assembly have their limitations, and no one in this house knows about those limitations better than the present Leader of the Opposition. The 82 member states that comprise the general assembly of the United Nations cannot take such action as will bind all members of sovereign states to implement the majority opinion. They can only make recommendations. Action of this sort in the United Nations can only be preliminary to the action of each sovereign state; but it can create, and in this case I trust it has created by overwhelming agreement a favourable climate in which similar action will be taken by those sovereign states in particular agreements. This is what is meant by the successful cultivation of a garden.
I wish to point out other words in the gracious speech from the throne which show the present government's intention regarding Canada's position in world affairs, in respect of economic assistance to underdeveloped countries and expansion of the resources of the international bank and the international monetary fund. Economic assistance to less developed countries may be provided in a variety of ways. Time will not permit me to deal extensively with this subject, and it would be better dealt with on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I should like, however, to indicate the nature and purpose of Canada's participation.
Our participation in economic assistance has been mainly through the Colombo plan and the United Nations. The Colombo plan, as you will recall, is a matter of country to


country assistance, and in this instance much of the money provided by the donor country may be spent in that donor country in terms of material supplies or for the salaries of technical assistants, whereas through the United Nations our aid and the aid of other countries is given on a multilateral basis. Funds are donated to projects in which all the donor countries share without any direct country to country relationship.
The question might be asked if the financial assistance provided through the United Nations and Colombo plan could be classed as a give-away program. In the opinion of many experienced persons, an opinion in which I wish to join, the answer is emphatically no, because the well-being of each of the countries of the world, now so interrelated with the well-being of all, is a vital matter upon which satisfactory progress must be made because it is really necessary for the peace of our time.
There are now such vast areas of the world emerging into nationhood, many with strong anti-colonial feelings, that their progress concerns all of us. The rate of growth from dependent territory to sovereign state is very rapid. This, of course, is accompanied by local pressures from domestic, economic and social demands. In many areas the situation is one which can best be described in the words of the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru, as the revolution of rising expectation. This is an exhilarating and possibly dangerous time, Mr. Speaker.
Canada is looked to as a friendly country, without any aspirations to dominate the development of others, so our reputation is exceedingly high. In part this may be due to our relative generosity in helping others less fortunate than ourselves, but it is also due in large part to the regard for Canada in our own evolutionary progress from colony to statehood. Under these circumstances Canada's help is needed by the less developed countries, these new emerging states. It is not only needed, Mr. Speaker, but it must be provided to the best of our ability. This is not a matter merely of economic assistance; it is also a question, I think of equal importance, of our understanding of the problems of the less developed countries. In this matter Canada is in a position to help.
I might point out here, sir, that while we might be willing to give help it is something which must be requested. I refer again to the feelings of the people of many of these territories now emerging into statehood. They wish to do those things that they consider to be necessary for their own wellbeing and to increase their own standard of living by themselves, in so far as possible.

Our watch word in this connection should be, not only should we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, but we should do unto others as they would wish us to do for them. The objective of all this is to stand by and be ready to help so the less developed countries may achieve the fullest possible measure of their potential as responsible states in the world.
I welcome again the words in the gracious speech that apply to the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, and particularly at this time Africa where new states will soon face the heavy responsibilities that come with independence. Our aid, in all its forms, is dependent upon our own stability and our own continued economic progress. Canada, like the rest of the world, has had a bit of tough going recently. In this connection, however, we are more fortunate than many others. We are fortunate in a variety of ways, but at this particular time we are exceedingly fortunate in having a government in power that recognizes Canada's problems, that acts on those problems with expert advice, and is prepared to look beyond our own now improving economic situation, to the action we will be called upon to take in world affairs.
It is therefore my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to support wholeheartedly the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do that not out of form or habit. I really enjoyed their remarks, though it was necessary for me to read the translation of one speech. I feel that they have both done themselves credit and have brought distinction to their respective constituencies.
Before I go on to make some remarks concerning the speech from the throne I should like to make a few remarks concerning my own riding. First of all, on behalf of my people I must say that we are extremely pleased that in June Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip will visit my home city. Since in the cross-country tour the Queen, of course, will not have an opportunity to visit every place in any one constituency, and there will be an opportunity for her to see only a small part of the constituency, I would hope that the time available to Her Majesty would allow her to see the beautiful Codroy valley in my constituency, to be able to ride up the Humber river or to view, I am sure with gratification, the scenery that can be observed at Bonne Bay on the west coast
The Address-Mr. Batten of Newfoundland. Time, of course, is not such that she will be able to do all this; but whatever time she will be able to spend on the west coast of Newfoundland will be extremely pleasing to my people, and I know they will afford her that hospitality which is not only characteristic of Newfoundlanders but also that which befits the visit of our Queen.
My home city is situated on Bay of Islands, 30 miles inland. It is a new city with a population of 25,000. Here is situated the largest integrated newsprint mill in the world, with the possible exception of Powell river in British Columbia. The city of Corner Brook is a large distribution centre, with the result that during all times in the year a great deal of tonnage is coming into the harbour and a great deal of tonnage is going out. Last year I had the opportunity of placing on record the tonnages for a number of years past. I am not going to do that now. However, I contend that the port of Corner Brook is of some considerable importance.
In the winter time, of course, we experience the difficulty of having our port closed for two or three months by ice. Again, as I have done on previous occasions, I make an appeal to the Minister of Transport that in making his plans for icebreaking in the lower St. Lawrence and in the gulf, he include the port of Corner Brook. Representations have been made to the minister by the labour unions in the area, the chamber of commerce and other interested bodies. The ideal situation would be if an icebreaker could be placed there all winter. If it is not possible at the moment for that to be done, I think the minister should take into consideration the need for icebreaking facilities in the port and that he should distribute, as far as it is possible to do so, the icebreakers so that some service can be given to this particular area.
There is another point I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker, and bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. He is well aware of the fact that along the coast of Newfoundland are numerous small post offices. These people are obliged to provide their own accommodation. They are obliged to provide their heat and the janitor service for the building which is rented. In nearly every case in these small post offices the remuneration is not sufficient to make it worth while for anybody to discharge these services to the community. As I go around my riding I find many of these postmasters and postmistresses who are complaining about the amount of money they receive for services rendered.
I should like to recommend to my hon. friend that when he is reviewing the position with regard to these small post offices, some

The Address-Mr. Batten upward revision be made in the remuneration which these people are receiving, if that action is at all possible. I fear that if this is not done we are at some time going to arrive at the point where these people are going to feel that the service they are rendering is no longer being compensated for, and they will not be willing to continue to render that service which is extremely important to these small places along the coast of Newfoundland.
On an earlier occasion I made some reference to the telegraph facilities along the west coast of Newfoundland. I now bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport again. Some years ago-30 years ago, to be exact-there was a satisfactory telegraph service down the north coast or the northwest coast of Newfoundland. Over the years part of this service, or at least part of the facilities for the service, has been taken away and has not been replaced. I recognize the fact that, as far as Canadian National Telegraphs are concerned, their interest is in receiving some revenue for the outlay they make. I agree that this is probably an area in which they will not receive any great revenue for the expenditure they will be obliged to make. But somewhere between revenue that is worth while and no revenue at all there surely must come into the picture the question of service.
These people at the present time are receiving a telegraph service which is surely not satisfactory in this day and age. Last year I recommended to the Minister of Transport that if Canadian National Telegraphs were not able to look after this area on a business basis, it might be taken over by the Department of Transport and operated as a service. But whatever the solution to the problem may be, Mr. Speaker, I believe that some serious consideration needs to be given to this problem so the people who live in these outlying areas will at least have the benefit of a first class telegraph service.
On that coast there are some hospitals. They are widely spaced. In emergencies it is necessary to contact the doctor at the hospital or a nurse along the coast. Unless the facilities are provided these people feel that they are not receiving the health service which can be provided for them. I would therefore again recommend to the minister that some serious consideration be given to this urgent problem.
I must apologize to the house for raising one more point again, but I fear that I shall be obliged to do so. Last year during the discussion of the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I referred to radio station CBY at Corner Brook. This is the only C.B.C. radio station on the west coast of Newfoundland. Many persons depend upon

this station for news and other bits of information which are important to a people who live along the coast, long distances from any large centre.
That radio station is operating on a frequency of 790 kilocycles. Some time ago another station in Newcastle, New Brunswick, was opened and operated on the same frequency. These two stations interfere with one another to such an extent that to the north of Corner Brook where the station is situated and to the south of Corner Brook people are not able to receive the C.B.C. station at Corner Brook. What the remedy is I do not know. The remedy may be a change in the frequency; it may be a change in the ground pattern, or a change in the power. That matter is, of course, one to be dealt with by a radio engineer.
However, I would suggest that this is a serious problem to the people concerned. Again I appeal to the Minister of National Revenue, who speaks for the C.B.C. in this house, to make some effort to have this situation remedied so these people will be able to enjoy the benefits of radio at a time when a large percentage of the people in this country are enjoying the benefits of television.
We have no C.B.C. television in Newfoundland as such. There is a private station in St. John's, CJON, which I believe is well run and gives excellent television coverage. On the west coast of Newfoundland at the United States air force base at Stephenville there is a television station which is run jointly by the C.B.C. and the United States government but there is no C.B.C. television in Newfoundland as such. They are now building a television station at Corner Brook, a city with a population of 25,000 and with a population in the area which could be covered of nearly 50,000. It has come to my attention that the station which is being built in Corner Brook will not be sufficiently powerful to cover the nearby town of Deer Lake with 7,000 people, only 30 miles away. I would hope that this statement is not true. I appeal to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) to see that the power of the station being built at Corner Brook is sufficiently great to be able to give television coverage to the people within the city, to the people within the Bay of Islands and to the people who live in the town of Deer Lake.
I know that the people north of there in Bonne Bay will not be able to receive the station. Maybe at some time they will be able to receive the services of a new station built to provide service in that particular area.

I listened with care to and I have since read, the speech from the throne. I suppose most speeches from the throne are important for what they mention at some length. They are important, too, for the things they just barely mention and they are sometimes important for the things which are omitted. This particular speech from the throne may give us some idea of what the government's policy is for the present session but it does, in my opinion, give very scant attention to some of the problems which face us as a people at this time.
During the debate which we have had here on the speech from the throne I have been a little interested in the attitude of the government toward criticism which has been directed at them. They have taken the attitude that it is the responsibility of the opposition to criticize and to offer alternative suggestions. That, of course, is quite true, but both of these things imply that in the first place there must be something to criticize, and in the second place there must be a policy to which an alternative can be offered. It does seem to me that in many of the operations of the government there are criticisms which can be made. When members of the government say, "What did you do?'' I feel that that interjection has long been worn out. The government has now been in power long enough to make its own policy. It is going to have to make its own decisions and it is going to have to stand or fall on those decisions. That is the price of power, Mr. Speaker.
I do not think the government and the government members are able to go on forgetting the fact that they must now be responsible for their own policies and they must be able to support them. The time is not too far away when we are going to be out of the post-election years and into the pre-election years when the policy of the government is going to have to be defended. I feel that no party will ever gain as much support from criticizing the opposition now as it did in the last election. Therefore, whatever policies are presented by the government now must be defended within the short space of two, three or four years. Therefore I do not quite understand the attitude which the government takes when it talks about the criticism which has been hurled at them. However, maybe the government feels that it can defend its own policies better by answering those criticisms and that, of course, is their decision.
I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the very serious problem of unemployment. Maybe there is no part of Canada where unemployment is such a serious problem as it is in the province from which I come. The year 1958 was not
The Address-Mr. Batten a good one in Newfoundland. The codfish in the sea did not pay us the benefit of very many visits. Our fishermen have not been able to catch the amount of fish that would give them a normal income for the year. The fall fisheries, particularly the herring fishery in Port au Port bay, have been a complete failure. We have not had nearly as much work in the paper industry as we have had in other years. There have been reductions in the actual operation of the mill itself as well as in the lumbering industry, and at the moment we are faced with some very serious labour problems. All in all it has been a very bad year for Newfoundland.
I concur wholeheartedly in the action taken by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) when last fall he wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and asked that something be done in this regard. It is all very well to talk about the number of people who are unemployed, the number of people who are looking for jobs and the number of people who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, but I think that maybe the one statistic that will point up the seriousness of this problem in Newfoundland is the fact that today there are nearly 42,000 people in a population of 420,000, 10 per cent, receiving relief from the provincial government, apart altogether from those who have no jobs and are receiving unemployment insurance. Forty-two thousand out of a population of 420,000, 10 per cent, are now on provincial government relief, and I think that one figure alone is sufficient to point up the seriousness of this situation in the province from which I come.
It is indeed true that in some places the winter works program has given some employment to many people. I still feel that the winter works program which will provide work for 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 people is still not sufficient to be able to reduce substantially the large number of people who are out of work in this country. There are places in Newfoundland, for instance, where a winter works program can be instituted and where a good deal of winter work can be carried on. There are other places where this cannot be done, and I think that in places where such a program cannot be carried out the solution of the whole problem is to make sure that whatever federal works -and I include provincial works as well- whatever government works are going to be carried on in the following year should be prepared for in such a way that as soon as the spring comes these jobs can get under way and be started in March, April or May rather than in June, July or August.
I repeat that in the places which are not likely to be serviced by any large amount

The Address-Mr. Batten of winter work the thing to do is to make sure that whatever work is to be done in the spring will be started early so that those people who need employment will be able to get it at the earliest possible time.
There is, of course, the twin problem of inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), in his reply to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), said, "Well, we have always had inflation", and that, of course, is quite true. But he might have gone on to say that the world has had it for the last 4,000 years. But during that time there are very few if any examples of countries which have allowed inflation to run uncontrolled, which have been able to come out of this problem without financial chaos. I think we have always had inflation. We have it now and I think we will have it in the future. I do not blame the government for inflation, but surely we are going to have to blame the government if they should allow it to run uncontrolled. It will do this nation of Canada a great deal of harm if the proper controls are not instituted at the appropriate time and early enough to be able to have their effect during the coming year.
In other countries, or in some other countries at least, where they are not bound by the terms of a constitution as we are, and are not subject to the secrecy of a budget, they are able to introduce measures to control inflation at a very early date. We are not in that fortunate position, and I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that whatever measures he has in mind for the control of inflation should be stated clearly in the budget, and that the budget should be presented at the earliest possible date.
One thing I did notice in the speech from the throne which is very important to the people of Newfoundland was the item concerning freight rates. We live at the end of the line, and living at the end of the line we have the long haul. On the long haul the people at the end must pay the highest freight rates. During the last ten years we have seen almost as many increases in freight rates and these increases have placed on the people of Newfoundland a great burden. We live in a province where nearly everything we produce has to be shipped out of the province and where nearly everything we use has to be brought in, with the result that freight rates play a very important part in our lives. We do not have the advantage, as some other provinces do, of a network of roads where much trucking is carried on. Our transportation of goods and commodities is carried on mostly either by C.N.R. boats or by C.N.R. trains, and when there is an increase in freight 
rates it places an added burden on people who live in a province such as Newfoundland or in provinces in the west of Canada. I was pleased to note that some consideration was being given to this problem. I do not know what conclusion the Prime Minister will reach, but I hope it will be such as to alleviate some of the ills which have their source in the continuing increase in the cost of handling and shipping freight.
I referred earlier to the fisheries of Newfoundland. Of course, the failure of the fisheries is not by any means the fault of the government. I must be fair and admit that the fact that the codfish did not come to Newfoundland is not the government's fault. But I do wish to say that if the fishery in Newfoundland is to be prosecuted profitably in the years that lie ahead the government must provide for the fishermen the things they are not able to provide for themselves. The fishermen are not able to provide for themselves the many marine works that are needed along the coast.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) has made some progress in regard to bait depots. There are only a very few of these depots in existence at the present time. How they will work out we have yet to ascertain, but I want to tell the minister now that we are going to need many more of these installations along the coast if they are to give to the fishermen the service which will allow them to prosecute their occupation profitably. I believe that the fisheries of Newfoundland can be of continuing importance to Newfoundland and to Canada, but this is only true provided that those things needed for the successful prosecution of the industry are provided for these men who cannot provide them for themselves.
I was interested, too, in the reference in the speech from the throne to the trans-Canada highway. I do not at this time intend to place on record again comparative figures as to the cost of building a trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland and elsewhere. I do not think that to compare cost per mile of the trans-Canada highway is the proper way to make a cost comparison when one is dealing with people and the taxes which they pay. I think the proper way to compare the cost is to compute it on the basis of numbers of people. Last year I placed on record the number of miles of the trans-Canada highway which would have to be built by a group of 10,000 people both in Newfoundland and in every province across this country; and the number of miles of the trans-Canada highway to be built by a group of 10,000 people in Newfoundland is far greater than in any other province in Canada. If there is any

added assistance which can be given toward the building of the trans-Canada highway- and I hope there will be-I hope it will be provided, and provided soon, so that we can get along with this job and build the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland not only to provide work but also to give us a better transportation system.
We live in a province which has an outdated railway. It is one of those narrow gauge railways which over the years has given fine service. It gave yeoman service during the second world war. However, I feel it is outdated in many ways, not only because it is a narrow gauge. Sometime, maybe the C.N.R. or the government will consider the building of a railway of regular gauge in Newfoundland so that we way receive the same service as that which people on the mainland enjoy. In any case, building the trans-Canada highway will assist our transportation facilities which at the present time are not too good. Whatever assistance can be given in this respect I hope can be given early. It has always been my belief, and I have said so in this house before, that when the Canadian government decided it was going to enter into an agreement with the provinces to build a trans-Canada highway across Canada it should have built the whole road and been done with it. I still think that should have been done. However, any increased allocation which can be granted toward the building of this road will be very welcome in the province from which I come.
I could not leave this subject without taking the opportunity to make some reference to federal-provincial relations. We remember that before the election in 1957 the Prime Minister went across this country saying that if he were elected he would call a federal-provincial conference immediately. Well, he was elected. He did not call a conference immediately, but he did call one late in November. I attended that conference- the part of it which was public-and I went away with the feeling that what was done could easily have been done by mail; the same result could have been accomplished if the premiers had just made their reports and sent them in so the Prime Minister would know what they were thinking. However, at that conference the Prime Minister said he was not going to adopt any take it or leave it attitude. The premiers came, they made their statements and they went home with the promise that they would meet again early in January. That conference was never called, and the Prime Minister was remarkably reticent on this subject from then on. Then we come, of course, to the famous telegrams sent by the Minister of Finance in
The Address-Mr. Batten December of 1957 telling the provinces what they were going to get. Here again was the adoption of a take it or leave it attitude. In the speech from the throne we now hear that this particular method is to be adopted for another year, and once again we are faced with a take it or leave it attitude. In the meantime the problem of arriving at agreement between the federal government and the provinces remains unsolved and is no further toward a solution than it was when the Prime Minister talked about it in the pre-election days of 1957.
While talking about federal-provincial relations I cannot resist making some reference to the McNair commission. Hon. members will be aware that the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada include a provision, term 29, which states that after a period of eight years there would be some revision of the finances of the province. This situation arose because when the terms of union were drawn up it was impossible to forecast what the financial effect of the union would be upon the province of Newfoundland. The province of Newfoundland made preparations for the application of this section of the agreement by presenting its brief, and in turn the federal government appointed a royal commission which went to Newfoundland and considered the various financial aspects of the operation within the province. The commission made its report and recommended that the annual grants to Newfoundland be increased by roughly $8 million. It was my contention and it still is that there was no reason why the Prime Minister when he spoke about this last year should not have immediately implemented the recommendation. I appreciate that it took time for him to consider it but in the interval while the recommendations of the commission were under consideration the government should have given some grant to Newfoundland so the province could carry on with its normal operations.
I know that in the last few days some further meetings have been held and I hope within the near future we will be informed by the Prime Minister that something tangible will be done arising out of the recommendations of the McNair commission. When my leader made his appeal to the treasury benches and to the government to conclude this debate and get along with the more urgent problems of government I believe he made a wise suggestion and I am going to repeat it at this time. I wish now to reiterate my leader's appeal to the government to conclude this debate immediately and proceed at once with legislation to deal with the unemployment problem. So long as the government is prepared to delay action the Liberal
436	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell party will take its part in this debate but we in this group are ready to have the vote now and to get on with the nation's business.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, following the
pleasant practice which is universal I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to associate myself with all the complimentary things said about them. They have a great many fine qualities and advantages and also the advantage of being young. I am sure we all feel they should go far in this house.
As for you, Mr. Speaker, you and I have been old friends for many years. It is difficult for me to say what I should like to say to you so I shall not try. I shall content myself by associating myself with all others who have expressed pleasure at seeing you where you are.
At this stage in the debate everyone will agree that it is rather difficult to make oneself believe one is going to say anything very new or very fruitful and yet there are certain things I want to do. I want to make some personal remarks about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who is an old friend. I did not want to ignore him and I felt he would not want to be ignored. I also want to say a few words about the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I am sorry to keep them in the house. In the case of the Leader of the Opposition he need not bother listening to the rest of my speech but I do want him to hear what I have to say about him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, just to show my appreciation to my hon. friend I should like to let him know I have a meeting to attend but I am going to postpone it for a few moments so I will not miss anything he has to say about me.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And then, of course, in referring to the hon. member for Essex East I shall have to pay my respects to the Martin statistical service. I feel that should be done. But before doing anything of the sort I should like now-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask my hon. friend if it will be soon? I also have a meeting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have you all got meetings?
I assure my hon. friend it will be soon.


Murdo William Martin: I shall stay and listen.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Before dealing with the subjects I wish to discuss I thought I might


do a little psychoanalysis of those in the front benches on the other side of the house because it seems to me it is a very important matter in construing what they have had to say. And then later I shall have something to say about the commonwealth conference which hon. gentlemen opposite have brushed aside so lightly.
As we look back on the history of the Leader of the Opposition we recall his university days. We recall that during his period at university he was a teacher of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and we realize that is why the Minister of Finance treats him with such deference and refers to him always in such honeyed accents. From university the Leader of the Opposition went into the civil service where again he was free from the "dust and heat" of political controversy and even when he went on to become minister of external affairs it must be remembered that we keep external affairs very largely a non-partisan matter and therefore I think it is fair to say that the hon. gentleman never had anything more than a mild defensive to put up.
And then the rains descended and the floods came and the hon. gentleman found himself in what Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to call the "cool shades of opposition". A little later he found himself Leader of the Opposition and of course that role has really required an entirely new set of manners because, of course, a man in that role is expected above all things to be aggressive, to be rough and tough and gruff.
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition said to himself, "Maybe I shall be all right because I was once a football coach and I will be able to put what I learned on that field into effect." But I suggest to him that is not good enough. Forward passes will not do here because they can be knocked down, or intercepted and run back and although the Leader of the Opposition did give the impression that he was going to try an end run the other evening round the C.C.F. I doubt very much if that will be a permanent feature of his play.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Too much illegal interference.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate that the hon. gentleman is in a difficult position. He is, perhaps, like a total abstainer who has broken the pledge and then just lets himself go. When I say that I am thinking of the unusual words we found him using on the occasion when he participated in this debate "fumbling and bumbling", "confusion and contradiction", "oscillating and uncertain", "violent", "distorting and exploiting". I would say there are no words more unsuitable than "fumbling" and

"bumbling" to describe what this government has been doing except perhaps the words "confusion" and "contradiction", "oscillating" and "uncertain", "violent", "distorting" and "exploiting". I shall try to make that argument good but I have finished dealing with the Leader of the Opposition for the moment and with my blessing he may now go to his meeting. I am very grateful to him for having stayed for I really spent quite a lot of time thinking about that and I wanted him to hear it.
And then we come to his colleagues. I refer particularly to the three front bench cabinet members who followed him into exile, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). It is rather interesting to note that when one looks up their names in Who's Who one finds class distinctions. Who's Who differentiates among them. For instance the Leader of the Opposition is designated in Who's Who as a "statesman" whereas the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is described only as a "legislator", and of course there is a distinction there. Then we come to the hon. member for Essex East and he is just described as a barrister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is all he is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I once heard a highly successful barrister described as "a consummate salesman of legal propositions". I have no doubt that the hon. member for Essex East is a good salesman of legal propositions but it is not as a salesman of legal propositions that I wish to acclaim him. I wish to deal with him as a consummate salesman of economic propositions because it is in that field, it seems to me, that he really does extend himself.
And then we come to the hon. member for Laurier and he apparently is just himself because Who's Who does not describe him in any way. The details are given and one is left to assess him. I am glad he is not here at this moment because he always says that I put him to sleep quicker than anyone in this house and I should not want to have to do that again.
I do not know how we should refer to these three hon. gentlemen, the three I call them. They no doubt would be glad if we were to refer to them as the three wise men. Or perhaps we might call them the three musketeers. But I do not suppose they would wish to be called the three blind mice.
Now, as for the hon. member for Essex East, he is a very old friend and as a friend he is hard to beat but as a political enemy,
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell a politician, I warn you all to look out because he is really quite something as a politician. I think that at school he must have won all the prizes for addition because he is so good at adding things together and making big figures. For example, I find that the Leader of the Opposition is just a piker when he suggests that there is going to be a deficit of $1 billion because, according to the Toronto Star of December 5, the hon. member for Essex East said that we were headed towards a $1,250 million deficit. I have the Star here so there will be no misunderstanding of any kind. We did have a distinguished member of the house once who had the nickname, "what's a million", the former minister of trade and commerce, Mr. Howe.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish we had him now.


Mr. Palleli:: You could use him all right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of Finance says the deficit will be $700 million and if my subtraction is right that is $550 million less than the $1,250 million, so I suppose the hon. member for Essex East would say, "What's $550 million between friends?"
There are delightful inconsistencies in what the hon. member says. For instance, I have two things here which contrast so beautifully that I should like to quote them just to show you what his range is. On December 5 he said that the Conservatives took over when Canada was enjoying prosperity such as it never had before. That is a very comforting thing for him to hear himself saying. That was on December 5. But on March 7 apparently he was off guard and he uttered a masterpiece of understatement. It is not usual for him to understate but this time he did, and I will read what he said. He said, as found in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
The Diefenbaker government stepped into "what was possibly not the brightest situation when it took over."
I think you will agree that was an understatement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those are my words?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When did I say that?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You said that on March 7. I checked it very carefully. I was surprised to read it, and I point out that it is in quotation marks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would never question my hon. friend but I would be very

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell glad to know precisely where I said it. If I did I must not have been thinking well that day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was surprised. I did not think it was something he would intend to say and that is why I checked it so carefully to be sure it was in quotation marks-"what was possibly not the brightest situation when it took over." I do not dwell on that at all. I just mention it because it is interesting to find that when the ex-minister is off guard he can say things which he would not say when he is on guard.
I am not going around the course with regard to unemployment but I just wish to remonstrate with the hon. member for his persistence in using the N.E.S. figures when he should stick to the D.B.S. figures. I want to give one illustration. As found on page 183 of Hansard for January 22, he gave the correct D.B.S. figure of 440,000 unemployed. It is a sad figure but nevertheless there it is. Then in the same paragraph he gave 574,000 as the figure of unplaced applicants. That is the N.E.S. figure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On December 11.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest that the minister-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -as he has done on previous occasions, confused these figures and sought to leave the impression that the figure of 574,000 was the working figure. I suggest that. That is my feeling. I cannot prove what was in his mind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was what figure?
I did not get that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The second figure of 574,000 the hon. member described as unplaced applicants and I say that is the N.E.S. figure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But I do not think that anyone reading that paragraph would be quite clear that that is what the hon. member intended to convey.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wanted to convey that it was a reliable figure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But perhaps I have been a little prejudiced because the minister has been so good at addition that again and again I have seen him use figures that were really just a little on the outside. There is another thing. The minister knows, of course, that these N.E.S. figures-


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The member. The trouble is we got so accustomed to a certain situation that sometimes we hardly realize what


has happened. I do not think they do either. I wanted to make this further point. It interested me a good deal because this N.E.S. figure contains all kinds of people. You could make a list of eight or nine classes contained in the N.E.S. figure. I shall not go into this in detail but one point is interesting to me and I have thought about it. Although I think N.E.S. tries to keep out of their figures people who have jobs, I do not think anyone believes that they are always able to do so. The hon. member may want another job for all I know and it occurred to me as a rather amusing idea that if he had gone in and put his name down on the list and said he did not have a job, then for all I know his name might be there right now among the 574,000.
At any rate, there is no need to press that point further because I wish to say a word about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate. I suppose that we can now say that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is leading a double life. He is a member of the house and I understand he is also working on the biography of his former chief, the biography of the old master. That interested me quite a bit because there he is at the fount of political guile, shall I say, if that is a proper word, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The source of history.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and it is interesting to me to speculate as to just how much of the old master's craft he brings into the house. I am also very anxious about the contents of that diary. After all, it could be practically a best seller. When you consider what he may find there about himself and what he may find about other people I would think it would be a fair proposition that he could, if he were that kind of man and, of course, he is not, make some money out of that diary both properly and improperly. I mean that there must be things in it which people would not like to have quoted.
As I said, I am not going to go around the course and deal with all the figures that have been used respecting unemployment. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) did a pretty complete job yesterday. I just want to make a few statements about unemployment and I do not believe anyone can disagree with them. I believe that they will indicate that far from there being fumbling or bumbling or unsteadiness or confusion on the part of the government, the government since it took office has approached the problem in an orderly way just as any reasonable man would, and what they have done since taking power is open to the highest praise and not to criticism.

With the knowledge we have after the event I do not suppose anyone will deny that when we came into power in June of 1957 unemployment was on the increase. By August this was obvious and we took steps to counteract it. I am not going to get involved in a long argument about inheritance or inheriting. I will just make this point from which I do not think my friend, with all his footwork, can get away. Either we inherited something or we changed the economic situation of this country between June and August. Is anyone going to argue that we did that? Is anyone going to argue that what was done in August to meet unemployment was occasioned by what we had done between June and August? I do not think any sensible man will. In August counter-measures were taken. The sum of $150 million was set apart for housing, and I need not do more than recall what has happened since. The amount has steadily risen and is now $750 million. I also notice in the afternoon paper an announcement that the amount is going to be raised.
Furthermore, the employment that has come from that is far greater and came about far more quickly than could have happened in any other way. On December 1 the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) said that it would provide 250,000 jobs this winter, and that is only what are called on-site jobs. There is in addition all the indirect work provided to workers on materials, and it is estimated that the off-site employment provided is practically as great as on-site. Then there is, in addition, the ordinary government expenditures of the various departments which account for some 150,000 more jobs. This winter, in addition, we have made an offer to the municipalities, coupled with the provinces to help provide employment, under which I think nearly 1,100 projects have been accepted and something like 19,000 men have been put to work, if my memory serves me correctly.
Now, that is one side. We are all humane men and the distress side of unemployment is greatly in our minds. It was greatly in our minds from the time we came into office. We knew we not only had to deal with the unemployment situation, but we had to deal with the situation of the unemployed. Hon. members will recall that in the autumn of 1957 we introduced measures, and I am going to refer to them very briefly, such as the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act lengthening seasonal benefits; raising the old age security, blind assistance, disabled assistance and war veterans' allowances. There was a whole range of things which immediately came to the assistance of those
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell in distress, and much as we regret that there should be any distress, these measures kept distress to a minimum.
I have seen a most able memorandum which was prepared to show the concentration of the various kinds of assistance which came to the aid of those who were in difficulties and which, as I said, I believe reduced the distress to a minimum.
I do wish to record my own opinion, for what it is worth. I believe the unemployment measures that were taken were sensible and were far removed from any of the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe action was taken in a sensible, workmanlike and practical way. I do not believe any person could seriously question these facts, and I hope we can get away from what I describe as the twisting, turning and squirming, and guide our minds by what a former premier of this country, Mr. Arthur Meighen, once called "the immortal ground of common sense.''
I sometimes think the opposition has concentrated the whole of its economic thinking on unemployment. Let them take a look at employment for a moment. Canadians on jobs in the month of December numbered 5,680,000, 22,000 more than one year earlier.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In December?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In December. I like to
think things are improving, but I am not forgetting to say that there were also more people unemployed, 48,000 more. This condition results from the fact the working force has increased very largely, partly because of so many women coming in, so many young people coming in and because there is immigration. When we are talking about these things I say, do not let us have the whole of our economic thinking taken up with the gloomy side of things. Let us have a look at the other side. After all, more than 90 per cent of our working force is employed, and happily they are profitably employed and they are able, pending improvement in conditions which will mean the return to work of the unemployed, to keep the unemployed from distress.
It is comforting to us all, I am sure, to know that the outlook for this year is good. People who are most thoughtful about these matters give us reason to believe that things are on the road to improvement, and that from here onward things will be on the way up.
I have been talking, up to now, about domestic issues. If we are the people we think we are, there is no reason why we should not deal with those issues and surmount them.

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
I should like now to turn my eyes outward. I want to talk about the challenge from abroad. It will not do us much good to deal with the situation here, however well we do it, if we do not deal with the challenge from abroad and if we do not remember that communistic imperialism is a mortal threat. I should like to quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in Albert Hall, which puts this very well and in a very concentrated manner. He said:
The communist world since 1945 has changed its direction but not its destination. First it was aggression, now it has made a detour. That detour is towards trade, and the undermining of the economic strength of the free world. As Khrushchev said, "Through trade we can destroy other powers that are opposed to us."
Those who read the report in the morning newspaper of what Khrushchev said will not be inclined to discount the Prime Minister's remark.
I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the commonwealth conference at Montreal in a rather contemptuous fashion. Throughout his speech, in so far as he referred to it at all, he tried to play it down, tried to make believe it had not amounted to much. I had the good fortune to be there, and while we should not exaggerate, should not pretend that it did more than make a beginning toward solving problems. No one who was there could accept the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who seemed to think it was a matter of a few boxes of salmon and some yards of calico. It was not that at all. Practical steps were taken, but what was really the important thing and what impressed everyone who was there was the spirit.
I hope I am not an unduly emotional man but I confess to you I was impressed by seeing men of different colours, races and religions meeting together as friends and partners. It was impressive to me, the last morning we were there, to hear one of the African delegates, who was just as different from us in every way as it was possible to be, use the phrase, "We of the commonwealth".
What was this spirit? What did it amount to, where did it come from and to what point could it lead us? The answer to these questions depends a great deal upon ourselves. I was disappointed to find the Leader of the Opposition spoke of there having been a lot of commonwealth conferences throughout the last years, and to suggest that one in Montreal was really another similar one. I want to examine that a little.
In 1956, the then prime minister Mr. St. Laurent, went to the commonwealth conference of prime ministers in London. We all had the greatest respect for Mr. St. Laurent,


but to those of us in the opposition at that time, that commonwealth conference was a very unsatisfactory thing. The present Prime Minister had tried, year after year, to have more interest taken in the commonwealth. If you go back and search Hansard you will find his statements there. Again, in 1956, the present Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition, and others of us tried to find out what was going to be done beforehand, but there was no opportunity given.
When the prime minister came back, in spite of my respect for him I could not help but feel that this matter had not ranked very high. He told us about the conference. He spoke about the advantages of meeting together and getting to know each other. He spoke about the advantages of meeting people from Asia and getting your point of view broadened. Then, he added this sentence, which just chilled me. He said "problems of the commonwealth, as such, did not require very much attention." This disappointed me a lot.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon.
gentleman permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know he wants to be very fair to a man who is not in this house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do indeed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that, and I know the hon. gentleman is one of the sincere members in this house. I am sure that now, as a member of the government of Canada and with the access he has to all the documentation, he would agree with me that the former prime minister, on the basis of that documentation, will go down as one of those in our time who did more to preserve the commonwealth than possibly anyone else. The documentation is there and it speaks for itself. I ask the hon. gentleman whether he does not agree with what I am now saying?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My answer to that is that I have not read the documents. I can only go by what was said. I am not blaming the then prime minister particularly. This was his report, and I have no doubt a fair report of what took place. It is because it is, I assume, a fair report of what took place, that it troubles me so greatly. Let me read the words again:
Problems of the commonwealth as such did not require very much attention."
If that was the attitude of those there, it seems to me it indicates an entire failure to assess the situation, unless I am entirely wrong. To me, within the world in which we live, if this commonwealth has not things

The Address-Mr. Macdonnell
to do and is not able to do them, I think it is going to be just too bad for us all. I think we are just like children playing in the sand if we do not take this commonwealth seriously. If you look at the world in which we live you find these two great continental empires-we have three now with China, but let us stick to the two-namely the U.S.S.R. and the United States, two great land masses standing off and glaring at each other, and you have the commonwealth which in my opinion is a possible bridge.
By the way, there is one thing that I wanted to say. I do not want to fail to give the previous government credit for the Colombo plan. I do not want to omit any credit they deserve because I do not think they deserve very much.
I now want to turn for a moment to our present Prime Minister. Any one who will take the trouble to go back and read the documents, and read of the attitude that he has taken throughout a good many years, will see that for years in opposition he had tried to have this thing taken more seriously. I should like to read from what he said in 1954, as reported at page 5194 of Hansard of May 28, 1954, showing that even then he had the feeling of the extent of the influence this commonwealth had and which it continues to have; and if it did not continue to have it, the results would be bad for us all. This is what he said:
Indo-China, and what is happening there, may be a turning point in our history. What is happening in Geneva may bring the commonwealth closer to the United States than ever before. The commonwealth has a tremendous contribution to make in the world in the preservation of peace in Asia, with its Asiatic membership joining with the western members of the family.
Eighteen months ago I had the good fortune to be in Malaya when it became a free nation and when it joined the commonwealth of its own free will. I was impressed first of all by the fact it was being done and in the second place, I was impressed by their attitude and their desire to be associated with the rest of us and to play a part with the rest of us. Incidentally I may say that I am told that they have conducted themselves extremely well in the United Nations. I want to read further from the Prime Minister's words as follows:
The future of southeast Asia is at stake. The unity of the western powers must be maintained. Communist strategy seems to be designed to divide and conquer.
How true that statement is.
This debate will show that as far as Canada is concerned we will not be divided. I hope there will come in our country a fuller realization of the responsibilities of Canada in the world of today-
This is in 1954.
-and a determination to continue the course of peace we took in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
What an accurate forecast that was of what has been happening and is still happening. In the light of this, in the light of what he had been saying for years, he did not lose a day. When he became Prime Minister he went straight to London and there, as we all know, he pressed for and succeeded in having a commonwealth conference held.
My time is short, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to say something of this commonwealth. When I was in Malaya the thought struck me, as it never had before, of the world-wide extent of the commonwealth; with one country in America; one in Europe; four, if I remember right, in Asia; two in the south seas; and three in Africa; it spans the world. The hon. member for Essex East has been there and he will endorse this. It is an example of a world order on a small scale. We are in North America but we are also in the commonwealth. Australia is in the south Seas but it is also in the commonwealth. Malaya is in Asia but it is also in the commonwealth. The Prime Minister was quick to realize this truth. Actually, it is almost a miracle that it exists as it does. Would anyone have visualized 10 or 15 years ago that if India were given its freedom, and particularly if it became a republic, it would still stay in the commonwealth? I will venture to say that anyone to whom that proposition was made would have thought it to be silly. However, it exists because of understanding and common purpose and a common belief in the dignity and the importance of the individual or, in other words, freedom. I saw this in Malaya.
All this is true and important, but it is not the whole truth. Men who are starving will in the end prefer food to freedom. That is the reason why we must see that they are not left with this dreadful choice. In other words, we must see that they can be developed to the point where they can feed their populations. The solution, of course, is to help develop the underdeveloped countries. This thought was in everyone's mind at Montreal when the conference took place. It seems to me it is a pity that we should be splitting hairs as to whether the conference led up to or foreshadowed the currency arrangements which were made afterwards. I think we have some important things to talk about other than that. The Prime Minister realized it. Here is what he told the people at Sydney when he went around the world to follow up the conference. He
442	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell realized it was just the beginning. He realized more had to be done. He said to the people in Sydney:
I came for the purpose of seeing members of this commonwealth and, in particular, those who, as you said a moment ago, are located in Asia where I believe, as I have said on other occasions, the success or failure of the endeavour among our nations to achieve not only a common heritage but also, in achieving that, to ensure a high degree of economic prosperity each for the other will depend upon whether or not this commonwealth can live, expand and develop as I expect and anticipate it will.
I believe these are matters of vast importance for us to think about. We must not regard it as a kind of super community drive. We must regard it as a task which faces us not merely because other people are badly off, but in our own interests because it is essential for us to live in an expanding world, as was said at the conference. This world must expand to the point where the underdeveloped countries can develop and trade and in that way to the point where we can all prosper.
I think it is absolutely essential that we should all get an entirely new conception of the duties and responsibilities that lie on us before it is too late; and when I say "too late", I mean "too late". I sometimes wonder whether we in North America are not like children playing in the sand. Of course, we seem to be far off from danger but we now know that nobody is far off. I sometimes wonder whether we are taking ourselves seriously enough when we enjoy all the things that we have and seem to have so little time for thinking of the responsibilities which face us. Whether right or wrong, whether we were doing it well or ill, when we were at Montreal we were trying to face these things. I regret more than I can say that all the opposition could do was to try to play it down. I want to read to you from what the Prime Minister said at Royal Albert hall on November 4. He puts the matter clearly and inescapably. Here are some of his words:
I want to assure you in simple language that our desire is to contribute to the strength and the spirit of the commonwealth and to the common welfare of its peoples. When you see the peoples in Asia you realize that if all we bring before them is the promise of parliamentary government, stomachs are not filled with that.
Later he said this:
I think it is idle for men to speak of peace, of freedom and parliamentary democracy, unless the association can meet the basic needs, the economic needs of the various peoples comprising this family of nations.
Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I hope that my words have perhaps carried some conviction. I hope that we shall recognize the 

responsibilities that we face and that we shall not wake up one day and say to ourselves, "Why did we not think about that before? Nobody ever told us". The Prime Minister has told us. I hope we will register his words, take them seriously and act accordingly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for me to offer congratulations to the hon. gentleman who moved the address (Mr. Jorgenson). He was on the NATO parliamentary junket with me, and if it is permissible for one member to say it about another, I thought he was well above the average in both ability and insight. I did not have the opportunity of hearing the speech made by the seconder (Mr. Fortin). I read it. I noticed it received tremendous commendation in the press and I personally, after reading it, felt that it was in the long tradition. It seems that ever since Lord Durham let the black cat out of the bag in 1837, one of the things English and French Canadians like to do when they get together is to be very sweet to each other and talk in terms of national unity and how well things are going. I have nothing against that at all but I sometimes feel there is a sweeping change taking place in French Canada and I, for one, as someone who lives a long distance away from it, would wish that we could have recapitulated in this house some of the views of this new Quebec that would remind us more of what Professor Lower has put down, and I think correctly, namely the fact that because we have French and English in Canada it forms our primary antithesis. I certainly say this, we should hear an explanation from English and French speaking members from Quebec of their views in the controversy centring around the Tremblay report.
In this matter of French Canada being on the move, I have heard a rather interesting little remark from a French-Canadian friend of mine about the C.B.C. strike in Montreal; that this was the most unusual thing that ever happened; for the first time the French-Canadian intellectuals seemed to be working with the labour movement in Quebec. I said, "This certainly would be unusual because from my reading of the Quebec press the French-Canadian intellectuals seem to spend most of their time worrying about invasions upon the purity of the French-Canadian language." This chap said, "Wait, my friend. In six months time they will be worrying about the purity of the labour movement", which, if it should happen, would be most interesting.
In the remarks I have just made I would not like to leave the suggestion that the fact of national unity is something that we need

to dismiss. I think that the last prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, combined in his person a tremendous charm reflecting both branches of Canada. He did a great deal just in his restatement of platitudes in moving us toward national unity, but I still think it is not going to be resolved without far more discussion and the cross current of debate. I do not mean the kind of debate that seems to develop so often in this chamber by French-Canadian members on a partisan basis which seems to be a mere matter of black and white and white and black.
One cannot help but welcome the translation device which is available to us all. The only thing I would like to remark in connection with the arrangements in the chamber is that there has been a threat to cut down on the reading of speeches. I sometimes think that we will be just beating ourselves against a feather pillow in attacking the problem. One of the things that might be suggested here is that at the party caucuses, instead of worrying about reading of speeches, we could give some lessons in reading.
One of the things that bothers me in the reply that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) gave to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in this particular debate is his delicate sensitivity with regard to criticism of his trip beyond the seas. I have been puzzled as to why he is so peculiarly sensitive in this regard. I heard him make the remark that a statesman was a dead politician. In other words, he recognizes that he is a politician. I think he is also aware that world trips give glamour and prestige which may be reflected in that crass but very important place, the polling booth. Surely he cannot blame other politicians for trying to set a balance against that glamour and prestige. I certainly found that it was a most interesting trip. I know that some of the Scottish people in my constituency were delighted to discover that the Prime Minister went looking for his Scottish ancestors. Many did not realize that he had Scottish ancestors. I only hope that everything went well for him in that search. I know a friend of mine a few years ago went and looked up the kirk records in Scotland to trace his ancestors on his father's side. He discovered that his great great grandfather, who was born in the middle of the 18th century, was illegitimate and had been just a charge upon the parish. This was quite embarrassing and he sloughed off his interest in geneology.
One of the other things about the Prime Minister's trip that I know interested many people in my constituency was the dispatch out of Rome that a photographer was absent,
The Address-Mr. Fisher unfortunately, when the Prime Minister was having his interview with the Pope, and I quite frankly say that photograph would have been worth a great deal to the Prime Minister in electoral terms.
The part about the world tour that I appreciated most was the homely and amusing story that came out of Lahore, India. To a Kipling reader the snarling of tigers and the trumpeting of elephants and the whole exotic orient portrayed in those books creates a magic spell. Thus to a Kiplingite the remark of one prominent member of the Canadian delegation was wonderful. After the party had watched a display of the whirling dervishes he said that they reminded him very much of the shriners in Canada at a convention.
Later on when the Prime Minister came arrowing home across the very romantic south Pacific, it just happened to coincide with a very severe cold wave in Port Arthur. The batteries in our cars were frozen and the radiators were frozen and the thermometer stood at 30 degrees below zero. The unemployment percentages happened to be rising above 20 per cent of the labour force and, as a consequence, certain feelings welled up naturally at the thought of this exotic trip in contrast with what one poor member of parliament was suffering in his constituency.
In making these remarks one would like to remind the Prime Minister that we do not want that Gallup poll to go right up to the top. If it goes much higher I am sure he will request that we all get out of here. I would ask him and the Conservatives to be a little less sensitive with regard to this world trip.
One of the things that I must credit the Leader of the Opposition for is the exceptionally good speech he made this year compared with what was referred to that in January of last year-a relative failure. Certainly, after the speech the Prime Minister did not come rushing into the abattoir in the way that he was described as doing last time. I thought there was rather an excellent selection of material in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and that congratulations should go to Professors Lamontagne and McEachen. Carlyle once said that economics is the dismal science, and these gentlemen are professors of economics. This may be the explanation for the certain gloomy quality in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which the ranks of the government have bleated about.
One of the things I noticed the Leader of the Opposition referred to, and it has been referred to by other hon. members here, is the performance and denunciations of the

The Address-Mr. Fisher hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). I was delighted, Mr. Speaker, to discover that the views of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska had even reached France, not Paris, which is the heart of the nation, but the relatively provincial city of Lyon, France. Here is a newspaper called L'Annonceur Francais for December 31, 1958, and who is on the front page in connection with an analysis of the political situation in Canada, none other than the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. It is in French. My translating abilities are not exceptional, but I did translate this, and it fits in nicely with the way the hon. member's remarks have been used in the past. The member of parliament for Restigouche-Madawaska said:
We appreciate that you have helped us to accomplish our work.
He was speaking to a very large association in New Brunswick last August. I gather the people belonged to L'Union des electeurs. I continue with the translation:
We always find money by the million and by the billion when it is for war. Why can't we find money to double the family allowances? The politicians have their eyes closed to misery, we should open them wide and quickly as we do in the case of war.
It is inexcusable that in a country as rich as Canada that there are still people reduced to living in poverty, yes, even in black misery. If this is not the fault of the government then whose fault is it?
This part is interesting, and it suggests a new tack in the career of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska:
The monetary principles that we know are insane. The only answer is to proclaim this with all your tenacity to show the absurdity and the barbarism of our actual finance system.
That was the end of the reported remarks of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. There was a quotation from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Frechette) too. His remarks are a little lighter, but they provide an adequate footnote. He said:
I have never before listened to a speech so interesting, because it is based on the truth, and when I think of this goodwill meeting it is very encouraging to me. It is you, the electors, who should say what you wish. It is you who pay. We have no status but to serve you and to carry out your legitimate wishes.
One of the rumours we have heard around here-as a matter of fact it was, perhaps part of a public announcement-with reference to the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, is that he was leaving this chamber in order to assume duties in another place, possibly in the market place of Montreal. I have also heard a rumour going around today-I hope it is not true, because if it were it would fill me with great sadness-to the effect that the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)

is contemplating leaving this house to enter a different field of endeavour. It seems to me that would be a very tragic blow to this house. I think the former member for Winnipeg North Centre, the former member for Coast Capilano, and the present member for Essex East are the three people to whom I have looked up most consistently in terms both of their deft skill and of a certain liveliness which they injected into the debates of this house, and the thought of the loss of the third of that trio leaves me with a certain sadness.
One of the things about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which intrigued me was the little lesson in economics which he failed to give to the government and to the Prime Minister. On the whole he attempted to make what he thought was constructive criticism, but he hesitated to suggest any way out of the twin dilemmas which face the government at the present time. I followed what he said. I had read the article in the Reporter magazine to which he referred, and I noticed that whoever had looked over the article in question had lifted out exactly what would fit in with what the Liberals had been talking about a year ago. I wondered why the Leader of the Opposition had not put this into the record from the same article in the Reporter which, incidentally, was written by Arthur Burns, a very orthodox economist who was lately adviser to the President of the United States. The quotation I have in mind reads:
An inflationary psychology is definitely spreading, and it poses a serious threat to our nation's economic health and progress.
It is precisely for this reason that we must seek solutions both promptly and in a constructive spirit. The suggestion, which keeps recurring, that the way to control inflation is to be less zealous about checking recessions is a counsel of despair. If we ever attempt to follow it, we would only add to our troubles, both domestically and internationally.
In other words, Dr. Burns is orthodox.
Our real need is not to weaken anti-recession policies but to improve them so that they will be less likely to release inflationary forces. I must add. however, that improvements in our business-cycle policies will not of themselves suffice to curb the inflationary trend. The problem of inflation which we face is of a long-range character, and a comprehensive policy and some major reforms are required to bring inflation under reasonable control.
Now I think all hon. members probably noticed the rather querulous note which crepi into the Prime Minister's voice when he was answering the Leader of the Opposition as reported on page 62 of Hansard. Describing the problem of inflation and speculating on the answer to it, he said:
There is one of the major problems that economists have not been able to answer today, the

unusual position with which we are faced. I think it requires action on the part of all of us.
I have the unusual feeling, recalling these words, that the Prime Minister was waiting for an economist to come up with the answer. And here is an economist with an answer as far as the United States economy is concerned, though I think it could be translated into Canadian terms. Dr. Burns goes on:
It will take many minds and much effort to work out the particulars of this policy. The way to start, in my judgment, is to amend the employment act so that reasonable stability of the consumer price level will be explicitly included among the high objectives which it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the federal government to promote. Such a declaration of moral purpose by the congress with regard to the price level is the most effective action that can now be taken to arrest the dangerously spreading belief that we are living in an age of inflation. Once that is accomplished, we must go to work not merely on the monetary front, or the fiscal front, or the agricultural front, but on all these and others, without, however, interfering with the essentials of economic freedom.
We need to review the patchwork of special legislation that our government has evolved through the years in the form of price supports, import duties, import quotas, wage regulations, stockpiles, and subsidies-all of which tend to raise prices. We need to devise better defenses against monopoly power, whether it crops up in business dealings or in labour relations. We need to establish local productivity councils, composed of civil leaders, business executives, and trade-union officials, to spot industrial wastes and promote improvements in efficiency. We need to review our tax laws, with a view to carrying out reforms that may spur the nation's productivity. We need to keep a firmer rein on public expenditures in times of advancing prosperity and develop better budgetary controls over the progress of expenditures.
Then Dr. Burns goes on to further suggestions. Now I submit that involved in all these suggestions is a concept and an idea of social and economic planning that everybody seems to do a buck and wing about in the Conservative party whenever they are mentioned. What is the alternative? Many of us remember the speech made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) the other day when he stood up and extolled the virtues of free enterprise, giving us all the impression that he came from a constituency of independent, rugged individualists who delighted in making out on their own without interference from any quarter. It was a fine speech on the free enterprise ethic, yet what did he say immediately afterwards? He began to talk about government subsidies for the shipbuilding industry to help things out in his part of the country. I do not blame him for asking for these subsidies, but why try to have it both ways? Obviously his constituency is in as much need of subsidies as any other, and in these circumstances, with
The Address-Mr. Fisher these paradoxes to boggle at the words, social and economic planning seems to me completely silly.
Now here is a Canadian economist-at least he is Canadian in origin-to whose work I have referred before, and I wish the Prime Minister would invite him to Ottawa so that he might assist in the solution of some of these problems. I refer to Professor Galbraith who wrote the best seller "The Affluent Society". Professor Galbraith has quite a number of suggestions to make regarding the way out of this dual problem of inflation and unemployment. One of them could really have been considered a year ago, and that is the question of so adjusting our unemployment benefits that if you have a very large amount of unemployment the benefits would go up, and if you had only a small amount of unemployment the scale would go down; in other words, the scale would change with a definite idea of pumping money into the system when it was actually needed.
One of the points which Professor Galbraith makes that we never seem to get clear, despite all the concern we have about production and the gross national product, is that Russia has a much lower gross national product than the United States and yet is able to achieve things on such a scale that they frighten us, all by means of more efficient direction. None of us wants to see here the type of system that the Russians have; I am sure that I am no more and no less of a gradualist with regard to movement in economic terms than anyone else in this house, but we have to face the implications of what is happening elsewhere. One of the paragraphs in Galbraith's book which particularly interested me was this:
Our economy, and the economic theory that explains and rationalizes its behavior, immobilizes all but a minor fraction of the product in private and, from the standpoint of national security, irrelevant production.
In other words, he means such things as lipsticks, breweries, alcohol and similar articles which are by no means part of a nation's vital production. These are quite irrelevant, certainly much more irrelevant than such things as schools, highways and roads. Professor Galbraith goes on:
We have not seen that the problem is far more than one of a bigger budget-that it is one of our attitude toward the goals of the society itself. A society which sets as its highest goal the production of private consumer goods will continue to reflect such attitudes in all its public decisions. It will entrust public decisions to men who regard any other goal as incredible-or radical. We have yet to see that not the total of resources but their studied and rational use is the key to achievement.
One of the most interesting pastimes in which one can engage at this time is going through the speeches of the backbenchers, if
446	HOUSE OF
The Address

Mr. Fisher you do not mind the use ot that term, Mr. Speaker. Almost every one of them has stood up and laid on the line what he would like for his constituency and almost every request has been in the field of public expenditure or of public capital. I think it is time we faced up to the anachronism in our thinking and realized that there is now very little real difference between the question of free enterprise and social and economic planning. We may be able to operate with one and retain the basis of the other but we will have to move on against the whole crisis and have regard to the international situation.
One of the difficulties one encounters in speaking on a topic like this is that one perhaps tends to fulminate more than one should if one is to keep one's arguments reasonable. From my meagre knowledge of economics I believe that the Keynesian system of economics is over the hill. Under that system it was felt that somehow by monetary and fiscal finagling of the entire financial structure of the country you could keep going on or adjust to an even keel. The Prime Minister says the economists do not have an answer. I believe we should conduct a continuing study of the whole field of social and economic planning, placing it on a rational basis instead of having it a piecemeal, ad hoc affair that makes no pattern.
One reason I get excited in this respect is that unemployment in my region is very bad and at this moment approximately 25 per cent of the labour force is unemployed.
Last year I made a certain statement in this house and when I did various hon. members went running around the chamber saying that they would report it back and checkmate the C.C.F. out west. I am going to make that statement again today because it is as true now as it was then. In terms of the financial fibre of this country there is no industry more important than the pulp and paper industry, without excepting the grain business on the prairies. If you want to get a clear picture of it, look at the export trade figures. The pulp and paper industry is in serious trouble. One of the promises extracted from the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) last year was that the government in cooperation with the officials of the Department of Finance would study the whole question of fiscal policy in relation to the pulp and paper and forest products industry. There has been unrest and worry in the industry for some time. One thing we do know is that those engaged in the industry in northwestern Ontario have the highest wood costs in the world so far as pulpwood is concerned.
They also have some of the highest transportation costs in the world. Every time


freight rates go up they are in more difficulty and their competitive position is weakened. We know that the southern states have brought more pulpwood forests and mills into production. They have a tremendous advantage over us for their growth cycle is three or four times as fast as ours. On top of that chemical engineers are revolutionizing the process of dealing with low grade species produced in the northeastern and the lake states. Most of our pulp and paper is exported to the United States and our competitors there are in an increasingly strong position.
We have also to face the problem of competition from Russia. There are under construction in Russia two pulp and paper mills with a capacity of 1,000 tons a day; genuine giants. What will happen to the industry in Canada if Russia should decide in future to drop a few hundred tons on the world market? The important but relatively little we do export to Europe and the Caribbean will be lost to us. We need to take a close, hard look at the pulp and paper industry in Canada. I know very definitely that representations have been made to the government from the point of view of management and I wanted to go on record stating the position from the point of view of those engaged in the industry in my particular area.
I received just today from a professional forester in my area a copy of a paper he gave about ten days ago in Sudbury to the Ontario professional foresters' association. He has indicated that many people approached him and said he was a brave man to have given this paper. I want to read a few paragraphs from it in the hope that these words will come to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I believe it points out clearly some of the problems the forest industry faces at this time. The article is entitled "The Professional Forester in Industry" and was written by Mr. K. W. Hearnden. Portions of it are as follows:
Canadians, in government and industry, are still busily engaged in the conversion of the forest, our most important resource, into revenue and profit dollars and an enviable standard of living without a proper awareness of the possible consequence of neglecting the early initiation of forestry measures. The consequence, suggested by the Canadian Institute of Forestry in a submission to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, is that "the country is in danger of impoverishing its most economical sources of wood". In 1957, Dr. H. R. McMillan, an eminent Canadian forester of 50 years professional experience said, "It is doubtful whether Canada, with its present attention to forest management, can sustain today's annual cut in perpetuity, even by going farther north each decade into virgin forest (at greater cost for logs) or by using a higher proportion of inferior species (thus reducing our competitive ability in the foreign markets upon which we depend)."

I might say that Dr. MacMillan is one of the few foresters I know in this industry who has become a multi-millionaire. I know that as far as our foreign markets are concerned exports are down and a couple of machines in lakehead mills are being closed down and we do not know when they are going to operate again. The following statement is very clear:
Canada does not have an official forest management policy which will ensure the perpetuation of our forest resource and the maintenance of our future world competitive position in forest products. This deficiency is apparent in the legislation of most provinces, whereunder regulations are made to ensure the orderly liquidation of virgin stands and to provide for the levying of stumpage assessments, taxes, rentals and penalties. it can be said, then, that the forester in industry derives little or no support from either the general attitude of the public toward the forest or from existing forest legislation. With but few exceptions, it can be said that he has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for the management of the forest areas with which he is directly concerned.
Later on in the article the writer states:
In adequate forest legislation and public indifference and ignorance have already been suggested a.s deterrents to forest management and to the discharge of professional duties in industry. In addition. several other factors should be mentioned:
1.	Costs-Steady increases in the cost of producing timber during the past ten years are largely attributable to the demands of labour. These increases have had the effect of reducing any margin which might have been made available for forestry.
2.	Forest Management Standards and Objectives- At present the industry has no long term objective in forest management other than the continuous production of essential raw material and the maintenance of a rough status quo in respect of the regeneration of logged sites. Under present conditions, industry is prepared to accept whatever stand conditions may fortuitously develop after logging and assumes that chemistry will solve future problems created by low grade, second growth stands and proliferating silvicultural "slum" areas.
Without silvicultural standards, arbitrary or otherwise, governing regeneration establishment periods, stocking and species requirements, the industrial forester cannot properly manage the forest. This is probably the most contentious single issue amongst foresters and one which must be resolved soon by the profession as a whole.
3.	Authority-With but few exceptions, foresters in industry do not have the authority to manage the forest in any real sense. It is probable that this authority can only be created by enlightened legislation.
That is a very large problem and it ties in closely with costs. Not only are labour costs high but we are getting farther from the mills. It will be a longer time before the forests close to the mills come back than is the case in the southern states or in Russia.
I wish to express a real debt of gratitude to two hon. gentlemen from Toronto on the government side of the house who spoke about education. I only hope they are working in caucus to convince more and more
The Address-Mr. Fisher of their members that action by this government in the field of education would probably be the most popular measure that could be placed on the statute books at this time. I admire the report to which they gave publicity and the arguments they advanced. Certainly the report and their presentation of the situation were not complete but there has been no finer treatment of the subject in this house in the short time I have been here. As a teacher and librarian I expected to find a concern for education among members of parliament when I same to Ottawa but I soon learned that most hon. gentlemen were not interested in the subject in any real, heartfelt way. Therefore I want to heartily congratulate the two hon. gentlemen for having spoken on this topic. They deserve it for standing up and outlining the position of Canadian education vis-a-vis the Russian and for detailing reasons why, when, and where we should move with respect to this field.
While the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is in the house I want to make a few remarks about Conservatism which might be a nice note on which to conclude because as a life-long Conservative I know he is interested in this topic. A C.C.F. member of parliament was once approached by one of the best lady workers in his whole constituency organization at a meeting at which he had made a resounding, table-pounding speech on the virtues of socialism. She said, "Do you mean to say we are socialists?" He nodded his head and said, "Yes." She said, "Oh, I never knew." This account in the Winnipeg Tribune of January 20 is very enlightening. It has the heading, "Why Are Tories Tories? They Follow Parents' Politics." I am going to put this article on the record because it is so interesting. It is written by Frank Jones and I think the members from Winnipeg should give him a pat on the back. The article reads:
Why are Conservatives Conservatives? According to members of the South East and St. James Women's Progressive Conservative Association asked this question Monday, it's because their mothers and fathers were Conservatives. From the president down, it seems it's a matter of what the rest of your family are.
"My husband was an ardent Conservative," said retiring president, Mrs. F. M. Bastin in her report to the annual meeting. "And I endeavour to live by the Guide motto-I promise to do my best."
Asked why she was a Conservative, a new member, Mrs. I. E. Hansen said she thought the Liberals might be for union with the U.S.A. "But the Conservatives tend to cling to British ties."
Diefenbaker?-"A man of great ability."
What about a television commentator's claim that the Prime Minister has an inflated ego? "Well it would be foolish for a man of his ability to pretend humility."
448	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fisher
Mrs. J. Jenkins, one of Winnipeg's longest standing Conservatives knows why she is a Conservative. "They are loyal to the good old Union Jack and are for the betterment of mankind." She also knows why she does not belong to another party.
This is very interesting.
"Liberals are not for the underdog; the C.C.F. are a bunch of communists and are anti-Christ. Communists represent the devil."
We are getting right to the heart of the Conservative creed here.
Miss H. J. MacNeil, who has worked for the Conservatives in elections for forty years, said, "By far the best party. Sir John A. Macdonald was quite right in his principles. We should pray for the fall of these dreadful communists," she added as an afterthought.
Like nearly every other member asked, new president, Miss Ethel Johnson, said she was first a Conservative because her father was. "I think they are not so much for change as the Liberals. As their name suggests, they are conservative."
How did she account for the word "Progressive" in the title? "Yes, that has puzzled me too sometimes, but I expect there's a reason for it."
Another member, refusing to give her name, said she was quite certain she did not believe in the C.C.F. "I don't know much about them but I know I don't believe in them."
This took me, Mr. Speaker, to an article that I enjoyed very much last year. It deals with another viewpoint of the differences between Conservatives and Liberals. I showed it to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) and after reading it he just mumbled-I think that is a fair statement-that he figured he was a liberal. Anyway, this gentleman, Mr. Herbert Mc-Closky, did a social science research project analysing in depth what "conservative" and "liberal"-not with capital letters-mean. This article is the result of the long study he made and I know that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) will be interested. It reads as follows:
One of the clearest findings in both studies is that, contrary to claim, conservatism is not the preferred doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated and, so far as we can determine, the less intelligent. There is a sharp decline in the level of information and intellectual grasp as one moves from the more liberal to the more conservative sections of the population . . . The data show clearly, nevertheless, that the most articulate and informed classes in our society are preponderantly liberal in their outlook.
He goes on to say:
Conservatism, in our society at least, appears to be far more characteristic of social isolates, of people who think poorly of themselves, who suffer personal disgruntlement and frustration, who are submissive, timid and wanting in confidence, who lack a clear sense of direction and purpose, who are uncertain of their values and who are generally


bewildered by the alarming task of having to thread their way through a society which seems to them too complex to fathom.
There is another quotation in this regard that I appreciated very much. It is taken from "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, published in 1951, and reads as follows:
Far from being the elite or the masters or the prime movers, conservatives tend on the whole to come from the backward and frightened elements of the population, including the classes that are socially and psychologically depressed.
This whole question raises this issue, Mr. Speaker: Are these Conservatives more progressive than conservative? After reading this indictment of the conservative mind I hope that for their sakes they are more progressive than they are conservative. I can only suggest that maybe it might not be a bad idea if the Prime Minister, who has often been said to be a progressive, would drop the "Conservative" from the name of the party so that it would become known as the progressive party. I am sure we would see them in a little rosier hue.
When I make the suggestion I am drawn back to this very interesting article in the Winnipeg Tribune and, comparing it with the conclusion reached in this socio-scientific study, we are left with a real dilemma, something like the dilemma that members of the opposition have been left in when considering the program before us this session.
I am informed that I have a few more minutes. I had intended to speak longer on this particular theme but I see so much recognition on faces in other parts of the house of the pithiness of the words I have quoted that I do not think there is any need to continue. One matter I should like to touch on relates to the Canadian National Railways and the effect of central traffic control and dieselization on the future of divisional points. I have four Canadian National and three Canadian Pacific divisional points in my constituency and there is tremendous concern among the railroaders about pending changes. I have here a letter I received from the council of the town of Hornepayne in northwestern Ontario and it will give some idea why I feel we have to check, watch and demand much more from Mr. Donald Gordon than we have in the past. Last year Mr. Gordon appeared before a parliamentary committee. I do not want to put improper opinions in his mouth but I took from his remarks that he felt there was not much use in going out and telling these people what was going to happen. This letter is addressed to me and it is signed by John Redgrift, reeve of Wickstead township, Hornepayne, Ontario, and reads in part as follows:
Owing to the fact that the prosperity of our community is directly affected by the efficient and

profitable operation of the Canadian National Railways we deem it necessary to criticize the present policy of the present management of this company.
It seems to us that the Canadian National Railways is at present under the control of a group of unrealistic economists and through this control the operations are deteriorating to the point where not only are they unprofitable for the future but are also becoming very unsatisfactory in regards to safe operation. Lay-offs are taking place that cannot help but aggravate the above-mentioned conditions and we herein mention some that directly affect the safe and profitable operation of this great railroad owned by the Canadian people.
First of all, our track, main line and yards. Not only have the section forces been reduced, who are responsible for maintaining this track in condition for high speed operation, they have been given additional mileage to maintain, more switches to keep in working order which means that they must travel additional distances to the scene of their repair work and therefore less time to do the necessary repairs to the track and maintenance work on the switches and yards. This means that the track conditions are deteriorating rapidly, necessitating the issuance of slow orders to the operating trains and a curtailment of their speed to the point where schedules cannot be met, let alone make up time in the terminals.
The terminal and repair forces have been reduced to the point that it is impossible to service a train properly in the terminal time allotted to the schedules of our trains. Therefore trains are leaving not properly inspected and serviced with the result that breakdowns and delays occur enroute between terminals with the accompanying danger of derailments that could be very costly and a serious possibility of fatal accidents. Not long ago, in fact during the Christmas rush, a passenger train left Capreol improperly serviced with the result that the steam generating boilers ran short of water, freezing up several coaches on the remainder of the train. The train stopped at an emergency watering point, this service was frozen up owing to lack of attention. The train proceeded to the terminal where there was no thawing facilties due to the laying off of the boiler attendant last spring and the facilities not re-opened last fall. This train then proceeded to the divisional point where it was delayed eight hours thawing out the steam lines in the coaches. These coaches were our best equipment on the "super continental" and were a complete shambles on the completion of the thawing job, and the 407 passengers on the train, all in a hurry to get to their destination for Christmas were, to say the least, very annoyed and disappointed in Mr. Gordon's claim "service bar none". This type of service does not speak well for the future patronage of this railway by the passengers of our "super" that day.
Our rolling stock backlog of defective cars is steadily mounting and each of these cars that are classed as "loads" represents some dissatisfied customers patiently waiting for their shipment of freight to arrive, and on top of this there is a move on foot to reduce further the repair men and repair points for these cars.
The letter goes on to state that there is tear in the other communities, and in the other divisional points, that they are going to become ghost towns. The value of their property has tumbled. There is a deep dispirited feeling abroad in these communities, and people are moving out. This whole situation involves the question, what is the responsibility of a large corporation when it is the 66968-9-29
The Address-Mr. Clancy bellwether of the community's economy? Does the corporation, and in this particular case the people of Canada, accept certain responsibilities for these bad conditions in these divisional points? This is one of the reasons why I think this government needs to do more planning and more studying on this sort of thing. We now have a terrible situation in these particular divisional points. I shall close on this particular note hoping that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) will get together with the president of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, may I first join with those who have spoken before me in welcoming and congratulating the four new members who took their seats on January 15. At the same time, I extend my deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the late hon. members for Trinity and Springfield who sat with us during the last session. I do this on a personal note because I formed a very close friendship with these two members.
To the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I offer my sincere congratulations; first, upon their having been so honoured and, second, for the excellence of their presentation. Before I get into my prepared text, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for his recommendation that we adopt the Chinese commune system. He spent a great deal of time quoting from this and that publication. He advocated controls of this and that and the other thing, and I shall take the trouble to inform the majority of my constituents that they are considered by the hon. member to be ignorant half-wits. I must congratulate the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) for having the intelligentsia of Saskatchewan concentrated in his constituency.
I should like to say a few words about my constituency of Yorkton in the province of Saskatchewan, whose economy is based solely on the successful operation of the primary industry of agriculture. The majority of the people are engaged in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products. The balance are engaged in providing services of one kind or another to the different communities. Since the people in my constituency are, for the most part, selfemployed, they are an independent and selfreliant group.
The city of Yorkton, which is nearly the geographical centre of the constituency, is our largest centre. Yorkton has been well

The Address-Mr. Clancy served over the years by competent aider-men. It is a well planned, clean and pleasant city, and one of the few in which you will find no slums and no shacktown on the outskirts. Yorkton is the distributing centre for that area of the province. The biennial international film festival, sponsored by the Yorkton film council, now has entries from some of the world's best documentary film companies. The golden sheaf award is becoming a prized international award.
The annual Yorkton fair and the autumn agricultural shows are outstanding because of the quality of the exhibits. They are to be congratulated for their success in national and international competition. The farmers of my constituency are engaged in the basic industry of agriculture. The steps taken by the government to implement a long term national agricultural policy, after years of a government with no policy, a government which drifted from one crisis in agricultural to another, are appreciated and are receiving support from the farmers. The practising farmer knows that only when he has a price set-up which will guarantee that the prices he is to receive will not be allowed to fall below a reasonable minimum, only when he has a system of crop insurance which will protect him from financial disaster when his crops are wiped out by natural hazards, can he plan his production to ensure a steadily rising standard of living. The long term national plan for agriculture introduced by this government is designed to bring about the conditions I have mentioned. The steps already taken to implement this plan are on the records of the house. The speech from the throne indicates that the government is proceeding in an orderly manner in the implementation of its agricultural policy.
The attention of the house has already been drawn to a statement in the current review of agricultural conditions in Canada, January, 1959, but I should like to repeat it for emphasis:
Although both cash income and operating expenses advanced during 1958, the greater increase was in cash income and, therefore, realized net income was higher than in 1957.
The trend of 1957 was, therefore, reversed in 1958. This was gratifying. It means that, in general, farm costs rose more slowly than farm income and this widening of the margin between cost and income has eased the cost-price squeeze. The opposition, probably, does not like this because they went up and down the country preaching depression. One almost had the feeling that they would welcome economic disaster, no matter what the cost to the Canadian people, if it could further their own narrow political ambitions. It

would not be the first time in the past 50 years that they have placed party before country.
This improvement in the position of our farmers resulted from legislation introduced by this government. The current review of agricultural conditions in Canada, January, 1959, states:
Support activities under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, will continue to exert a stabilizing effect on farm prices and income.
I should like to draw attention to some of the members who were sitting in this house when this act was passed and their statements with respect to the value of the stabilization act. We shall do that in a proper place and at the proper time. The stabilization act was only one of the measures passed by this government to aid our agricultural community.
Mr. Speaker, the proposed measure to institute a system of crop insurance in cooperation with such provinces as so desire, is of great importance in the prairie provinces. We know only too well the financial loss of a farmer who has his crops wiped out by hail, frost, flood or other natural causes. The loss of a year's income is not lightly shrugged off.
The efforts of the government to sell more of our grain abroad is meeting with success. This action is bringing more cash to the wheat board and, particularly, to producers of wheat. The problem of deficiency payments was studied by the members from the wheat board area and it was studied from every angle. Several problems arose from their discussions. What benefit would the farmer who fed his grain to livestock derive from the plan? What benefit would the grain farmer who had his crop destroyed by hail, flood, et cetera, in one year or possibly in two succeeding years, derive from the plan of deficiency payments? What benefit would the small farmer who marketed a limited amount of grain derive from the plan?
I come from an area into which I can take you and show you permit books of farmers with 20 acres in wheat. What would such a farmer get out of deficiency payments? It began to become apparent that deficiency payments would be a bonanza for a few, and nothing for a great many. The acreage payment was an effort, and a successful one, to make the distribution of the money available fair to all the farmers in the area.
The cost of production on Canadian farms has been an elusive statistic. There appears to be no organization or government department that can provide such figures. The farm income and expenditures survey, a sample survey in nine provinces designed to

provide reliable estimates of (a) farm business income and expenditure and (b) farm family living expenses was carried out last November and December. The survey will be able to provide a clue to cost of production.
Transportation costs have always been a large factor in the cost of production and the cost of living in my constituency, and the proposal of the government to take steps to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the recent horizontal increase in freight rates is extremely welcome. Efforts are being made to increase the net income of the agricultural community, and one method is to lower costs. As I have said, the cost of transportation, both of the materials we need and of our products going to market, is a vital factor in our economy. The people of my constituency look to the St. Lawrence seaway to provide a means of cheap transportation. They feel that the only direct benefit that the seaway can be to us is to provide a cheaper method of moving goods.
My constituents are aware of the fact that many problems involved in the administration of the seaway and regulations for its use must be solved by agreement with the United States. On the other hand, they do not wish to see any group-either a group of ship owners or a labour union-in a position where they could by unilateral action increase shipping costs without regard to the welfare of the country as a whole. They ask only that there be free competition between the carriers using the waterway. I know that I can assure them that this government will see that their interests are protected.
The opposition have continued to try to justify their dark prediction of 1958. Unemployment is still a serious problem, but in the prairie region the situation has improved. I quote from the "Monthly Summary, Employment Conditions, Prairie Region, December, 1958":
The seasonal increase in the number of persons seeking work during the month continued. However, at the month's end there were approximately
3.000	fewer persons registered for work than at the corresponding period last year and there were about
1.000	more unfilled vacancies on hand.
This is not a spectacular change, but it is in the right direction.
As a veteran, it is with pleasure that I welcome the proposed amendments to the Veterans Rehabilitation Act and the War Service Grants Act and, particularly, changes in the Veteran Land Act which give our veteran farmers certain opportunities enjoyed by their neighbours.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for 66968-9-29J
The Address-Mr. Boivin Hull (Mr. Caron) to the same publication, namely the monthly report on employment conditions in the prairie region. At page 200 of Hansard he produced some rather phenomenal figures, and indicated that his engineers had told him that the cost of winter work or winter construction was 12 J per cent higher, and that in fact it was not worth doing at all, it was so high. But using this publication I should just like to quote to him the comment. It is headed "Winter Employment Campaign, 1958-59", and it reads as follows:
Winter Cost Myth Blasted
The Regina school board received proof in December, that reports on excessive winter construction costs were unfounded.
The board, in considering a quarter million dollar extension to two schools, mindful of possibilities to provide winter work, asked contractors to submit separate bids for winter and summer work.
"The small difference in cost is surprising", commented the board's public relations director. Earlier the board believed the additional expense for winter work would amount to from 10 to IS per cent. However, the three lowest bids quoted winter work only 1.3 to 2.3 per cent higher than summer costs.
I would not suggest to the hon. member for Hull that he send his engineers there but I would suggest that he might pay a visit to Regina and find out how to get cost figures.
(Translation):


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks, I should like to call your attention to the fact that we are celebrating, this year, the centenary of my native city which, from the point of view of population and industry, is the greatest centre of the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house.	In fact, last
Saturday, January 17, my fellow-citizens of Granby have marked at the city hall the official opening of these festivities, commemorating a century of progress.
On studying history, we note that as far back as 1825, a community had gathered in a certain territory of the township of Granby, as the result of the setting up of a fur trading post by Mr. Richard Frost. Mr. Frost settled on a concession bought from an agent of the governor, and which had belonged to Mr. Hugh McQuarters, one of Colonel Cadwell's associates, to whom the township of Granby had been awarded in 1803. Little by little, that community grew, as the settlers had set up various business establishments and industries. Then, these gentlemen asked that this territory be incorporated into a municipality.

The Address-Mr. Boivin
In 1857,	38 of those village dwellers
signed, in accordance with the law, a petition which was first referred to the council of Shefford, and then to the provincial secretary for submission to the legislative council. The petition was then approved and, on July 1, 1858, a proclamation was issued by the Governor General of Canada, incorporating into a municipality the village of Granby. That proclamation came into force on January 1, 1859 and, on January 17, of the same year, the first elections were held. It is that event that we wanted to celebrate on the same date this year. We wanted to pay tribute to the first mayor of Granby, Mr. Patrick Hachett, as well as to his successors who contributed to the progress of that city in the municipal field, and to our ancestors who preceded us in their respective fields.
During the year, Mr. Speaker, several ceremonies will mark that event. So I should like to offer my most sincere congratulations to those who took this initiative. Their task will be heavy, and I wish them much success. That being said, I invite you, together with my colleagues, to pay us a visit; as soon as you arrive, you will be given the centenary souvenir tie similar to the one I am wearing now. You will receive from the citizens of Granby a cordial welcome, and you may believe me when I say that if you pay a visit to the city called the "princess of the eastern townships" it will be considered as a great honour for each one of our fellow-citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in extending a cordial welcome and sincere congratulations to the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman). It is true that the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent had himself introduced his son, but the introduction of this new member is something unique since confederation. In fact, this is the first time that the Prime Minister, accompanied by the father of the newly elected member, introduces that member to the house.
I would also like to extend the warmest welcome to the hon. members for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) and for Springfield (Mr. Slogan.
I now come to the last member who was introduced. I want to express my congratulations again and extend a warm welcome to my colleague for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who, after a short absence, has come back to his seat in this chamber.


Before I go on with my speech, Mr. Speaker,
I feel it is my duty to report to the house the decease of the Hon. Jacob Nicol, the former representative of the senatorial division of Bedford, which includes the constituency I have the honour to represent. He had many friends among us, and I am sure that on September 23 last, many were shocked, as I was, to learn that this eminent figure would no more be seen in Ottawa and in the eastern townships. He was born at Roxton Pond, which is located both in my constituency and in the senatorial district that he represented. He first practised in Waterloo, the chief town of the constituency, and later moved to Sherbrooke. He gradually rose to the various levels of public life, serving as a member of the provincial legislature, provincial treasurer, and legislative councillor. He held the post of president of the newspapers Le Soleil, VEvenement, le Nouvelliste de Trois-Rivieres and La Tribune de Sherbrooke; he was vice president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale and of the General Trust of Canada, and a director of several firms. He was appointed to the Senate in 1944. He rendered numerous and important services to many of us, through his advice or otherwise. He disliked publicity but enjoyed giving friendly help. His memory will long live in the minds of many of us. Let us hope that those who gained from his counsel will, in turn, render the same services to others. That is how he would have wanted it. To his wife, his next of kin and his many friends, I offer my most sincere sympathy.
I followed and also closely read the speech from the throne. Reference is made to the visit to be made to this country by Her Gracious Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, on the occasion of the official opening of a project that was started, and for the most part carried out, by the Liberal government: the St. Lawrence seaway. We extend to them, as guests of this country, our most cordial welcome.
His Excellency also mentioned the stops made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) in the capitals of the countries he recently visited. I hope that the talks he had on the possibilities of extending trade will lead to something brighter than the prospect of employment for our unemployed in Canada, both during his absence and for the past eighteen months. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has given more hope and encouragement to the people of India than to the people of Canada.

It is a fact that all Canadians recognize the necessity of a lasting peace. There is nothing new in this, because the ex-prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, said on many occasions that we had to meet the problem and that the amounts that we were paying to save peace were like an insurance premium for the security of our people. I had the occasion to see for myself that it was worth the trouble when I had the honour to attend, in your company, Mr. Speaker, and in the company of my colleagues of the house, the conference of the parliamentary association of NATO countries, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris last November. I realized it even more, when we visited our airmen and our soldiers in France and Germany.
The speech from the throne mentions the measures that were taken in view of reducing unemployment by speeding up the national works programs.
We will be asked to approve a bill to assist the municipalities of Canada to undertake public works; I wonder if this aid will really be useful to the municipalities since they will receive grants only for winter works that will cost fabulous sums.
Now, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) for the speech he made yesterday on that subject and also for his suggestions.
I am told that the city of Granby intends to undertake its works only in the first week of April. What will the city be able to do in only three weeks, the closing date of the agreement being April 30? What will the unemployed do in the meantime, and after that date?
The government is said to be pleased at the prospects of an economic upswing.
We depend much on the project I mentioned a few moments ago, which was undertaken by the Liberal government. I read quite recently a report of a press conference given by Hon. George Drew, Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, on his return to London after a one month visit to Canada. This report was published on January 20 on page 15 of the Montreal newspaper La Presse, and I quote:
No doubt unemployment is now a very serious problem, but the situation cannot fail to improve if we consider the important works to come: works and projects which result for a large part from the St. Lawrence seaway. One can see already (added Mr. Drew), the building of new houses, new apartment blocks, new business establishments, new shopping centres, which will serve the municipalities
The Address-Mr. Boivin along the new seaway, and no doubt the activity will increase in shipbuilding and naval construction; "we have not yet entered our true growing period" said Mr. Drew.
Mr. Speaker, the government should not count exclusively on that project initiated by the Liberals to assure prosperity in the country. I would hope that one day the government will wake up and will adopt legislative measures calculated to promote prosperity, because the project I just mentioned can only help.
It is with pleasure that I heard that we would be asked to make a general study and review of the farm credit legislation, in order to make it more efficient and more useful to the development and the maintenance of a sound and prosperous agriculture. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of an agricultural constituency, that proposition pleased me very much. However, I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness), who is from the west, will realize one day that there is in the east, in Ontario, in Quebec and in the maritimes, a certain number of farmers who deserve to be remembered. I believe particularly that the country should remember that our fellow-citizens were attached to their land long before the buffalo disappeared from western prairies.
The government will ask us to introduce certain amendments in the legislation concerning business practices. We should hope that section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act will be repealed because now a great number of dealers take advantage of that section to offer items at prices so low that they really amount to loss-leader sales being used as a lure to bring in customers and kill or greatly reduce any honest competition.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) stated, like his colleagues, that the financial situation in our country is not, in their opinion, alarming at all, and he paid a tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) when he said, among other things, that he was rather particularly trained for the responsibility which is now his. That reminded me that the minister had the gift of speech rather than that of figures, because, as you will remember, during his last budget speech, he spoke during two hours and ten minutes and said nothing.
After the election campaign conducted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the course of which he promised to cut expenses and lower taxes, it is only logical that we should expect something more than an endurance test. I still remember the Prime Minister stating in the house, when he was in

The Address-Mr. Boivin the opposition, that a promise made by a political leader should be kept. Well, Mr. Speaker, that war-cry calling for a reduction in expenditures and in taxes is not a new one; it is an old one that was uttered by the present Prime Minister as far back as 1946 when he was representing the constituency of Lake Centre. At page 3329, he is reported as saying:
I say that the time has come tor a reduction in expenditures, where they can be made. I do not think anyone would insist that taxes will assure prosperity or increase incomes. When you continue war-time taxation to the extent that taxation is now being continued into the days of peace, it has the effect of harassing business and hamstringing the possibility of providing jobs in Canada at the present time.
It is doing more. It is reducing the standard of living of our people to an extent never before known in this country.
He waited for a long time, but he has now been in power for 18 months. What is he waiting for to carry out what he has been preaching for so long?
As for the Minister of Finance, who also supported the Prime Minister during the two last election campaigns when he was making promises that he could not or would not fulfil, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the result of his present attitude will be the same as the one he predicted himself once when he stated, as reported on page 95 of Hansard of September 11, 1945:
In the next place, the government has been doing far too much talking about what it intended to do in the realm of housing, leading the people of Canada to expect great things. The fact of the matter is that, unless they have something which they have not yet shown this chamber, they cannot possibly hope to fulfil the promises they made to the people, and many thousands of people, disappointed Canadians, are going to be living under conditions of great hardship this winter because of the failure of the government to make good and fulfil its undertakings to the Canadian people.
If no action is taken immediately, Canadians will be in serious trouble not only this year but also in the next four years, i.e. until the party to which I belong comes back into office at the next election.
The hon. member for Muskoka, Ontario, was an able financial critic of the opposition when he sat on this side of the house, if we judge by the applause from his supporters after his speeches. The member for Muskoka, who now represents Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), hoped to be minister of finance. Because of his age and out of consideration for the services he had rendered and his knowledge, he has been appointed Minister without Portfolio. To resort to his good


offices, I think that the Prime Minister who showed consideration for his past experience when appointing him minister, should re-read an excerpt from one of his addresses to ascertain what he thought of a government such as his government today.
Again, I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the debates of the House of Commons of October 1945, where I find the following remarks:
I submit that no attempt is made to let the people of Canada and this house know in an intelligible way what their position is.
Is it an unreasonable request? In answering that, I should like to bring to the attention of the house this fact. The other day in England a business man, representing I believe, the chamber of commerce asked the government this question: "Will the government disclose to the country the general outline of its financial proposals for the whole of the next five years?" Hon. members might say that this is going pretty far; nevertheless the chancellor of the exchequer, Doctor Dalton, although I am not sure that it was in answer to this question, said to a public gathering in London recently:
We can follow, through the years immediately ahead, a consistent and developing financial plan.
That is all I am asking. I submit that these figures must be in the possession of the Minister of Finance. It is not conceivable that he has not talked about these things; it is not conceivable that he is not ready to look down the alley. We should know where we are going. Can it be that we are to be kept in a state of tutelage? Is this another instance of what we might call order-in-council government, against which some people in this house have protested? Is there anything in that? Whatever the reason is, I contend that there is no objection to our being given figures at this time. When the war was on, of course, we could not ask for these figures. There was no means of projecting the war expenditures then. I submit, with confidence, that the minister must now be able to calculate, with considerable accuracy, subject to coming back later and saying some of the figures must be altered, how much these war expenditures will come down next year, how much the year after that, and so on. If any businessman came to an annual meeting of his company, showed a deficit of the kind and gave no picture of the future, he would either be sacked on the spot or told to go back and prepare an intelligible picture.
Mr. Speaker, unless the government heeds those remarks of the hon. Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Macdonnell), I am sure that the Canadian taxpayer who, in this case, is the company, will fire the Conservative government as soon as he has a chance to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate our Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) on his speech. I am sure that his remarks displeased many members of this house. He was criticized for having smiled when he made his speech. There has been so much confusion in the government policy, even when the government tried to substantiate it with evidence,

and this goes also for its contradictions, you will admit, Mr. Speaker that many would have smiled at less. He told us about the trip of his predecessor the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent who had already been prime minister for six years. This reminded me that the national anthem "O Canada" had been played in many countries where he visited. The day after his return, on March 17, 1954, he confirmed the fact in his report to the house.
I would admit that I am quite anxious to hear the Prime Minister comment on his recent tour in order to see if he was also welcomed with the national anthem which we are so anxious and eager to see adopted by the house. I would also like to add that it would be a good idea if the ministers who have travelled quite a bit since their party took office should report on their trips to the house. Let us hope that their reports will be brief, otherwise this session will last a long time.
The limited time at my disposal precludes me from discussing the situation of the industry known as the rubber footwear industry. I hope the government will reconsider the fact that this industry needs some protection, if it is to survive.
My colleague, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) has brilliantly described the situation of textile products. I fully support his arguments, even though I am not, as he is, a member of the committee of members from the eastern townships.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) has stated that the timid attitude being displayed in regard to our trade relations with the United States is due to the policies followed by the leader of the opposition when he was secretary of state for external affairs. That was obviously not the feeling of the judges who awarded the Nobel prize to Mr. Pearson for the admirable way in which he conducted our diplomatic relations with other nations when he held the office of secretary of state for external affairs. I think it will be a long while before such a tribute is paid to a member of the Conservative government.
As a matter of fact, we could put together the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State for External Affairs
The Address-Mr. Boivin (Mr. Smith), and both of them would barely reach the stature of our leader in the international field.
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that a few weeks ago I had the honour to attend the opening of the winter job campaign in Granby; I learned then that there was much to be done in that field, even though the representatives of the government state, in lengthy speeches, that there has been a drop in unemployment.
On December 31, 1958, there were, in the neighbouring municipalities of Granby 834 men and 217 women, that is 851 persons who had applied for benefits to the unemployment insurance office in Granby. There were in that city 1,610 men and 906 women, that is 2,516 persons who had already applied; it means that there was a grand total of 3,367 persons out of work. In 1958 the U.I.C. office in Granby paid out $1,536,342.70 and government supporters would have us believe that the recession is over. Mr. Speaker, the number of applicants, at December 31, 1957, for Granby and vicinity was 3,417, and the Conservatives will say there is a decrease of 104 applications, but 1 will deny that. We have new industries, and there should of course be fewer unemployed; however the number of unemployed has increased; there are all those who could not find a job during the year and are not entitled to additional allowances and, for the same reason, are not registered. That reminds me of the pamphlet entitled: "What Diefenbaker has done to fight unemployment in Canada". Going through it, you will find that it contains blank pages, which shows that he has done nothing. This leaflet, which was distributed during the last election campaign-I got a copy at the time-is of even greater interest today.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we adjourn.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor has already called it six o'clock and asked to adjourn the debate.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
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.	Were there any foreclosures instituted by any agencies holding mortgages under the National Housing Act in 1958?
2.	If so, what were the agencies, the number of such mortgages and their total value, by provinces?
3.	How many years had these various mortgages, so foreclosed, been in effect?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
(1)	Yes.
(2)	and (3) Details in schedule below:
(a) Foreclosures by Approved Lenders
Province of Alberta
(1)	Amount: $7,984.
Date of Mortgage- October 1955
Agency-Imperial Bank of Canada
(b) Foreclosures by C.M.H.C.
Province of Ontario
(1)	Amount: $9,000.
Date of Mortage-
June 1955
Agency-Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
(2)	Amount: $10,000.
Date of Mortgage-
May 1955
Agency-Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada
(3)	Amount: $8,571.
Date of Mortgage-
April 1954
Agency-London Life Insurance Company
(4)	Amount: $2,795. Date of Mortgage- October 1956
(5)	Amount: $8,900. Date of Mortgage- October 1957
Province of Quebec
(1) Amount: $8,000.
Date of Mortgage- January 1956
Agency-Bank of Montreal
(2)	Amount: $10,760.
Date of Mortgage-
June 1956
Agency-North American Life Assurance Company
(3)	Amount: $10,200.
Date of Mortgage- October 1955 Agency-Prudential
Insurance Co. of America
(4)	Amount: $8,500.
Date of Mortgage- January 1957 Agency-Imperial Life
Assurance Co. of Canada
(5)	Amount: $11,018. Date of Mortgage March 1958
(6)	Amount: $8,460. Date of Mortgage February 1953
Totals (1)	$7,984.00 (5)
Note: The above cases, concerning Approved January 19, 1959.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 33
Paul Joseph James Martin: 1.	How many persons established seasonal benefit claims for the period from 1st December, 1957 to 30th June, 1958, both dates inclusive?
2.	What was the aggregate amount of the seasonal benefits paid during that period?
$39,266.00 (6)	$56,938.00
Lenders, were all those reported to C.M.H.C. up to
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
1.	The number of seasonal benefit claims established during the period 1 December, 1957 to 30 June, 1958, was 455,622.
2.	The amount of seasonal benefit paid during that period is calculated to be $100,157,638.

Thursday, January 29, 1959



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J, G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister): I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition as recorded on page 358 of Hansard for January 27, 1959, when he referred to the omission of the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull from the national capital commission. On that occasion I said, speaking from memory, as follows:
In the Federal District Commission Act provision was specifically made that the mayor of Ottawa and the mayor of Hull should be members of the commission.
I now find that the statement I made was inadvertently incorrect. Under the act as it originally was, section 3, subsection 3, provision was made as follows:
One member shall be appointed by the corporation of the city of Ottawa to hold office during pleasure-
Under subsection 4 of the same section we find this:
One member shall be appointed by the corporation of the city of Hull to hold office during pleasure-
In view of the fact the mayors of the two cities had been members of the federal district commission, I associated that section with the fact they were members and thought it made provision for the mandatory appointment of the mayors, while in point of fact the appointment was made by the council of each of these cities. I thought I ought to point out my inadvertence of yesterday.