1959-01-21

UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement with regard to the United Nations wheat conference, the second session of which will be convened at Geneva on January 27, and Canada will be represented there by a strong delegation.
The first session was held at Geneva from October 28 to November 7, 1958, and was attended by 41 countries as members and 9 as observers. They discussed ways and means of meeting current world wheat problems through an international wheat agreement. A preparatory committee was formed to consider the proposals that were advanced, and to submit its conclusions for the consideration of government representatives at the second session.
The Canadian delegation will be headed by Mr. J. H. Warren, assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce. Alternate delegates on the Canadian delegation are Mr. W. Riddel, assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Dr. C. F. Wilson, commercial counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Official advisers on the delegation are Mr. C. B. Davidson, executive assistant, the Canadian wheat board, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. R. M. Esdale, assistant chief, grain division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa; Mr. J. B. Lawrie, European manager, the Canadian wheat board, London, England; and Mr. W. Frank Stone, first secretary, permanent mission of Canada to the European office of the United Nations, Geneva.
Producer advisers on the delegation are Mr. J. E. Brownlee, president, United Grain Growers Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. A. P. Gleave, president, Saskatchewan farmers' union, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Mr. G.	L. Harrold, president, Manitoba wheat pool, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. A. Platt, past president, Alberta farmers' union, Edmonton, Alberta; and Mr. J. H. Wesson, president, Saskatchewan wheat pool, Regina, Saskatchewan.
Mr. N. W. Boyd, commercial secretary at the Canadian embassy in Berne, Switzerland, will be secretary of the delegation.
66968-9-10J



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to table in English and in French copies of the report of the air transport board to the Minister of Transport on the need for additional transcontinental air services in Canada, and on the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines for a licence to operate a scheduled service serving Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.
The investigation of the board and its hearing of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines application was dealt with in regional hearings in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Moncton between October 6 and October 15, 1958, and in final hearings commencing October 20 and terminating December 3, 1958, in Ottawa; and involved consideration of several dozen briefs and well over a thousand pages of oral evidence.
The board found that additional transcontinental air services could not be introduced at this time without major detrimental effect to existing operations, and without economic hardships and possible disadvantages for scheduled air lines, including the applicant. The board found that the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines should be denied because its expense estimates were computed on an unreasonable added cost basis, with no projection on a fully allocated cost basis; its revenues were estimated without any traffic study; and the schedules for its proposed service appeared to have been based on optimistic block speeds.
However, the board also found that the position of Canadian Pacific Air Lines as an international air carrier needed strengthening, and it has recommended issuing to Canadian Pacific Air Lines a licence to operate a domestic scheduled service from Vancouver to Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal, to connect Canadian Pacific Air Lines' existing international operations. This new service would be limited to one return flight a day, on which domestic as well as international passengers could be carried. It recommended that the adequacy of this arrangement be reviewed again in two years to see whether additional services would then be warranted. The board also recommended that where limited controlled competition would result

Tabling of Notes
in improving the position of regional air carriers, this be authorized, and has indicated that it feels it should make an intensive investigation of the position of regional air carriers in this connection.
I have informed the air transport board that I am prepared to accept their findings in regard to the foregoing.
The board has also recommended that a substantial portion of the government work now being performed by the R.C.A.F. be diverted to commercial air carriers. There is, of course, an obvious requirement that the Department of National Defence maintain a military air transport organization in being. At the same time, military authorities have always recognized their interest in maintaining civil air transport services which can assist them in time of emergency and, indeed, much of the present work of the larger regional air carriers in Canada is in the direct supply of military installations in the north. This particular recommendation of the air transport board will require further careful examination and I propose to consult with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, about it.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the minister a question. Is not this recommendation of the air transport board diametrically opposed to the views held for a long time by the minister?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. These are in exact conformity with the views held by the minister and as the former minister knows very well, last February I made a speech expressing the government's view on these matters in which I indicated that our policy was that where competition could be economically sound on any particular route we would be in favour of competition being introduced. The policy which has been announced here is in conformity with those views.



TABLING OF NOTES RESPECTING CHANGES IN CUSTOMS ACT

Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) requested on Friday last that the two notes received from the United States-the notes of June 26, 1958 and September 3, 1958- and our reply of October 24, 1958 be tabled. I desire to table those documents now. Members of the house are aware that these notes were made public some time ago, and that the main points set out in the various notes have appeared in a number of newspapers. These notes will, I believe, warrant careful
EMr. Hees.]
reading by hon. members, as they provide a detailed exposition of the views of the United States government and of the views of the Canadian government on these matters.
In the United States note No. 284 of June 26, 1958, written and presented to us after a general reference to amendments to the Customs Act by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of June 17, 1958, the ambassador of the United States drew our attention to the main point on which his government saw cause for concern. The note of June 26 was not a protest; in effect it requested that the Canadian government should not introduce any provisions in the amendments to the Customs Act which would be contrary to our international obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. We gave due weight to the observations of the United States while the proposed legislation was being prepared, and we drafted a bill that does not contravene the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
The note dated June 26, 1958 was delivered on June 30, 1958, and it was forthwith brought to the attention of the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of National Revenue; copies with comments were circulated to them and to the Department of Agriculture on July 16, 1958. The note dated and delivered on September 3 was circulated to the departments concerned on September 8. I now table these notes.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made in tabling the exchange of notes between the United States and Canada earlier this afternoon. My question is in two parts. First, can he tell the house whether or not the government gave any assurances to the United States government that the proposed revision of the Canadian customs legislation would be consistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade, as requested in the last paragraph of the United States note of June 26, 1958?
The second part of the question is, can he explain to the house why he withheld from the house the note of September 3 on this very important subject when the very subject matter of the note was before the House of Commons, and why he also withheld it from his colleagues at that time?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the question,

that identical question was asked yesterday and I gave an answer to the house. With respect to the first part, if the hon. member will peruse the notes he will see that Canada's stand is set out fully in the note of October 24.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure the house is very grateful to him for the statement he made today which clarifies the matter, depending upon what one means by the word "clarification". The minister said that due consideration was given by the cabinet to the United States views as put forth in the note of June 26. If that is the case, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain why his colleague the Minister of National Revenue was not aware of this note, and likewise the reported unfamiliarity with the note on the part of others of his colleagues? If the cabinet was familiar with these views-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have followed the previous question and answer and the question which the hon. member for Essex East has asked. It seems to me that as this relates to a matter in the past and is now taking the nature of a debate, it might much better be brought up in a debate than as an oral question. Actually what the questions are directed to is criticism of government conduct rather than a search for information, and to my mind that is a subject matter of debate at the proper time rather than oral questions.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on this point, and with great respect, we would be very interested indeed in discussing this particular episode in the debate which is now going on, but we would like to have the necessary information with regard to the details concerning the matter so that our intervention in the debate will be accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have tried not to interfere with any genuine search for the details by way of questions seeking information.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I make a further comment on the point you raised?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member wishes to speak to the point of order I have myself raised.


Murdo William Martin: The minister made a statement on motions when there was no opportunity, as there is on orders
Proposed Legislation
of the day, for wide interrogation. The question I asked, as well as the question put by the hon. member for Ottawa West, was by way of seeking clarification of a statement that had been made in the house. Surely it is within the rules of the house for any hon. member to ask how the minister reconciles one set of circumstances alleged by the administration with the statement he made today. That is what I sought to do, to ask the minister how it was possible, in view of the fact that he said that the government had before it-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: -the views of the United States government, for the Minister of National Revenue not to know what was going on.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that was what the hon. member was bringing up, and it seemed to me that the observation I made was in accordance with the practice of the house.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-15, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-16, to amend the Canada Elections Act (absentee voting).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT REQUIRING RETURNS SHOWING INCOMES OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which is not unfamiliar to this house, is to provide that hereafter no person shall, except where the offence is treason, levying war or piracy with violence, be sentenced in Canada to suffer death but that such person shall hereafter be liable to imprisonment for life.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH IMPOSITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Frank Charles McGee: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that corporal punishment shall be abolished from any of the offences for which it is presently prescribed in the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPORTED REFUSAL TO SELL ALUMINUM TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house an assurance or, if not, endeavour to secure an assurance that no pressures from outside Canada were brought to bear on the Aluminum Company of Canada or on Aluminium Limited in the refusal of a $1 million aluminum order from communist China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this subject matter was brought to my attention today, and I note that it has been referred to in the press this morning. I cannot at this stage give a complete answer to the hon. gentleman without an investigation of the questions he has raised on this occasion and without a complete investigation to verify the accuracy of the reports that have appeared in the press.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether the report in the newspapers to the effect that a valid permit for the export of aluminum

was issued by his department is correct? If so, because of the interest of all of us with respect to export trade, could the minister give us any information with respect to the newspaper report which stated that Alcan has refused to make aluminum available for sale in accordance with the permit?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the second part of my hon. friend's question was answered when I was replying to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). As to the first part of the question, an export permit was granted.



SALT FISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister give the house a statement on what the government proposes to do to meet the marketing problem for salt fish in Newfoundland created by ending the licence for NAFEL?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) also drew this subject to my attention. In November, 1958 a committee of senior officials of the departments of trade and commerce, finance and fisheries was established to conduct an inquiry into the marketing of Atlantic coast salted groundfish after July, 1959. This committee is now completing its investigations and will report to me soon. An announcement will be made in due course.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am wondering whether there could not have been a very serious mistake made, or perhaps an oversight, in the itinerary of the Queen's visit to our country when the most important and most beautiful place in Canada, namely Niagara Falls, was not included.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minisier):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the number of prospective questions to the same effect that are before me, may I say this. Each of us regards his own constituency as meeting the qualifications and having the superb advantages to which the hon. member referred in connection with his. Taking that for granted, the committee under the chairmanship of General Graham has endeavoured

to achieve an itinerary tor Her Majesty the Queen that will cover Canada from coast to coast in general and in particular those areas which heretofore have not received such visits.
All I can say to my hon. friend is this. Realizing all the advantages of Niagara Falls, the decision arrived at with the assistance of the committee cannot, of course, be changed from day to day in order to meet the requests of various members, however desirable those requests might be. I think my hon. friend will understand that the purpose of the trip is to enable the Queen to visit as many parts of Canada as possible. On the other hand, regard must be had to her comfort and to the opportunity to give her reasonable rest. Therefore I cannot hold out to him or to any other hon. members who have placed similar questions before me any hope of any material alteration in regard to the itinerary as already published.


Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, X sent a question to the Prime Minister this morning which he has already answered, but I consider the situation as far as the Ottawa valley is concerned to be a little different. I received some hope from the statement just made by the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Moffat Forgie: -that the visits were to be restricted to places that had not been visited before. I call the attention to the Prime Minister to the fact that it is 50 years since we had a visit from the royal family and that the Ottawa valley extends from Sudbury to Ottawa. I should like to have some consideration given to a stop-over in Pembroke, the county town of the county of Renfrew, which is in the centre of the Ottawa valley.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member appears to be reverting to his maiden speech.



WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY  INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1957-58 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house if the Canadian wheat board will be making an interim payment on the 1957-58 wheat, oat and barley crops and, if so, when we can expect such payment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. No decision has been
Inquiries of the Ministry made yet with respect to further payments on the 1957-58 pool account for wheat. The Canadian wheat board was consulted by me with regard to this matter a few days ago, and has the problem under consideration. In view of the success of our wheat export program I think it is reasonable to expect that an interim payment will be made early in 1959.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLOCATION OP BOX CARS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has yet received Mr. Bracken's report on box cars, which on August 8 he told us was being written.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the information I gave on August 8 was accurate. I have received the report. It is in the hands of the printer, and will be available very shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if in the meantime the minister would mind tabling the order in council appointing Mr. Bracken, and any order in council relating to this inquiry giving the terms of reference and the powers of the inquiry.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think, Mr. Speaker, all relevant material will appear in the preface to the report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister consider tabling the orders in council in the meantime?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall look into this. I thought it had been done, but I shall see what has happened.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made in the house with regard to the change in the D.E.W. line, as reported at page 56 of Monday's Hansard. In that statement he said:
This is a step in the direction of ensuring that in the northern territories there shall be no misunderstanding as to whom those areas belong.
My question is this. Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not the United States flag will continue to fly over these sites on Canadian soil?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, owing to weather conditions no flags are flying over them.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Will the United States flag continue to fly over these sites in future?


George Randolph Pearkes: That depends on weather conditions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the flying of the Canadian flag in Canada is dependent upon weather conditions?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not customary to fly the Canadian flag in Canada or any other flag during severe weather, owing to the destruction caused to the flags.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I should like to ask another question with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister on Monday. With regard to this statement I should like to quote from the original agreement, as a basis for my question, paragraph 8 concerning the financing of the line.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of question that should be asked on the orders of the day. The hon. gentleman is referring to certain remarks I made in the house during the course of the debate on the address and certainly it is not a proper question under these circumstances. It is not that I am objecting to the question, but rather to the fact that it is improper procedure to be asking questions of this type on an occasion such as this before the orders of the day are called.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Then I shall direct my question to the Minister of National Defence, who made a statement to the press on Monday of this week. Can the Minister of National Defence tell me whether or not there has been any change in paragraph 8 of the original agreement between the United States and Canada with regard to the financing of the D.E.W. line?


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been no change in the financial agreements with regard to the financing arrangements in connection with the D.E.W. line.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, who is the minister who reports


to parliament for the C.B.C. Can the minister give us any further information as to what progress is being made in the settling of the dispute in Montreal between the C.B.C. producers and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give any further information about that matter. The reason I was late in coming into the chamber this afternoon was that I had a telephone call from the vice president and acting general manager in Montreal. He advises me that as the result of certain communications which emanated from the corporation there is a possibility of resuming negotiations this afternoon or tomorrow, that the matter is still open, and that conversations at least are going on today. Under those circumstances I would prefer not to go into the matter further for another few hours or a day or two until the matter is clarified.



MONTREAL


George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Denis asked me a question with respect to the strike which I could not catch at the moment over the translation sysem. Having read the question afterward, I can advise the house that the answer is no.



NEWSPAPER ARTICLE RESPECTING RELATIONS WITH PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister who speaks for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a story in the Thomson press papers by a member of the press gallery dated January 15, written by a Mr. Patrick Nicholson, which attacks the C.B.C. and raises serious questions about the ethics and propriety of the corporation's relationships with the press gallery and certain of its members? If so, has the minister any comment to make on whether such charges are under consideration by the corporation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the story in question was sent down to me from the press gallery a few moments ago, which is a strange coincidence. I have not yet had an opportunity to do more than scan it hastily, and I am not in a position to pass judgment upon it. I know, however, that this was written by

Mr. Patrick Nicholson, an experienced member of the press gallery who is, of course, entitled to his opinions, and I am sure they will carry such weight as his comments deserve.
I do not think the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who enjoyed himself so much before the television cameras last night, would agree that the people who interviewed him had no experience in writing news, or that they were not in touch with the tide of events. At least they seemed to have a reasonable knowledge of what is going on. I do think there is some merit in the suggestion that the number of appearances of other personnel could be extended beyond the circle or group which has appeared very frequently in the past.
This, however, is a matter for management; it is a matter over which I have no control whatsoever, nor do I intend to exercise any such control. As the house well knows, the board of directors has only held one meeting, a couple of weeks ago. Since then the executive committee has been meeting almost daily in connection with the strike. We hope this strike will soon be terminated, and then I will draw this story to the attention of the directors for such action as they may consider fitting.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I advised the hon. member for Laurier that I would make a further statement as soon as I received it from the management of Canadian National Railways regarding his request that the railway be asked to delay the diversionary work on Victoria bridge until the construction of Champlain bridge had been completed. The management have now given me the following statement.
The Victoria bridge is considered the most important railway transportation link in Canada. Across it passes well over a half million railway cars a year carrying commerce valued at about $2 billion and constituting by far the greater part of the traffic to and from eastern Quebec, the maritime provinces and the United States. It is necessary, therefore, that co-ordination between the Victoria bridge and the St. Lawrence seaway should be such as to present a minimum of delay, since the consequences of any interruption of this huge traffic flow would be incalculable.
Inquiries of the Ministry
With the construction of the seaway project it was necessary to arrange for the opening of the bridge to permit passage of vessels through the canals. A simple lift span would have a disastrous effect on railway and highway traffic. It was therefore considered necessary to construct a rail and highway diversion for the purpose of providing an alternative route for rail and highway traffic when the lift span is in operation at the St. Lambert lock. The co-ordination of Victoria bridge with the navigation channel has constituted a most complex problem, but the management is satisfied that the method of co-ordination finally evolved embodies the best possible solution under all the circumstances, in that it will achieve a complete separation of all types of traffic-marine, rail, and highway-without interruption to any one of them.
There was a dispute between the seaway and the railway as to which ought to bear the cost of the diversion and related facilities. This dispute was temporarily resolved by the terms of an agreement executed between the seaway authority and Canadian National Railways dated January 12, 1956, when the hon. member was president of the seaway, under which Canadian National Railways undertook to construct a diversionary bridge and to complete it, as far as practicable, concurrently with the construction of the lift span at the St. Lambert lock. There was a further understanding between the seaway and Canadian National Railways that it was vital for railway traffic to have uninterrupted movement, and that until the diversionary bridge made this possible the railway is to have control of the opening and closing of the lift span. Consequently shipping in the canal may be seriously delayed until the diversionary bridge is ready for use. The urgency for completion of the rail diversion is, therefore, definitely related to the needs of navigation, since any interruption of movement will affect shipping and not the railway.
Following construction of the diversion and related facilities, the responsibility for payment of the costs involved will be determined by the governor in council.


Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement regarding Victoria bridge. I wonder if he would inquire of Canadian National Railways whether, being unable to delay the diversion work on Victoria bridge until construction of the Champlain bridge has been completed, they would be willing

Inquiries of the Ministry to delay it until the extra lane on the Jacques Cartier bridge is completed early this summer.


George Harris Hees: From information I have they feel it is important to get ahead with the work immediately. However, I shall make inquiries.


Lionel Chevrier: You have already answered that question.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister seen the statement in today's Globe and Mail that exports of cattle from Canada to the United States will be seriously curtailed by the new United States brucellosis control program, and will he inform the house what effect this program will have on exports from this country to the United States?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen it. I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I think it is desirable that X should make a statement in connection with the matter so that fears on the part of cattlemen which this and similar reports are likely to have aroused should be set at rest.
The implication in recent press reports that exports of cattle from Ontario will be limited mainly to the counties of Oxford and Prince Edward is misleading. On November 8, 1958 the United States introduced new cattle import certification requirements for brucellosis disease. These new regulations permit the entry into the United States of six classes of cattle:
1.	Cattle from brucellosis-free listed herds.
2.	Cattle from brucellosis-certified areas.
3.	Cattle from herds which are neither listed nor in certified areas but which have passed a negative herd test within 90 days.
4.	Cattle up to 30 months of age, officially calfhood-vaccinated against brucellosis.
5.	Range cattle of the beef breeds from western Canada.
6.	Cattle for immediate slaughter.
There are in Canada approximately 5,000 herds under the brucellosis-free listed herd policy. Cattle from all these herds are eligible for export. In Ontario two counties, Oxford and Prince Edward, are already certified areas. Three other counties, namely Halton, Stormont and Dundas, will be certified within the next few days. Nine other

counties are under test, all of which should be completed before summer. In the meantime, as herds in these counties or elsewhere pass a negative test they are eligible for export. These 14 counties include most of the major Ontario cattle export areas. A further 17 Ontario counties have been accepted for testing and will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Elsewhere in Canada, the province of Prince Edward Island has been completely certified. Three counties have been certified in Nova Scotia and five in New Brunswick, and three additional counties are under test in each of those provinces. Seven areas are under test in Quebec, although none has been certified to date. Testing is proceeding in western Canada, and some areas have been certified.
As a result of the progress in brucellosis testing and the provision for the export of western feeder cattle and cattle for immediate slaughter, the new United States requirements should not seriously restrict Canadian cattle exports. As I stated at the beginning, I hope this statement will set at rest the fears which have been communicated to me from several quarters that our exports of cattle to the United States are going to be seriously curtailed.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Having read in a recent edition of the Calgary Herald a news item stating that a federal government committee will visit the town of Fernie, British Columbia, before spring to consider constructing a penitentiary there, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of this committee to visit other places in western Canada. Is it the intention of the committee to visit the district of Drumheller?


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Perhaps I should take this occasion to confirm to the house a statement which was issued some time ago announcing the appointment of a correctional planning committee within the Department of Justice. This committee consists of Mr. A. J. MacLeod, director of the remission services; Mr. J. A. McLaughlin, an assistant commissioner of penitentiaries, and Colonel J. R. Stone, who at the time of his appointment was provost marshal of the army.

This committee was set up following unanimous agreement reached at a conference among myself and other federal officials and attorneys general of all the provinces and other provincial ministers and officials concerned with the correctional system in Canada. The committee has as one of its functions, under the terms of reference under which it has been appointed, to visit all the provinces to discuss with provincial officials the details of the plans necessary to be made to implement the agreement in principle arrived at at the conference. As a particular part of their function they have to assess the need for further penitentiary construction, and the suitability of various areas for such institutions.
It is out of the reports in connection with that committee and with that particular part of their function, that the press report to which the hon. member refers has arisen. The committee has just completed its tour of the maritime area in the course of carrying out this function, and during the first half of this year it will be visiting all other provinces of Canada. Details of their itinerary in the west have not yet been settled, but they will investigate likely sites for construction and report to me on them. Certainly I can advise the hon. gentleman that the interests of Drumheller have been brought to the attention of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River takes the floor, I think I should say, and I hope the ministers will not take it amiss, that we have had three quite long statements in answer to questions. I presume it is the objective at this time to have short questions and short answers. Perhaps there is no harm done in producing answers to questions if they concern something that could be produced as a minister's statement under the routine heading of motions. However, I just call the attention of the house to the fact that we are having rather lengthy answers to oral questions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if he would inform the house as to whether or not discussions have been proceeding between the management of Canadian National and the employees aimed at a revision of the Canadian National pension regulations. These discussions were proceeding satisfactorily, and might even have been concluded by now, had
Inquiries of the Ministry it now been for the fact that the management of the Canadian National saw fit to withdraw the long-held passes of employee representatives at the conference.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to speak to the management and find out about that matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the unemployment figures made public yesterday, and in view of the government's intention as announced in the speech from the throne to introduce legislation in this connection, the Prime Minister will not reconsider his earlier refusal to interrupt the course of this debate so that this legislation may be introduced at once?


John George Diefenbaker: My answer is this. The hon. gentleman said this government had lost the confidence of the people. We want to have that determined by a vote, and then we shall immediately proceed with our legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is the reason for not accepting the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that the government's legislation is not yet ready?


John George Diefenbaker: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the Prime Minister has told us that legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act is ready, would the minister put the notice on the order paper in order that the public may know what is involved in this legislation. That probably would affect the question of confidence to which the Prime Minister referred.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question was a serious one.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Prime Minister referred to unemployment insurance amendments at all in answering any question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not listening.


Michael Starr: You were not. I do not doubt that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate is probably as confused as he always is.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly as confused as he always is.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister or the government aware that bill No. 1, which is at present before the United States congress would, if passed, authorize an additional diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second from lake Michigan at Chicago? Does the government consider that the implementation of this legislation would have adverse effects on Canadian interests such as hydro, shipping and our present dock and harbour facilities?


Sidney Earle Smith: I am grateful to the hon. member for Lambton West for giving me notice of this question. Our embassy in Washington has brought to our attention bill
H.R. 1, which was introduced by a private member in the House of Representatives of the United States on January 7. Officials of the several departments concerned are examining carefully the implications of this proposed United States legislation.
The proposed legislation has many ramifications with respect to the water levels of the great lakes, connecting channels, the St. Lawrence river and also with respect to hydroelectric generation at Niagara Falls, at the international section of the St. Lawrence river and at Beauharnois. The hon. member will recall, I am sure, that an aide memoire on this subject was delivered to the United States government on January 6, 1958, and was tabled in the house on August 2, 1958.


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


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a further supplementary question. Is this particular bill similar to the one which was introduced on

this subject last year in the United States congress, and concerning which the government said it had no objection to its passage?


Sidney Earle Smith: I have not seen the bill and I have not compared it, but I do understand that it is almost identical.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourget (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article which appeared yesterday in Le Droit of Ottawa relating to misunderstandings between the chartered banks and les caisses populaires and the credit unions?
If the answer is in the affirmative would the minister be disposed to offer his good services so that a fair and equitable solution may be reached?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisler of Finance):: The hon. gentleman was good
enough to give me notice of his question just before I came into the house. The answer to the first question is, therefore, no. However, I think I may guess that the purport of the article concerned service charges which the chartered banks propose to impose on the transactions in the chartered banks for the accounts of the caisses populaires and the credit unions. This matter has been the subject of frequent correspondence with the Department of Finance in the course of, I should say, the last two months.
With regard to the second question, may I gratefully say to the hon. gentleman that I am touched and flattered by the implication of his question in assigning to the Minister of Finance his favourite and most appropriate role of peacemaker.


Maurice Bourget: A supplementary question. I wish to thank the minister for his answer and to assure him that the interested parties, particularly the caisses populaires and the credit unions, would greatly appreciate the services of the minister. I feel sure that the minister will agree with me that such an important problem, affecting over two million Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member rose to ask a supplementary question, but he is taking a long time about it. Perhaps he has made his point.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether any information has been given to his department by the appropriate authorities of the U.S.S.R. that the sect of Doukhobors in British Columbia known as the sons of freedom will be admitted to the U.S.S.R. and, if not, does the federal offer of financial assistance toward handling this problem in British Columbia still apply?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In answer to the first part of the question I can advise the hon. gentleman that we have received no communication whatsoever from the government of the U.S.S.R., either directly or through its embassy in Ottawa, in this regard. That is the latest information I have. I will consult with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make certain that my answer is up to date, and if it is not I will give a further answer tomorrow.
With respect to the second part of the question, I may tell the hon. gentleman that we have informed the representatives with whom we have been dealing on behalf of this particular sect of the Doukhobors that our offer still stands. It was made in good faith and still stands, and we have told them we are prepared to fulfil it if and when they fulfil the conditions laid down in respect of that offer, one of them being that we should receive satisfactory evidence that the Soviet authorities are prepared to accept those members of the sons of freedom sect who wish to go to Russia.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  STATUS OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING THERMAL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the minister tell the house whether a specific agreement between the government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick has been signed relating to the construction of the thermal power plant at East Saint John and, if so, would the minister advise us when he expects to table this agreement?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Would the minister, in view of the long delay, consider communicating with the government of the province of New Brunswick in order to reach a signing of this agreement and allow the project to be proceeded with without delay, thus providing much needed employment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The government is in constant communication with the government of New Brunswick on this subject.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister an explanation to give to the house as to why construction has not begun on the addition to the federal building in Windsor, which construction would in part relieve unemployment in that city?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question.
The contract was called on the basis of a mat foundation. Subsequent to the award of the contract the consultant architects recommended that the department investigate alternative types of foundations. These investigations are now complete, and the contractor has been instructed to proceed in accordance with the type of foundation originally specified. He has assured us today that work will start tomorrow. The contractor is Eastern Construction Company, and the amount of the contract is $1,395,000.


Murdo William Martin: I thank the
minister.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately I had no help
from the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is not the minister
aware that just before Christmas I made two telegraphic representations of an urgent character in this matter?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Carlier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Have the unemployment commission

The Address-Mr. Morton offices in the country been notified in any way not to give out any unemployment figures?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. Jorgenson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was speaking of one of the problems affecting unemployment, and I stated that the problem is how to produce without pricing ourselves not only out of our own market but out of the markets of the world. I indicated that employment depends on trade and the ability to sell our services and products at competitive prices in Canada and abroad.
As I understand it there are several industries across Canada today, particularly the clothing and garment industry and some parts of the electrical industry, that must consider moving their factories from Canada because they cannot compete even in Canada or meet competition from outside countries such as Japan. Another factor contributing to unemployment has been the result of disputes between management and labour sometimes resulting in strikes. In a democratic system we must rely on the responsibility of the leaders of both management and labour to settle these disputes without government dictation, and I hope the leaders on both sides will consider the over-all effect of these actions. These are not decisions for government but rather for labour and management. Many of these problems cannot be solved entirely by legislation, subsidies, tariffs or artificial stimulants. These problems require co-operation of all the people concerned.
May I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not say these things because I believe we are now in a disastrous or perilous situation, but rather because I am concerned that perhaps we might be pressured in the wrong direction, and I am voicing my concern before it is too late.
It has been a platform of our party, and I think it is the hope of every hon. member in this house, that we in this country will be able to develop our resources for the benefit of our people and to provide for a larger population. But if we price ourselves out of the markets of the world and even

out of our own markets we shall become little more than the distributors of our own raw materials, and history will record us as a nation not worthy of its heritage. I therefore suggest, in view of the importance of this to our future, that the government consider convening a national conference on unemployment and related subjects the membership of which might be composed of representatives of the three levels of government, of industry, labour, agriculture and economics, in the hope that we might solve this problem by a comprehensive and co-operative plan rather than spending time in this house hurling abuse across the floor as to who is the cause of the problem of unemployment.
Another area in which I believe we as a democratic nation are not measuring up to the competition which is being offered by the communist nations and satellites is the field of education. The implications of the scientific achievements of Russia are selfexplanatory. We can no longer pretend that we have a superior system; we must now prove it. We admit that in Canada we have no central body responsible for national leadership in this field. We must depend on the alertness of the ten provincial governments to co-operate in unison to meet the national need for high educational standards.
I commend the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) for bringing to our attention yesterday a study of our educational system as compared with those of East Germany and Russia. This report was prepared by Mr. Anthony Frisch, who was born of Austrian parents in Naples, Italy and studied science at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and McGill University. He came to Canada and during the war served with the R.C.A.F. Because of his knowledge of what has happened in Europe he became greatly concerned about the educational system in Canada. Through co-operation he obtained textbooks from Russia and Germany and from each Canadian province to use as the basis of his study. I think it is to his credit that he has given us this report so that it might be studied by educational authorities across Canada.
As was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for York Centre, the study contains a table showing a break-down of related headings of subjects in the field of science such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology as taught in Canada, Russia and East Germany. This indicates that 71 headings are in use under the Russian system in the study of science, 13 being under mathematics, 19 under physics, 25 under chemistry and 14 under biology.
In comparing these subjects and relating them as closely as he could to equivalent

teaching in Canada he found that the province with the nearest approach to teaching the 71 subjects was Ontario with 54. In the matter of mathematics, where there were
13	units, the nearest province was Ontario with nine; in physics with 19 units the nearest province was Saskatchewan with 16; in chemistry with 25 units the nearest province was Ontario with 18; in biology with
14	units the nearest province was Quebec, the English section, with 14.
In respect of education in Ontario he made the following comments:
Mathematics
Ontario courses trail the soviet courses by about three years in the soviet equivalent grades 9 and 10. In the soviet equivalent grade 11. analytical calculus, as is the case with all other provinces, is not mentioned on the Ontario syllabus.
Physics
Ontario trails the soviet by two years in the soviet equivalent grade 9; one year in the soviet equivalent grade 10: one to two years in the first part of the soviet equivalent grade 11.
Chemistry
Ontario trails by three years the first two years of high schools; by two years the soviet equivalent grade 11; and does not touch at all the final soviet year, which is devoted exclusively to organic chemistry.
Biology
Grade 13 zoology and botany cover, however inadequately, the work of the soviet equivalent grades of nine, 10, 11 and 12.
He sets out in detail tables to back up his analogies. He came to the following conclusions:
1.	The soviet are able to teach their students, at an early age, to manipulate creatively abstract terms.
2.	At no time is subject matter repeated in subsequent grades.
3.	Subjects are not popularized to spoon-feed lower grades.
4.	Practical applications of laws and phenomena receive marginal treatments.
5.	Generally, we trail the soviet three years in mathematics and two years in science.
^he curricula of the 10 provinces show marked differences.
He makes the following suggestions for consideration:
Consequently, to ensure the survival and development of our talented children, most of whom survive despite the school system, it is suggested:
1.	That the federal government declare that there exists a state of emergency in education;
2.	That the federal government, through yearly I.Q. tests administered in consultation with the provinces, select the most talented students at the grade nine level, irrespective of geographic residence or academic performance;
3.	That these selected students be called "Canada scholars";
4.	That these students, provided they attend school and only that they pass their grade, be paid scholarships of the value of old age pensions through the welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare but under no circumstances through the Canada Council as constituted at present;
The Address-Mr. Morton
5.	That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, administer a further set of yearly I.Q. tests to all students at the grade 12 level;
6.	That the most talented of these students, provided only they pass their year, and irrespective of geographic residence, be called "Queen's scholars";
7.	That these students, as long as they attend a school or university, receive scholarships amounting to twice the amount of old age pensions.
Hon. members will note that he makes perhaps an indirect criticism of some of the teaching and methods of choosing our students on academic performance only because, in talking to me, he said that in some of our courses our students are taught to parrot back their knowledge rather than think on their own, and he felt that by emphasizing the intelligence side you would get a more independent type of student.
We may not all agree with the conclusions that he has brought before us, Mr. Speaker; we may not feel that the Russian system is perhaps as advanced as it is made out to be. Perhaps the Russian system of schools is not distributed across the country to the same extent as ours may be but I do not think we can afford to ignore those comparisons. I am also informed by Mr. Frisch that, according to his study, the Russians compare favourably with us in the humanities.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that since we have no central body responsible under government for this leadership in education as such, this might be a task that might well be gone into by the Canadian education association across Canada, which represents the ministers and the educational heads of all the provinces. Because of their experience they could study this problem and perhaps give us some leadership in the country in this respect. I think it is most important that we take those warnings now before it is too late.
We all look back at our history and we sort of laugh at those who during the days before it was discovered that the world was round clung to the idea that the world was flat. Perhaps we are in the same situation today in our history with respect to education. Many of our concepts of education and of the universe are changing and we must accept the fact that as the explorers of old, together with the leading scientists, proved that the world was round. So because of explorations now being made into space and the demands and the problems of the future world are going to be such that our present system of education, regardless of how well it may have served us in the past, is not adequate to serve our future needs.
It would be interesting to know, Mr. Speaker, among the experts whom we have employed in our various industries and research centres how many are from other

The Address-Mr. Morton countries. How much have we had to rely on experts from other countries? It is not a bad thing. We welcome those who come from other countries and we welcome their knowledge. I am almost sure that in its present development our educational system has not produced all the experts we have needed. As a matter of fact

this is an aside-we were discussing the matter of the Arrow with the members of the union in Toronto last week and they made the comment that the staff they brought together came from all countries of the world and that it would be a shame if that staff had to be dispersed. The thing that caught my attention was that in order to build up the expert staff for that task it was necessary to draw on outside experts to get the efficient team that was required.
We cannot be too proud, we cannot be blind, Mr. Speaker. We must give the Russians credit for advancement in their education. Perhaps those advances are our ultimate hope. They will learn the wisdom of letting other nations live side by side, each maintaining its own system. There is already slight evidence that the educated in Russia are seeing the folly of the dogmatic and rigid concepts of communism. I only hope that our educational leaders will swallow their pride and give us constructive leadership in improving our educational system and that we in government will give leadership in providing the funds that may be necessary.
I understand that at the present time about 3.11 per cent of personal income is being spent on education and that about 10 per cent of all the money spent on government affairs is spent on education. I should like to urge again that a select committee of the house be set up to study the financial needs of education in Canada. It is a problem that we must face. I think it is time to forget our regional prejudices and think as Canadians in developing educational systems across Canada in accordance with the needs of the provinces and of our growing nation. We should study how the central government can help financially without interfering with the rights of the provinces.
I again urge the Canadian educational association to undertake the sponsorship of a research program as to the future requirements of our country. I also urge the extension of the scholarships now provided. In the brief of the Canadian teachers' federation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) last year the following statement is made and I think that we should bear it in mind.
The full development of this country economically, culturally, socially, and spiritually demands the full development of the potentialities of its youth. The extent of education of a Canadian boy or girl should

depend upon his or her ability to benefit by further education and not upon geographical location and the parent's pocketbook. Whether or not one concedes that a full education is the birthright of every citizen, there surely can be no doubt that the best interests of the nation require that every citizen be educated to the fullest extent of his capabilities.
I trust that we as Canadians, while proud of our resources, will recognize our destiny and combine in a constructive effort within our nation and with our friends to prove to the world that our system is better than that of the communists and that it gives greater hope to the individual.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in a remarkable speech on Monday, brought to the attention of the house the inadequacies of the policies of the government in practically every field. He also chastised the government for its indecision, for its confusion and for its fumbling. I should like to limit myself this afternoon to one or two heads of government policy which to my mind are responsible in no small measure for the disastrous condition in which the country finds itself today.
Before proceeding, however, I should like to follow the tradition of the house from time immemorial and extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), who discharged in excellent fashion the tasks of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want to refer particularly to that part of the speech of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet which dealt with national unity. It has always been the doctrine of the Liberal party and all its leaders to uphold national unity in the house and throughout the country.
I should now like to refer to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had to say on Monday when he stated that the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition was not in keeping with his responsibilities. This to my mind was unfair criticism and I should like to tell the Prime Minister today that that part of his speech was not in keeping with his responsibilities as Prime Minister. The particular inference that he tried to leave that the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition were similar to those made by communist leaders and especially Mr. Mikoyan is certainly not in keeping with the kind of leadership that the Canadian people have the right to expect at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no such
implication.


Lionel Chevrier: After having made that
reference to Mr. Mikoyan, the Prime Minister went on to say, as found on page 53 of Hansard for January 19:
When one considers the difficulties confronting the free world in terms of an economic attack one must conclude this is not the time for the kind of speech that was delivered here this afternoon with such relish.
What were the points made by the Leader of the Opposition with reference to the economic situation? He outlined the unemployment problems in the country in realistic terms, at all times basing his argument upon figures taken from government statistics. On that basis he criticized the inadequacy of government policy and he urged the Prime Minister to take new steps to deal with this very serious social evil. My leader was in very good company indeed when he made these statements because, the archbishop of Montreal, Cardinal Leger, dealt with this problem on at least two occasions. Here is what he had to say.
(Translation):


Mr. Tremblay:: Not in the same sense. (Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I hear someone say, "not in the same sense." Just let him listen to this. On September 18, 1958 the cardinal spoke to the delegates at the annual meeting of the federation of Catholic workers of Canada and, as reported by La Presse of Montreal, here is what he had to say:
His Eminence deplored that hundreds of thousands of workers are without work in a country immensely rich and in full development. "We cannot hide the anxieties that are inspired in us by the considerable amount of unemployment which took place last winter and which unfortunately strikes today in the homes of many workers.
I should also like to read from the pastoral letter of the cardinal which was read to all his diocesans in the archdiocese of Montreal on Sunday, January 18. Cardinal Leger said:
A Christian cannot remain indifferent in a situation which creates such great suffering. Behind the statistics and figures we must discern the men and women, the children and the aged who are reduced to poverty and exposed to the terrible temptations of despair.
Then again:
A just and lasting solution to unemployment involves respect for man's natural right to work, encouragement of a high and stable level of employment and a more salutary direction for the economy.
Note these significant words.
The situation requires the intervention of government to take new and audacious steps.
I ask the house, is that so different from what was said by my leader when he asked the Prime Minister the other day and again today whether he would interrupt the speech from the throne in order to bring forward new measures to deal with unemployment.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
I should like to discuss this question. In so doing I feel that I am in better company with the cardinal and with the Leader of the Opposition than I am with the government. But I am not alone with these two distinguished gentlemen, Mr. Speaker. Listen to what the hon. member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister, had to say in 1955 when he sat on this side of the house and when conditions were in no way comparable to the serious situation the country faces today and which year was the most prosperous of the 1950's. I quote from page 2034 of Hansard of March 15, 1955:
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said he very seriously regretted the developing unemployment across the country when he spoke in the house some weeks ago . . . they express solicitude. They mobilize statistics. But the Prime Minister, from whom the people of Canada want to hear, with the prestige of his position, remains silent in the face of a problem that wrings the hearts of the people.
The hon. member for Prince Albert went on to say this:
What a hopeless picture! The government, faced for the first time with serious unemployment . . . is unable to give any hope. We are unable to rouse them into placing before the people of Canada some of the picture.
Later on he said this:
We do not believe in preaching pessimism; we do not want to see the condition of affairs brought about which will create panic; but we are asking the government to act now-
Then dealing with the figures of the Canadian National Railways, which were then much better from the point of view of revenue than they are at the present time, here is what the hon. member for Prince Albert said:
Why not face that picture? Is it not a fact that some 10.000 men have been laid off? The railway-men ask: what is the picture for the future? After all, it is a government corporation and they have a right to expect information regarding the railway company owned by the dominion.
Then still further:
The municipalities are loaded down with unemployment relief . . . What is the attitude of the government?
Those are words which were used by the present Prime Minister when conditions were far better than they are today. Yet the Prime Minister dares to criticize the Leader of the Opposition because of the language which he used in his speech on Monday. I can only say:
(Translation):
Other times, other ways.
The Conservative government is starting the session on the wrong footing. Its finances are in poor shape. Over the whole fiscal year,

The Address-Mr. Chevrier the government's total deficit-including budgetary and non-budgetary items-will reach $1,600,000,000.
Where will we find the money to offset this deficit? Either by increasing taxes or by borrowing. As you know, the government decided to borrow by selling bonds. Everybody knows today that this financial policy of the government is causing a steady fall in the value of government bonds. In fact, last year in mid-December, $100 government bonds were down to $94.50.
At present, being less and less able to borrow from the public, the government is facing a financial crisis. But this is not the whole story, for the financial responsibilities of the government will cause a new increase of expenditures during the new fiscal period so that next year again the government will face another large deficit, unless it decides to increase taxes. Even if it should do so-and taxes are already high in Canada-its disastrous financial policy would nevertheless, this year, contribute to inflation and rising prices.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, prices are already on the way up, as official government statistics well show. Indeed the consumer's price index has gone up 3.5 per cent since 1957. The general wholesale price index shows that they have risen by two points in less than two months, that is last October and November, which means, as stated by the dominion bureau of statistics itself, the largest increase in two months since 1950. And, as proved by experience, an increase in wholesale prices always foreshadows a rise in retail prices, so that we must expect a record increase in the cost of living in the next few months.
We are in the very midst of inflation, and nothing can be more disastrous for a country than this. Indeed, inflation touches everybody, particularly those who are defenseless and who suffer, and especially those whose salaries do not rise as quickly as the cost of living. When prices go up, it is the white collar worker, the civil servant, widows and small wage earners who take the brunt of a lower standard of living.
The government has no overall program to fight this plague. There again, it wallows in confusion and uncertainty. With this financial crisis created by the government, and with soaring prices, there is more unemployment than in 1957. The unemployment situation remains very serious.
Not only was unemployment higher in 1958, but the number of workers was lower

than in 1957. As we were told yesterday, in mid-December there were 440,000 unemployed in Canada. In the province of Quebec, the situation is more serious than anywhere else, with the exception of the maritime provinces.
There are today, in the province of Quebec,
185,000	people looking for work. This is more than 8 per cent of the available labour force, or about one third of all the unemployed in Canada. In Montreal, 80,000 people are out of work. In Sorel, in Arvida, in the asbestos and textile industries that our hon. friends, particularly the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) were supposed to help out, conditions have never been worse.
Representatives of the textile industries complained about it yesterday, at a meeting held in Ottawa. Consequently I have no hesitation in saying that, with respect to unemployment and to the financial situation, the government has no comprehensive plan to cure the evil. Besides, the speech from the throne is non-committal and announces no new measure to cope with the situation.
We no longer hear about the great billion-dollar public works program, so often mentioned during the last elections. We hear, instead, of the winter program of assistance to municipalities.
This idea, Mr. Speaker, is not new. Indeed, the Liberals suggested it during the last election campaign, and even proposed it, as did the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) during the parliamentary session. We tried, by all possible means, to convince the government to put into force this policy. We did not succeed at the time, but the government finally decided to accept our proposal, but unfortunately its decision came too late. The plan was announced too late to improve the lot of those who suffer in these winter months. It was put forward in late October, at the very time when the Prime Minister was about to leave on his trip around the world.
Actually it was then too late for municipalities to plan such works, which should have started by early November if they were to have any effect in relieving seasonal unemployment.
Besides, the program put forth by the government is much too restrictive to deal with the problem. On December 24, 1958, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) announced that, between December 1 and April 30, his program would cost the federal

government $3,900,000. Will you please tell me, Mr. Speaker, what good an outlay of $3,900,000 can possibly be in helping the country's 440,000 unemployed? The hon. minister admitted that at the time the province of Quebec had submitted no project in connection with this winter works program.
This winter works program for municipalities can therefore be of absolutely no use to the province of Quebec, because so far she did not take advantage of it, although at this time 185,000 persons are seeking jobs. Yet in Montreal, on March 20 last, the Minister of Labour did not hesitate to forecast that unemployment would have vanished by mid-June.
What about the oft-repeated words of the right hon. Prime Minister to the effect that no one would suffer from unemployment on account of him? Will he take offence if I tell him that, at the present time, there are
440,000	unemployed in Canada?
(Text):
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), in his intervention in the debate referred to the speech of the President of the United States. I wish he had gone on to deal further with that speech which the President made to congress, his usual state of the union speech, because if he had he would have noticed a part having to do with inflation. He would have noticed that the President said that because of the serious condition vis-a-vis inflation, because of the danger of future soaring prices and to keep the economy sound and expanding, he would present to congress at once certain proposals. He went on to list them. The first was a balanced budget for next year. This is advice which the Prime Minister might well follow.
Apparently the government, in dealing with unemployment, intends to follow the kind of approach that we on this side of the house have criticized, namely increased government expenditure. At least, this is what the Prime Minister led us to believe in his speech on Monday as recorded at page 65 of Hansard for January 19, 1959. He said:
But I believe the people of Canada as a whole want us to make the necessary expenditures to meet the spectre of unemployment as it is found.
Well, you have listened to this statement by the Prime Minister. Now, contrast that with what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had to say in Toronto in his famous speech on January 5. After going on to say
The Address-Mr. Chevrier that the expenses of government were high; that the line must be held; that expenditures must be paid; that a high standard of living and of social services and the like must be maintained, he said this, and I quote:
Nevertheless the treasury board in its current review of estimates is, I assure you, applying a firm hand to controllable expenditures.
On the one hand, the Minister of Finance is saying he is going to hold the line, but the Prime Minister is saying, when circumstances warrant it, there will be no hesitation about additional public expenditures. There is another example of contradiction and confusion.
It is equally evident that in following that object to fight unemployment, the government, as in so many other fields, lacks imagination in finding new and useful projects to initiate. When we speak in this house we are interrupted by ministers and others who say, well, what are your proposals; what have you got to offer? Even if we do not agree fundamentally with the government's approach, as was made clear by my leader the other day, I should like at this juncture to make some suggestions to the government. Unemployment, as I said earlier, is more serious in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal than in any other part of Canada with the exception of the Atlantic provinces. I am going to make three suggestions and I hope that they will receive serious consideration.
The first is for the immediate appointment of a board of engineers for the purpose of studying and reporting upon the economic advantages of linking the St. Lawrence river with the port of New York via the Richelieu river, lake Champlain and the Hudson river. This matter was taken up in the house and is contained in a resolution by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). It is a problem which is not new. Representations have already been made to the government. This matter was referred in 1937 to the international joint commission. I hold in my hand a copy of the report which was made at that time, and in effect it states this: As soon as the St. Lawrence seaway has been completed this matter of the Champlain-Richelieu canal should be given consideration by the international commission.
I wish I had time to go into the matter more fully. All I can say at this time is this: If it were given consideration and put into effect by a recommendation, of course following a report of a board of engineers, it would put to work thousands of people in an area where work is required.
The second suggestion I have to make has to do with the joint development of power

The Address-Mr. Chevrier and navigation in the Lachine section of the river. I will be told at once that this is purely a provincial matter. This is true to some extent, save that in 1947 a board of engineers appointed by the government reported that navigation and power production in the Lachine section was feasible and that if it were put into effect it would bring about greater savings in power development in the Montreal area. It is quite clear that if the recommendations contained in this report were given effect, thousands of people could be put to work.
All we have to do is see what happened in the international section of the river in so far as the St. Lawrence seaway was concerned where at least half if not more of the 25,000 men employed on that project were put to work on power development. If it were possible for the government, which is extremely friendly I understand with the government of Mr. Duplessis in the province of Quebec, to make the requisite representations and to convince him-incidentally it has already been announced by a commissioner of Quebec Hydro-that this is a project which should be undertaken without delay, as I am sure he himself is convinced, it would be a great boon to the area of Montreal.
Finally, I suggest the construction of a new bridge linking Montreal and the south shore downstream from the Jacques Cartier bridge. I am sure, from what I know of the traffic conditions, that there is no member in this house, no matter on what side of the house he sits, who would not be in favour of the construction of such a bridge. As I said earlier, I wish I had more time to deal with these three matters, but unfortunately 1 must go on.


Frank Charles McGee: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Providing I am given credit for the interruption because I have a number of matters here with which I should like to deal. Yes, on that condition.


Frank Charles McGee: I was wondering how the hon. member squares his criticism of government public works projects as an anti-recession measure with his own suggestion for a further extension of public works?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member had listened to what I said he would find that most of these projects are self-liquidating. The bridge is self-liquidating, the power project is self-liquidating and the Champlain-Richelieu project would be self-liquidating if tolls were to be charged.
I should like to commend the government for recommending to parliament the establishment of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. I believe that that is a useful


body. The Canadian section was enthusiastically received in the United States and the speakers of both houses, I have no hesitation in saying, handled the meetings with tact and diplomacy. I should like to warn the Prime Minister, however, that he should not overstate the case, as he did the other day because, after all, this is only one of many such committees and it is hard to say how much will be accomplished by it. A large number of questions were mentioned for discussion- they did not come up for discussion, but a large number were listed for discussion-and of all these questions two seemed to stand out above all the others. The first was defence, and the next was trade.
On the question of defence I should like to say this: we are told that defence must be continental; we are told that defence must be arranged jointly with our friends in the United States, and to that there can be no objection. But defence, I think, is a two-way street. It must be joint not only from the viewpoint of the military aspect but also from the viewpoint of the economic and industrial aspect. What I want to suggest to the government in this respect is the revival of the Hyde Park agreement. This agreement was established in 1941. It was a declaration between the Right Hon. Mr. King and Mr. Roosevelt and it was established for two purposes, the first of which was to relieve the substantial adverse balance of trade which had developed between Canada and the United States at the time and next to make sure that no useless defence production facilities would be produced in either country. The circumstances today are exactly the same as they were then, and it seems to me that the time has come for a revival of the Hyde Park agreement or something akin thereto.
It is all very well for us to be told that there should be joint defence between the two countries, but how can it be joint if on the one hand we are refused the entry of our exports such as oil, lead and zinc. I notice that there is something in the speech from the throne having to do with this question, but that is not enough. I think there has to be far more than that and I think there should be a determined effort by the government to make sure that Canadian companies have the opportunity to bid in the United States market with regard to defence orders. There is very little in the way of defence orders that cannot be manufactured in Canada by our own industry.
I could take as an example the CF-105, and while I know of the difficulties in the way I will suggest that in view of the statements made by Air Vice Marshal Slemon and General Partridge it is an efficient manned interceptor in the light of the requirements for

which it was produced. It would seem to me that this would be a good place at which to start by selling this aircraft to the United States. That is just one example. There are hundreds of other things which could be produced in Canada and which could be sold in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question, because I know he took a considerable interest in the revival of the Hyde Park agreement on the occasion of this meeting in August, or so I am informed. Did he find any reaction favourable to the CF-105 being purchased by the United States during his visit to Washington in August?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not discuss the purchase of the CF-105, but I did discuss the revival of the Hyde Park agreement and while I am precluded from mentioning names it was clearly stated to me by one member of the group that there was no reason why Canadian manufacturers should not be allowed to sell their products on the United States market.
Now I want to say a word about the dispute which arose sometime ago between the radio and television producers in Montreal and the C.B.C. which has caused the interruption of the normal operations of the whole French network during the last three weeks and which may destroy the good relationship which existed between the C.B.C. and its employees. This is a matter of deep concern, not only for the parties immediately involved in the dispute but also for all Canadians interested in an efficient broadcasting system in our country. And yet the government has done nothing to help the two parties come to a satisfactory agreement.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) stated in the house last Friday that he had taken no action whatsoever with respect to this strike, but then he went on to say that the strike was entirely illegal and, in his own words, that "rationality apparently is one thing that has been somewhat lacking in the situation." The minister, as he said, has done nothing to settle the dispute, and the words he used last Friday to describe the situation will not be useful in bringing about a satisfactory solution.
On the same day, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said he was not prepared to intervene in the dispute, adding that the parties were seeking to short-cut or ignore the provisions of the legislation designed for the final disposition of disputes dealing with representation, and he implied that he could not intervene under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act because that section provided for the appointment of a commissioner of inquiry into labour disputes on the basis of a collective agreement.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier I say to the house and to the minister that this very narrow interpretation is not compatible with the wording of the act. Section 56, subsection 1, reads as follows:
The minister may either upon application or of his own initiative, where he deems it expedient, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit regarding industrial matters, and may do such things as seem calculated to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes.
Our legislation provides, of course, for a procedure of certification by the labour relations board. However, that procedure is not compulsory. Representation can still be a matter of negotiation between parties. When it is so negotiated and when such negotiations lead to a dispute, then the minister can intervene and he should do so in major conflicts such as the present one. The failure of the minister to act in this case is another example of fumbling and uncertainty on the part of the government.
The proposal made by the C.B.C. on January 16 was to the effect that the corporation was prepared to recognize the producers association and to discuss with it general working conditions, provided that if at any time there was disagreement between the two parties the dispute would be submitted for final decision to an arbitrator who would be the president of the corporation. This proposal was certainly unacceptable to the producers and would have put the president of the C.B.C. in a most embarrassing position where he would have been at the same time judge and employer.
According to press reports, the producers submitted another proposal to the C.B.C. which seemed far more reasonable. That proposal has now been refused by the C.B.C. which according to a news bulletin this morning has issued an ultimatum to its employees to return to work on Thursday of this week or else lose their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this dispute has been allowed to go on far too long. Is the Minister of Labour going to sit idly by and allow the C.B.C. to put this ultimatum into effect? If this strike were in the minister's constituency would he allow the situation to develop as it has? If it were in his constituency would he allow his colleague the Minister of National Revenue to rise and say that the strike is illegal? I doubt very much that he would.
If the C.B.C. is allowed to implement its ultimatum not only the producers are in danger of losing their jobs but the French network will lose highly qualified personnel, which cannot adequately be replaced at this time and the public, which foots the bill, is the one that in the last analysis will suffer. It is the clear responsibility not only under

The Address-Mr. Chevrier moral law but under the statute, subsection 1 of section 56 which I have just quoted, for the minister to intervene and to do his utmost to bring about a settlement of this dispute.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to touch upon another subject. Recently, two ministers of the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker's government, speaking of our national anthem, said that Canada's national anthem is God Save the Queen, and that it is ridiculous to think otherwise. O Canada, they said, was a pretty song, but does not enjoy the status of a national anthem.
There we have two ministers who, in my opinion, never understood either the word or the spirit of confederation, two ministers who never understood the true Canadian spirit. And their recent statements are much more calculated to split than to unite this country. Yet when either of them goes abroad, as often as does the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), to represent Canada, it is not God Save the Queen, but indeed O Canada that is sung at official meetings.
Under the Liberal government this matter was gone into, and the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent himself, definitely stated the position. In reply to a question from the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asking whether, in fact, God Save the Queen was Canada's national anthem, Mr. St. Laurent replied that God Save the Queen had never been adopted either by the Canadian parliament or by resolution or by proclamation as a national anthem, and that, for many Canadians, O Canada was considered as the national anthem.
It is therefore not for two cabinet ministers of the present government to tell us that God Save the Queen is Canada's national anthem.
For my part, I shall always respect God Save the Queen, and will sing it in chorus with other Canadians when the occasion offers, recognizing it as the royal anthem. But in my estimation, and in the judgment, I am sure, of many Canadian citizens, the national anthem of this country remains O Canada.
In closing my observations, I should like to recall the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier, a great Conservative, but first and foremost a great Canadian.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The words are synonymous.


Lionel Chevrier: He wrote:
Comme le dit un vieil adage:
Rien n'est plus beau que son pays;


Et de le chanter, e'est l'usage;
Le mien je chante a mes amis.
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like to join with others who have preceded me in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) for the excellent contributions they made in the course of this debate. They have indicated, as has been indicated in earlier sessions, that the Conservative party has a wealth of able young men fully competent to take part in the deliberations of this august assembly.
On this occasion I wish to deal with remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in his lengthy-and I may add far too lengthy-discursive attack on the record of the government. I shall pass over comments with regard to the somewhat similar remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who has just taken his seat because I am sure that other hon. members who will follow me will want to deal with some of his statements and will indicate very clearly that there is more confusion and indecision in the ranks of the Liberal party than elsewhere in this house. I believe that the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would do well to confer together a little more carefully before they appear in public and make speeches enlightening the people of Canada as to the confused policy of a confused party.


Murdo William Martin: They irritated you. My hon. friend does not like criticism. My hon. friend does not want parliament to sit.


An hon. Member:: Oh, we saw you on
television.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall perhaps have some comments to make that will interest the hon. gentleman with reference to his performance last night. He has encouraged me so to do.
In his remarks the other day the Leader of the Opposition, contrary to the practices of this house and in violation of the courtesies of parliamentary debate, drew attention to certain remarks which had been made by the associate deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the express purpose of causing embarrassment to a civil servant. The Leader of the Opposition was at pains to point out that Brigadier Roberts had been appointed by this government and that he is friendly to this government. Is this an unusual state of affairs? Are we to infer

that there are civil servants not appointed by this government who are unfriendly toward it?


Mr. Hellyer:: Yep.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition had a long experience in the civil service. He was appointed in 1928 by the liberal party of that day and I presume he was friendly to Mackenzie King. In the period from 1930 to 1935 we must assume that he was unfriendly to R. B. Bennett. Allow me to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the associate deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Brigadier Roberts, is one of Canada's most distinguished citizen soldiers and that his appointment has been a singularly appropriate one.
The Leader of the Opposition apparently took a great deal of interest in the program "Press Conference" held on January 7. He obtained a typescript of the proceedings and selected bits and pieces which he thought could be used to bolster up his weak arguments. I also have a typescript and will give a more complete account of the proceedings.
Of course, the television series "Press Conference" which originates in Ottawa is the modern form of the Spanish inquisition. The questioners-they are all friends and will not mind these casual comments-are serious minded individuals obviously out to make a kill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And sometimes they
succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, last night.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think perhaps the hon. member for Essex East will agree with me that questions that have a concealed time bomb attached should be presented with a smile to give the person being questioned some idea of what is being asked. But the members of the inquisition, armed with facts, figures and documents, with careful preparation beforehand-sometimes I suspect in collusion-attempt to lay traps for the unwary.
It is an interesting experience. I did not mind it in the least; the usual pleasantries before the program; the drive home together afterwards with an intervening 30-minute period of cut, thrust and parry. I would like to offer my sympathy to the hon. member for Essex East for the difficulties which he encountered last night and my congratulations to him on the nimbleness of his evasive tactics. I think he was saved by the bell, and that he was just about to mop his brow, as Mr. Mikoyan did the other night in his press conference, when the camera faded out.
The Address-Mr. Churchill I was disappointed with the hon. member, though, knowing his skilfulness in debate that he so frequently said in answer to a question, "Well, Mr. Pearson answered that the other day", or "Mr. Pearson will answer this tomorrow; you will have to see what Mr. Pearson has to say about it." I had thought that a prima donna waiting in the wings for a call would be able to answer some of those things himself.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure that in the constructive vein in which my hon. friend is making this very interesting speech he will permit me to ask this question. Does he not think that he and his colleagues would possibly get themselves into less difficulty if they relied more on their leader than they sometimes do?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have the greatest reliance on our leader; I wish I could say the same for my hon. friend.
In the course of the press conference in which I was engaged there was one doublebarrelled question which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned on Monday and of which he did not approve. Here it is verbatim. He gave it; I will give it. This is the way it was phrased:
Now, which of these two, unemployment or inflation, do you regard as being the greatest threat to our economy during 1959?
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) put this question to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition quibbled and evaded and said, "Of course, it is quite ridiculous to make that kind of mathematical comparison." I gave a much more forthright answer and I am going to give it in full here today. I said this:
I don't think either will be a threat to our economy in 1959. I think 1959 is going to be a good year, and so it says in the document ''The Year-end Review" which came out just at the end of December, because the recession which plagued us and the United States, starting in 1957, has pretty well come to an end. We have made a recovery from that, and 1959, with the way things are going, should be a good year for us. More people wili be employed and conditions generally will be better.
The Leader of the Opposition did not read out those words of mine which would have been helpful to him. Then, the members of the press conference came back to the question of inflation later on and I will indicate to my hon. friend that there is no confusion in the minds of the members of the party on this side of the house. We are all together on these problems. Mr. Blair Fraser asked me this question:
Did I understand you to say you do not think inflation is a threat in 1959?
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Churchill
I replied:
I do not think it is anything like as serious a threat as people have been trying to make out. I think there has been a great deal of talk about inflation, I doubt very much if it is a threat in 1959.
Then I asked this question.
What are the signs of it?
Of course, I was wrong. I should not ask questioners a question. They did not have the answer, anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither did you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They went on to talk about inflation. Mr. McKeown said:
Well, is inflation bad enough now that you are in a position that you must take dollars out of circulation in order to equalize the situation?
I replied:
I think the Minister of Finance dealt with this subject in a speech yesterday in Toronto. Have you got that in front of you? You people are very well briefed. He is not alarmed over inflation but he offers the caution to everyone to be careful. Don't blame everything on the government. Other people have to be just as cautious in regard to the handling of money as the government.
Then, let me give you the words of the Minister of Finance himself when he spoke in Toronto in a speech which was praised just a minute ago by the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: It was not praised; it was cited.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was praised so much I thought he was enthusiastic about it. The Minister of Finance said this:
I do not deplore the current evidence of concern over inflation. On the contrary, I think it is a healthy sign that people are showing concern for the preservation of the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. That degree of public concern will, I trust, assist governments and others in grappling with the problem. I am concerned, however, that the discussion of this subject should be realistic and balanced. The danger of inflation exists, as it has existed for the last 20 years. We will not, however, overcome it by exaggerating it beyond all recognition.
Therefore, I say unemployment and inflation are not threats in the sense that the Canadian economy is in danger of collapse from these two problems. They are serious matters that have to be dealt with courageously and vigorously and that is what this government is doing.
The greatest threat to Canada's economy is the attitude of mind displayed on Monday by the Leader of the Opposition. Talking blue ruin, spreading gloom and despondency, arousing fear in the minds of our people, that is the method by which progress can be retarded, that is the method by which confidence can be destroyed, that is the


method by which Canada's name can be smeared and doubt and uncertainty aroused in the minds of foreign observers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question? Did the hon. gentleman have that view when he and his colleagues made those gloomy speeches about unemployment in 1955?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am much more an optimist than my friend, formerly from Manitoba. He has lost some of that western spirit and optimism about life. He is fogbound, I think. I was saying, how typical of the Liberal party. That is the age-old weakness of the Liberals, little Canadianism, no breadth of vision, no inspirational leadership; just expediency, carping criticism and small-mindedness. No wonder the people of Canada revolted and by the peaceful method of the ballot swept out of office these men of little vision.
Canadians are proud of their country, inspired by the prospects of a glorious future, eager for advancement and development and ready to follow inspiring leadership.
The leader of the Liberal party is engaged with his brain trust in a task of rebuilding a bomb-shattered party. I suggest to him that he examine the history of his party over the years. He will find that the greatest weakness of the Liberal party from confederation to the present time has been its inability to raise its eyes from the ground and see the far horizon.
Had the Canadian people placed their confidence in the Liberal party from 1867 to 1896 there would have been no transcontinental railway to link the provinces together; British Columbia would not have entered confederation, as was pointed out so forcefully yesterday by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. McPhillips); the prairie west would have been handed over to United States railways; Canada would have failed to achieve her destiny.
The narrow point of view of the Liberal party was demonstrated by the leader of that party during the spring election campaign. His reaction to the Conservative policy of developing the Canadian northland, a policy so brilliantly depicted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), a policy being so ably developed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) was ridiculed by the Leader of the Opposition. In his words you can see the attitude of the Liberal party toward development. This is what he said as reported in the Montreal Star of March 1. These are his very words:
They are going to build a highway in the Arctic, beginning at one igloo and ending at another.
The same attitude of mind has characterized the Liberal party with regard to the

The Address-Mr. Churchill
commonwealth. "Play down the commonwealth" has been the Liberal slogan for 40 years. In his speech on Monday the Leader of the Opposition once again played down the commonwealth. Here are his words, as reported at page 44 of Hansard, with regard to the commonwealth conference held at Montreal in September last:
There was nothing unique about it in its assembling or its results.
I was not surprised at his statement, for a few years ago I examined the record of the hon. member with regard to the commonwealth. I searched Hansard for his comments and I read his words. It was an unrewarding experience. I then recorded my findings, and as he has been quoting from some of my speeches I will quote from some of them too just for the record and for the advice they may offer to the Leader of the Opposition. This is what I said on November 27, 1956, as found at page 101 of Hansard. I was speaking then of the person who was then secretary of state for external affairs, the present Leader of the Opposition, and this is what I said:
I wish he would speak more frequently on the commonwealth in the House of Commons. I have examined the number of times the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dealt with the British commonwealth of nations in the House of Commons. He has been goaded into making statements by people mentioning the subject here or asking him questions: but he has not, certainly in recent years himself made a speech on the British commonwealth of nations.
Then, on January 22, 1957, I was speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I hope the last speech from the throne that will be issued by the Liberal party certainly for a generation. In that throne speech were these words:
My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth-
As found at page 524 of Hansard for January 22, 1957, I said:
This is indeed an unusual sentence. No such reference to the commonwealth appears in any speech from the throne from 1949 to the present time. Here and there in the preceding sessions casual reference was made to the commonwealth in those years in which commonwealth conferences were being held but this is the first occasion since 1949 on which the commonwealth has received special attention in the speech from the throne.
I suggested that the phraseology should have been as follows:
My ministers, and particularly the minister of external affairs, have suddenly discovered the British commonwealth of nations. Heretofore they have been only half conscious of its existence and have made little or no effort to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth or even mention the subject.
The commonwealth conference held at Montreal was far from being just one among many. It was a unique conference. It was the 66968-9-11
first full-scale commonwealth conference on trade and economic problems held since 1932. It was the largest commonwealth conference ever held and one of the largest international conferences held in Canada. It was unique in scale, in the coverage of trade and economic policy matters that were dealt with, in the intensive preparations preceding it, in the number of ministers and senior officials attending from each government and in the scope and far-reaching nature of its results. It not only strengthened trade and economic ties among the commonwealth countries but it gave new impetus to multilateral policies on a world-wide basis. Many of the matters on which agreement was reached at the Montreal conference are now being followed up in broader world-wide forums such as the international monetary fund and the GATT.
This commonwealth conference came about as a result of Conservative party policy expressed repeatedly down through the years, and no one has expressed that policy more consistently or more vigorously than the Prime Minister. It was his suggestion that such a conference be held. The groundwork was laid for the conference at Mont Trem-blant a year earlier when the finance and trade ministers of the commonwealth assembled.
The results have been excellent. A basis has been laid for enlarging commonwealth trade and a basis laid for strengthening the commonwealth. The Prime Minister's recent visit to most of the member countries of the commonwealth has been just one more piece of evidence of the importance that the government places on this association of free and independent nations, and one more instance of the inspiring leadership of our Prime Minister.
What the Liberal party has never realized and does not now recognize is that Canada's status in international affairs owes much to her membership within the commonwealth. Nor does the Liberal party see that by the turn of this century Canada will occupy a position of even greater importance within the commonwealth and that that free association of nations, united under the crown and operating under the parliamentary system, will be an even stronger force for the maintenance of the freedom of mankind.
The Leader of the Opposition's flippant attitude towards the commonwealth is paralleled by his equally flippant attitude towards Canadian-United States relations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has just said that the Leader of the Opposition made flippant remarks concerning the commonwealth. Surely the hon. gentleman meant the commonwealth conference.

The Address-Mr. Churchill


Gordon Minto Churchill: I accept the correction- the commonwealth conference. On some occasions the hon. member for Essex East can be unusually helpful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am always happy to help drowning individuals.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry I was not standing beside the hon. member last night at the conclusion of the press conference. I say that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition towards the commonwealth conference is paralleled by this attitude towards Canadian-United States relations. He accuses the government of uncertainty in its attitude to the United States. The fumbling and bumbling of the Liberal party over the years with the United States has been part of the multitudinous errors of the former government that we have been successfully overcoming.
Thanks again to the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada has made another advance in international affairs and relations between our country and the United States are on a better footing than they have ever been before. The Prime Minister faced up to the issue with courage in his speech at Dartmouth over a year ago. He has established the friendliest relationship with United States leaders. He has given encouragement to the meetings of cabinet ministers with the United States administration. Under his direction the latest development has been a committee of both houses to confer with representatives of the United States senate and house of representatives. At no time in our history has there been a better understanding by the people of the United States of the Canadian position. Never before has there been as wide a coverage of Canadian affairs in United States papers.
The timorous attitude of mind, so typical of the Liberal party, was due to the policy pursued by the Leader of the Opposition when he was secretary of state for external affairs. In those years he was tip-toeing through the tulips, afraid to say boo to a goose, and during the last two years he and his colleagues have attempted to portray the Conservative party as being anti-American. I well recall that when we took office 18 months ago the official Ottawa attitude was: Be careful what you say to the Americans, they might take offence. Members of the Liberal party have endeavoured to convey that type of fear ever since.
The Leader of the Opposition made some remarks concerning a speech I delivered in Chicago some time ago, and he thought that this was an expression of opinion at which he might cast some ridicule. I was referring, and the audience in Chicago understood this
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
very well, to the type of remarks made by our political opponents. As a result of this attitude during the last two years the impression created in the United States was that Canada was turning anti-American.
I had the good fortune to speak to the economic club in New York earlier. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition^ did not read my speech there and quote from it. The executive director of the economic club of New York came here twice to confer with me with regard to the nature of the speech I might make there. He said, "The impression that has been created in the United States"-it could only have been created by our political opponents-"is that your new government is opposed to Americans." He said, "Come on down and tell us about the things that are bothering you in Canada." I said, "All right, I will speak about the irritants in Canadian-United States relations", and I did. Of course, I was advised that I would be considered antiAmerican so I took the audience in New York into my confidence. I told them I had been advised by certain people that if I spoke in this fashion I would be considered anti-American.
They just loved it. After the conclusion of the speech the chairman said, "If this is anti-Americanism, give us more of it". I am sorry I have not the time in which to give some quotation from that speech I made in New York. I followed a somewhat similar line in a similar speech made in Chicago. The Americans like straightforward talk. They understand Canadians and we understand them. They are prepared to consider the difficulties that arise normally in the trading relations between our two countries.
The Leader of the Opposition then went on to talk about our trade with the United States and he again passed the remarks that he has made so often with regard to what he has called a policy of diversion of trade. Our policy has been an expansion of trade. Over the years we have taken the stand that it has been wrong to have all of our trade with the United States of America; that our trade should be world-wide; that if our trade is concentrated with one country, then we are likely to suffer when that country has a set-back or perhaps has a change of opinion with regard to some of the things that enter it. When there has been over the years a serious imbalance in our trade with one country, it is only prudence to attempt to expand your trade elsewhere in the world. That is exactly what we have done and we have had success in doing it.

Hon. members on the other side, members of the Liberal party, spoke words of derision with regard to the trade mission which visited the United Kingdom a little over a year ago. It was so successful that, of course, they had to find fault with it; and the long term results of that trade mission are being felt now in Canada. That was just one move in the general direction and following the general policy of expanding our trade throughout the world. After all, Canada is a trading nation. It is the fourth largest trading nation in the world. About one out of every five Canadians is dependent upon our export trade.
The Leader of the Opposition attempted to show that our export trade and our trade generally had declined. Let me put this on the record. On the basis of figures available to date-that is from the dominion bureau of statistics-world trade declined by approximately 7 per cent in 1958 and United States industrial production was also appreciably lower. The fact that Canada's exports were maintained in the face of these adverse conditions is a reflection not of weakness but of the underlying strength in Canada's present trade position.
In this connection a comparison of current trends with those in 1954 is relevant. The 1954 recession in the United States was milder than the recent one and European economies had continued to expand. Nevertheless, Canada's exports in physical volume terms declined three per cent between 1953 and 1954. In short, our exports have faired better in 1958 despite a weaker international situation. Our exports have been equal in 1958 to those in 1957 which established a record.
The Leader of the Opposition and his colleague talk about trade but they do not get down to the basic facts or give us the information which is required in connection with these matters so that the people can form a fair comparison. The Leader of the Opposition also talked about our wheat exports and once again, as he has done in the past, he mentioned the fact that they had exceeded those of the previous year. Then, of course, he threw in a gibe about this being due to gifts and long term loans under the Colombo plan. I hope the Leader of the Opposition was not attempting to give the impression that he is opposed to making gifts of surplus food to hungry people within the commonwealth but that is the impression that he is creating by these remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nonsense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Our wheat and flour exports in the crop year 1957-58 reached a total
66968-9-Hi
The Address-Mr. Churchill of 316 million bushels, an increase in actual cash sales of 22 million bushels without taking into account the gifts and loans which followed and put the total over the 300 million mark. That has been a substantial achievement and has greatly improved the economy of western Canada.
As a matter of fact, for those who are critical of the government's policy with regard to the export of wheat and with regard to agriculture, the following information might be interesting. In the year-end report of the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, Mr. Erik Willis, I And that everything was better in Manitoba in 1958, with one small exception. The field crops brought in a return of $168.2 million; farm animals, $64 million; wool, $128,000; dairy products $32,600,000; garden products, $9 million; poultry products, $28,725,000; and fur farming, $3.6 million. All of these figures are higher than the figures for 1957. The only place where there was a lower income to the agriculture population of Manitoba was in the production of honey and wax which dropped down about $50,000. I suppose that is the fault of the bees and not of the bee farmers.
We find there an instance of the actual practical effects of the policy followed by this government with regard to the export of agricultural products and the stabilization of the industry of agriculture.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Surely.


William Moore Benidickson: I was wondering whether the minister would bring the house completely up to date and give it the information that his department gave to the country yesterday, namely that exports in the first four months of the crop year are at a three-year low with respect to wheat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether my hon. friend is accurate in his statement. The beginning of the crop year is August 1.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: From there up to January 7 the figure for the export of our wheat is close to what it was last year. I think it is a matter of only 10 million bushels below that figure of last year. That fact can be accounted for because of the longshoremen's strike which prevailed in Vancouver during the summer and cut down our shipments of grain from that port. However, the prospects are for the exports of wheat to come close to what they were for the crop year 1957-58. I think my hon. friend should

The Address-Mr. Churchill check his figures again before he makes a statement such as the one he made.


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to the minister's release of yesterday which was reported in the press this morning.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the hon. member the figures there?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. Of course the
dominion bureau of statistics simply refers to the first four months of the present crop year and refers to the fact that only the United States among the four of the world's major exporters, showed an increase in that period. According to the minister's latest report Canada's exports went down. I have not, of course, the minister's information up to January. I was glad to get it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was giving the figures for six months. I am sure my hon. friend is completely reassured and knows, as we do, that the export position with regard to Canada's wheat and flour is in good shape.
I hope he will not worry too much about that matter and that he will have a better outlook on life.
I was going to say that what the Leader of the Opposition overlooked when he was talking about loans and gifts of wheat from this country is the effect those have on increasing employment. It is a very interesting table when you examine the amount of employment that is caused by the shipment out of this country of, say, one million bushels of wheat or, as it was under that plan of long term loans and gifts, 32 million bushels of wheat.
It runs into so many thousands of truck loads from the farms; hundreds of box cars are required to be loaded with this product and a large number of ships. All the way down the line you have the farmers bringing the wheat in to the elevator, the elevator agents checking it, railway cars carrying it to seaboard, and longshoremen assisting in loading it. It requires 600 cars to move one million bushels of wheat. All the grain moved during the last crop year required 280,000 cars. About $700 million was paid out to farmers during the last crop year for their wheat, oats and barley. This is a tremendous business in which the Canadian agricultural population is engaged, and it constitutes one of the largest factors in maintaining our export trade.
Mr. Speaker, my time is running out, and I do not intend to burden the house with tables of figures. Some of this information can be given at a later stage in the debate. However, I should like to point out and re-emphasize the fact that despite the recession which affected this country, the United

States and some other countries, Canada's export trade established a record in 1957 and it was maintained in 1958. The prospects for 1959 are very good indeed. On the basis of the information which has been assembled, we face a future in which we can have confidence. All the talk we heard from the blue ruin boys can be dismissed.
There is before us an opportunity to enlarge our trade with the United Kingdom, with the commonwealth generally and with the world as a whole. We will do our level best to enlarge our exports to the United States. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) mentioned something about this a little while ago, but his government did nothing about it. Now, he tells us to take a firm position on some stand or other which they, themselves, never took. Our trade position is good. It is improving, and conditions generally throughout Canada are improving. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has pointed out, we are not suggesting that a boom is in prospect but a steady upward growth, and that is precisely what is good for the economy of this country.
When we come to the amendment moved by my hon. friends and the suggestion they make that that amendment is a reflection of the opinion across this country, I will say to them that the amendment is going to be overwhelmed by the votes of this house and it will be overwhelmed by the opinion of the people across Canada. They have confidence in the government of this country, and they have confidence in the inspiring leadership which is being given by the Prime Minister.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply for their contributions. They both did exceedingly well. I realize, however, that the speech from the throne was not of their making. In my opinion there is nothing in the speech from the throne to correct the ills that beset us in this country where we have so many natural resources. Traditionally, these hon. members made reference to their own constituencies and this was very interesting. I should like to follow their example and make some reference to my own constituency of Welland.
We have fine people living in the constituency of Welland. Anglo-Saxon people comprise the majority of our population, but during the last generation or so we have had a great influx of French-speaking Canadians as well as people from southern and western Europe. These people live in complete harmony, and they and their descendants are making a fine contribution to our Canadian

way of life. There is no other part of Canada that I would rather represent than the constituency of Welland.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) graced Welland with a visit last March during his election tour. No one took the trouble to invite me to that meeting but I learned what occurred there. I can assure the Prime Minister that if he will come back now, he will have an even larger meeting. Some of the people who attended the last meeting said they would provide him with a theme song, "Oh, Promise Me". The meeting the Prime Minister held in Welland was, in part at least, composed of a captive audience because school children were brought in by the bus load from schools in the surrounding school areas. Then, too, many people arrived at the meeting at no cost to themselves because a canvass had been made and car drivers were paid $5 and $10 to deliver loads of people to that meeting.
There were many people, however, who attended the meeting without any urging. I refer now to the unemployed and the fruit and vegetable growers. What they heard from the Prime Minister in the way of promises must have been music to their ears. According to the press, he promised the unemployed that no one would suffer as a result of unemployment as long as he was Prime Minister of Canada. He went even further than that, and this was afterwards echoed on television by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) when he said that the unemployment would be pretty well cleared up by mid-summer. Mid-summer has come and gone and many of these same men and women are still unemployed. Their numbers have greatly increased in the Welland area.
At the time of the June election when this government came into power, we had comparatively few unemployed. When the Prime Minister was in Welland the number stood at about 2,400. Today it is difficult to ascertain the exact number. I am told it is in the neighbourhood of 4,000. These figures used to be published, but they are not published any longer. The reeve of one municipality told me that the relief rolls were up by about 400 per cent over those of a year ago. In the practice of medicine I meet and treat many of the unemployed. I know that they want work and not the dole. Many of them have purchased homes, furniture and the other necessities of life. They have had to go into debt and they cannot meet their obligations. Surely this government should soon realize that it does not help the peace of mind of the unemployed to be told that while unemployment is greater this winter it is not increasing as greatly percentage-wise. Last night I believe the Minister of Finance, speaking in the Chateau
The Address-Mr. McMillan Laurier, used the word "proportion", and said that the proportion of increase of unemployed was not as great.
When a man is out of work, just getting a mere subsistance for himself and his family, these vague percentage quotations by the government do nothing to lighten his burden. I feel heartily sorry for the unemployed and our government is doing nothing to provide work for the younger people coming into the labour market. The new federal-provincial scheme to help municipalities provide work for the unemployed by helping to provide new projects for the municipalities is of little use. It is too little and too late.
The St. Catharines Standard for example, a few days ago had an article which said that not one man hour of work had been provided in that city for the unemployed by this scheme. Also, I have a letter here from the city of Welland claiming that the help provided under this scheme is too restricted. This was written to me by the city clerk of Welland, and he says that the council and corporation of Welland at its meeting on January 6, 1959, viewed with alarm the narrow limits of unemployment assistance and work projects available to the smaller cities in the province of Ontario. I know that this scheme is of little help in the towns and smaller cities. I am not familiar with how the scheme might work out in the larger cities, but I fail to see that it can be of any great help, particularly since I have seen the figure given out by the Department of Labour. Canada cannot afford to have so many people unemployed and non-productive. There is nothing which breaks the spirit and morale of a person more than idleness. Canadians deserve the right to work.
At the meeting in Welland the Prime Minister also dwelt on the poor returns received by fruit and vegetable growers for their products. I agree with the Prime Minister that they should have had a greater share of the national income. But what has happened since this government came to power? Many of these fruit and vegetable growers tell me that their costs have risen and their returns for 1958 in respect of their crops have been the worse since before the war. The Prime Minister made a very emotional appeal. There was a fine old lady at that meeting who came from a farm community. She wept because she said she had never heard a man speak with such sympathy for the farmers as did the Prime Minister that day. The price of asparagus was very much to the fore.
Spring was coming on, and these producers were very much concerned about the price. In the year before, under the Liberal government, the price had fallen from 23 cents

The Address-Mr. McMillan to 22 cents and in some cases to 21-|- cents. Now what has happened? The present government set the floor at 18 cents under which they placed a three cent deficiency payment, and asparagus has never since that time sold above 15 cents in Ontario and 14 cents in British Columbia. In the province of Ontario the government paid a deficiency payment of three cents a pound so that the producer in Ontario got 18 cents and the producer in British Columbia received 17 cents.
As for peaches, the floor price was set at $83 a ton which is the lowest price received by the peach growers for grade A peaches since before the war. I understand that the government has not yet settled with the growers for this year. We understand that cherries could not be all sold and that much of the crop rotted on the trees. The cold storage plants took all they could but according to the last information I received before Christmas the farmers had not been paid for this fruit put into cold storage. There is one big chain store in the Niagara district which was selling American table corn when our corn was ripe. You could stand in the store and look out the window and see the farmers harvesting their corn in the adjoining fields.
I think that our unemployment and our depressed economy are in a considerable part due to the trade and fiscal policies of this government. I will give some examples of each. Hon. members will recall that in June of 1957 our economy was good. In fact, it was so good that the Prime Minister said he could divert 15 per cent of trade from the United States to Great Britain. Hon. members will also recall that about the same time, or shortly afterwards, the United States accommodated the Prime Minister by cutting off 15 per cent of our oil imports into the northwestern United States. Then, in December of 1957, this government sent a buying mission to Britain; they were to buy and not to sell Canadian products and this was done at a time when unemployment in Britain was very low and when in Canada we had plenty. We got a report from that buying mission. This report was printed in Toronto and not by the queen's printer. Oddly enough, that report refers to nothing that was bought. It reads something like the social column of a woman's page in a newspaper. It says whom the delegation visited, by whom they were received, how they were entertained, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) joined the group, when he left it and when he rejoined it.
The only inkling I received that a big trade switch was on was in a Port Colborne newspaper. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was there, according to the paper,

and he announced that the government intended to switch even more trade from the United States to Britain than it had already done. I can thank the hon. minister for helping to elect me because by that time our unemployment in the Welland area had increased from practically nothing to about 2,400. I argued that if the big switch had helped produce that many it was surely time to call a halt to that type of cause of unemployment.
This evening I heard the minister refer to the fact that we would in time see the long term result of this attempt to switch trade to Britain. I do not know anything about the long term result; I am giving one of the short term results. I have always been greatly interested in Canada's effort to promote trade with Britain. Since our trade with the United States has been cut by about 15 per cent I wondered why our trade with Britain had not been increased. Following our buying mission to Britain, however, our imports went down by 7.6 per cent in the third quarter of 1958 and by about 1 per cent for the first nine months of 1958.
It appears to me that before our government meets in conference with the United States or even with members of the commonwealth it always seems to give them a slap in the face first. We all recall the first conference of our four ministers with their opposite numbers in the United States when secretary of commerce, Sinclair Weeks, said to reporters: "we fixed them." I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) got another explanation to mean that he meant: "We fixed them up". But the newspaper accounts, even in the Toronto Globe and Mail at that time talked about the brush-off our ministers received in Washington.
The United States is our best customer, and living along the border as I do I have an opportunity to see many of the Buffalo and Niagara Falls newspapers, among others, which circulate in our area. I have had the opportunity to read them over the years. Some have said quite openly that if the Canadian Prime Minister and his followers acted as some of them were talking, the election foreboded a difficult period in trade and other relations between the United States and Canada. One paper in my area-a paper that supports this government-went so far as to say it would not be surprised if incidents occurred between Canadians and Americans living in the Niagara district.
The United States press referred to the diversion of trade proposed by this government and later on in one or two dispatches from Ottawa it was stated that Canadian raw

materials such as iron ore would be processed in Canadian plants and not shipped south of the border to give jobs to people in the United States. I think it is fine to process all the raw materials we can but I could not conceive of a worse preparation for a conference with our United States friends.
How about the commonwealth conference itself? We have had two of them, first the Mont Tremblant conference and latterly the Montreal conference. The preparation for the Montreal conference involved an added tariff, as hon. members will recall, placed on British woollens, a procedure of this government that certainly did not go unnoticed by the British government.
I have in my hand a copy of Hansard, of the British House of Commons of December 2, 1958 when the government of that country debated commonwealth affairs and I shall quote extracts from the speeches of a Conservative member, a Labour member and a Liberal member. I should like to ask some of the members of the Conservative party in this house to read what Sir Albert Braith-waite said about the Montreal conference. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) said that the commonwealth conference was unique. We shall see how unique it was. These are the remarks of Sir Albert Braithwaite the Conservative member for Harrow West:
First of all, I should like to pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the president of the board of trade for the brilliance which they displayed in leading our own delegation to the Montreal conference. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that what they did there literally saved the conference from being almost a stalemate. They infused some life into it. At the same time I am not satisfied that the conference report is by any means a document upon which to rebuild and revitalize the British commonwealth of nations. Its implications are narrow. It is phlegmatic. It is not precise enough in its conclusions, and it gives no real, positive direction on how even those conclusions will be carried out.
I wanted something much more vital to lead our commonwealth affairs than a lot of pious platitudes. Many people have said a great many things about how we should develop the commonwealth but there has been a remarkable absence of action since the Montreal conference took place. The Canadian Prime Minister came over here and made great speeches on what should be done, but I have seen no real reflection in deeds implementing the words which he uttered.


William Moore Benidickson: They make nice speeches.


William Hector McMillan: I shall quote a brief extract from the remarks made by the Labour member, Mr. Douglas Jay, Battersea North, who after speaking about the imbalance of trade between Canada and Great Britain, went on to say:
Yet what has happened? Only this summer Mr. Diefenbaker's government actually raised their tariff
The Address

Mr. McMillan against British woollen goods, only a month or so before the Montreal conference. If I am wrong and this increase has not been put into force, I hope that the president of the board of trade will tell us. Here is an essential British export to a dollar market, produced by one of our most important industries, which at the moment is acutely depressed, and yet Mr. Diefenbaker, who professes, I am sure sincerely, to have great enthusiasm for Anglo-Canadian trade, raises the tariff against British woollen goods just before the conference.
I shall quote just one sentence from the speech of the Liberal member, Mr. Arthur Holt of Bolton West, who put his reaction to the conference in these words:
The government appears to be advancing backwards by stealth.


William Moore Benidickson: What government was he talking about?


William Hector McMillan: The British government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Too bad.


William Moore Benidickson: Good try, though.


William Hector McMillan: 
Mr. Palleil:: One cannot believe what he writes or says, then.


William Hector McMillan: It put me in mind of the time Winston Churchill was in New York and was asked what he thought of the Attlee government. He replied that when he was out of his country he never criticized his government but when he was home he never left off criticizing it. Surely, this great Conservative leader of all time, Winston Churchill, has by example long since shown us the way to keep our Canadian family affairs at home and the Leader of the Opposition has done just that. For doing so, however, he has suffered unfair criticism and ridicule from our Prime Minister.
I hold in my hand an editorial from the December 31 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail. I wish to read two sentences from it. The heading of the editorial is, "Twelve Months of Mystery", and reads in part as follows:
In his New Year's message to the Canadian people, Liberal Leader Pearson refers to the "distressing dilemma" of rising prices and inflationary pressures 66968-9-12
The Address-Miss Aitken in a period of recession and unemployment. Dilemma, irony, anomaly, farce or tragedy, mare's nest or monkey puzzle-one might call it a great many things.
Let us call a halt to this monkey business in finance. We do not want to sink into another mess like the conversion loan.
Last year the Minister of Finance said that this government did not need to take advice from anyone, and he emphasized this by saying, "let there be no question about that".
I used to listen to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I am sorry he is not in his seat. He was the opposition financial critic of the former government. I could not always agree with him, yet I thought he spoke responsibly and his views on finance were, in my mind, sounder than anything displayed by anyone so far in this government. I cannot help but express to this house the secret hope that the Minister of Finance would consult him for direction. I feel that if he had done so from the start he would not be in the financial mess in which he finds himself today.
I would like to quote one last paragraph from this Globe and Mail editorial "Twelve Months of Mystery". Perhaps it should read, "Mystery of Life Under the Tory Government." However, in the last paragraph of this editorial in the Globe and Mail I find the following:
As we say, a peculiar year; a year in which our economy found itself very much out of balance, if not indeed out of control. Sweeping changes are obviously in order from top to bottom of our economic life; and this will require strong leadership. We have a right to expect, and demand, such leadership during 1959 from those in a position to provide it.
I hope the government can provide it.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, before embarking on a few comments I should like to add my voice to the congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Like previous speakers, I was very impressed with the speeches that the hon. member for Pro-vencher and the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet made, and I congratulate them.
I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, and continue to be surprised that we should have heard so much gloom, doom and criticism from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and now from his followers. I was surprised because it is quite obvious that he is still far removed from the grass roots in the country. You will remember that when he became leader of the party he said that it was time

The Address-Miss Aitken that the Liberals got away from the brass and back to the grass. I was surprised to hear all this gloom and doom because, as I think most of us will agree, one would have thought that after our four-month recess the Leader of the Opposition would have a better idea of what the people of Canada, the grass roots, are really thinking.
Personally, I am extremely gratified at the political consciousness of the people, certainly those in my constituency of York-Humber, and I am grateful for their awareness of the problems that face us all in Canada. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has played a major role in sparking the interest of the people in our national welfare. He has the great gift of getting close to the people, of inspiring belief

in him and in his honesty, courage and deep sense of responsibility.
On the other hand, nothing will convince me that the Leader of the Opposition, in his pitiful pessimism, is speaking for the people of Canada, the grass roots of Canada. He may have been speaking for the sadly decimated Liberal party but certainly not for the people of Canada. There are three or four items I should like to speak about with reference to the speech from the throne. Shall I go ahead or shall I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. lady leave to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, with out question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration visited any (a) Indian agencies: (b) Indian bands or villages?
2.	If so, which ones and upon what dates were the visits made?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
Questions
2. October 1, 1958, Six Nations Indian agency; Six Nations of the Grand river band. October 2,	1958, Walpole island Indian
agency; Walpole island Indian band.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount remaining in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, on December 31, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
Balance at credit of fund:
December 31, 1955-$890,857,489.63 December 31, 1956-$926,776,830.22 December 31, 1957-$877,470,144.39 December 31, 1958-$625,363,366.21
66968-9-121

Thursday, January 22, 1959


UNITED NATIONS
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement with regard to the United Nations wheat conference, the second session of which will be convened at Geneva on January 27, and Canada will be represented there by a strong delegation.
The first session was held at Geneva from October 28 to November 7, 1958, and was attended by 41 countries as members and 9 as observers. They discussed ways and means of meeting current world wheat problems through an international wheat agreement. A preparatory committee was formed to consider the proposals that were advanced, and to submit its conclusions for the consideration of government representatives at the second session.
The Canadian delegation will be headed by Mr. J. H. Warren, assistant deputy minister of trade and commerce. Alternate delegates on the Canadian delegation are Mr. W. Riddel, assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Dr. C. F. Wilson, commercial counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Official advisers on the delegation are Mr. C. B. Davidson, executive assistant, the Canadian wheat board, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. R. M. Esdale, assistant chief, grain division, Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa; Mr. J. B. Lawrie, European manager, the Canadian wheat board, London, England; and Mr. W. Frank Stone, first secretary, permanent mission of Canada to the European office of the United Nations, Geneva.
Producer advisers on the delegation are Mr. J. E. Brownlee, president, United Grain Growers Limited, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. A. P. Gleave, president, Saskatchewan farmers' union, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Mr. G. L. Harrold, president, Manitoba wheat pool, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Mr. A. Platt, past president, Alberta farmers' union, Edmonton, Alberta; and Mr. J. H. Wesson, president, Saskatchewan wheat pool, Regina, Saskatchewan.
Mr. N. W. Boyd, commercial secretary at the Canadian embassy in Berne, Switzerland, will be secretary of the delegation.
66968-9-10J


AIR TRANSPORT
George Harris Hees: I should like now, Mr. Speaker, to table in English and in French copies of the report of the air transport board to the Minister of Transport on the need for additional transcontinental air services in Canada, and on the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines for a licence to operate a scheduled service serving Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.
The investigation of the board and its hearing of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines application was dealt with in regional hearings in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Moncton between October 6 and October 15, 1958, and in final hearings commencing October 20 and terminating December 3, 1958, in Ottawa; and involved consideration of several dozen briefs and well over a thousand pages of oral evidence.
The board found that additional transcontinental air services could not be introduced at this time without major detrimental effect to existing operations, and without economic hardships and possible disadvantages for scheduled air lines, including the applicant. The board found that the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines should be denied because its expense estimates were computed on an unreasonable added cost basis, with no projection on a fully allocated cost basis; its revenues were estimated without any traffic study; and the schedules for its proposed service appeared to have been based on optimistic block speeds.
However, the board also found that the position of Canadian Pacific Air Lines as an international air carrier needed strengthening, and it has recommended issuing to Canadian Pacific Air Lines a licence to operate a domestic scheduled service from Vancouver to Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal, to connect Canadian Pacific Air Lines' existing international operations. This new service would be limited to one return flight a day, on which domestic as well as international passengers could be carried. It recommended that the adequacy of this arrangement be reviewed again in two years to see whether additional services would then be warranted. The board also recommended that where limited controlled competition would result

Tabling of Notes
in improving the position of regional air carriers, this be authorized, and has indicated that it feels it should make an intensive investigation of the position of regional air carriers in this connection.
I have informed the air transport board that I am prepared to accept their findings in regard to the foregoing.
The board has also recommended that a substantial portion of the government work now being performed by the R.C.A.F. be diverted to commercial air carriers. There is, of course, an obvious requirement that the Department of National Defence maintain a military air transport organization in being. At the same time, military authorities have always recognized their interest in maintaining civil air transport services which can assist them in time of emergency and, indeed, much of the present work of the larger regional air carriers in Canada is in the direct supply of military installations in the north. This particular recommendation of the air transport board will require further careful examination and I propose to consult with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, about it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
the minister a question. Is not this recommendation of the air transport board diametrically opposed to the views held for a long time by the minister?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. These are in exact conformity with the views held by the minister and as the former minister knows very well, last February I made a speech expressing the government's view on these matters in which I indicated that our policy was that where competition could be economically sound on any particular route we would be in favour of competition being introduced. The policy which has been announced here is in conformity with those views.


TABLING OF NOTES RESPECTING CHANGES IN CUSTOMS ACT
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) requested on Friday last that the two notes received from the United States-the notes of June 26, 1958 and September 3, 1958- and our reply of October 24, 1958 be tabled. I desire to table those documents now. Members of the house are aware that these notes were made public some time ago, and that the main points set out in the various notes have appeared in a number of newspapers. These notes will, I believe, warrant careful
EMr. Hees.]
reading by hon. members, as they provide a detailed exposition of the views of the United States government and of the views of the Canadian government on these matters.
In the United States note No. 284 of June 26, 1958, written and presented to us after a general reference to amendments to the Customs Act by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of June 17, 1958, the ambassador of the United States drew our attention to the main point on which his government saw cause for concern. The note of June 26 was not a protest; in effect it requested that the Canadian government should not introduce any provisions in the amendments to the Customs Act which would be contrary to our international obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. We gave due weight to the observations of the United States while the proposed legislation was being prepared, and we drafted a bill that does not contravene the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
The note dated June 26, 1958 was delivered on June 30, 1958, and it was forthwith brought to the attention of the Department of Finance, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of National Revenue; copies with comments were circulated to them and to the Department of Agriculture on July 16, 1958. The note dated and delivered on September 3 was circulated to the departments concerned on September 8. I now table these notes.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the statement he made in tabling the exchange of notes between the United States and Canada earlier this afternoon. My question is in two parts. First, can he tell the house whether or not the government gave any assurances to the United States government that the proposed revision of the Canadian customs legislation would be consistent with the general agreement on tariffs and trade, as requested in the last paragraph of the United States note of June 26, 1958?
The second part of the question is, can he explain to the house why he withheld from the house the note of September 3 on this very important subject when the very subject matter of the note was before the House of Commons, and why he also withheld it from his colleagues at that time?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the question,

that identical question was asked yesterday and I gave an answer to the house. With respect to the first part, if the hon. member will peruse the notes he will see that Canada's stand is set out fully in the note of October 24.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure the house is very grateful to him for the statement he made today which clarifies the matter, depending upon what one means by the word "clarification". The minister said that due consideration was given by the cabinet to the United States views as put forth in the note of June 26. If that is the case, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain why his colleague the Minister of National Revenue was not aware of this note, and likewise the reported unfamiliarity with the note on the part of others of his colleagues? If the cabinet was familiar with these views-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have followed the previous question and answer and the question which the hon. member for Essex East has asked. It seems to me that as this relates to a matter in the past and is now taking the nature of a debate, it might much better be brought up in a debate than as an oral question. Actually what the questions are directed to is criticism of government conduct rather than a search for information, and to my mind that is a subject matter of debate at the proper time rather than oral questions.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on this point, and with great respect, we would be very interested indeed in discussing this particular episode in the debate which is now going on, but we would like to have the necessary information with regard to the details concerning the matter so that our intervention in the debate will be accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have tried not to interfere with any genuine search for the details by way of questions seeking information.


Murdo William Martin: May I make a further comment on the point you raised?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member wishes to speak to the point of order I have myself raised.


Murdo William Martin: The minister made a statement on motions when there was no opportunity, as there is on orders
Proposed Legislation
of the day, for wide interrogation. The question I asked, as well as the question put by the hon. member for Ottawa West, was by way of seeking clarification of a statement that had been made in the house. Surely it is within the rules of the house for any hon. member to ask how the minister reconciles one set of circumstances alleged by the administration with the statement he made today. That is what I sought to do, to ask the minister how it was possible, in view of the fact that he said that the government had before it-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Murdo William Martin: -the views of the United States government, for the Minister of National Revenue not to know what was going on.


Mr. Speaker:: I understood that was what the hon. member was bringing up, and it seemed to me that the observation I made was in accordance with the practice of the house.


INDIAN ACT
Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-15, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-16, to amend the Canada Elections Act (absentee voting).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


AMENDMENT REQUIRING RETURNS SHOWING INCOMES OF POLITICAL PARTIES
Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, to amend the Canada Elections Act (election expenses).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


CRIMINAL CODE
Frank Charles McGee: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which is not unfamiliar to this house, is to provide that hereafter no person shall, except where the offence is treason, levying war or piracy with violence, be sentenced in Canada to suffer death but that such person shall hereafter be liable to imprisonment for life.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH IMPOSITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Frank Charles McGee: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-19, to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that corporal punishment shall be abolished from any of the offences for which it is presently prescribed in the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


REPORTED REFUSAL TO SELL ALUMINUM TO COMMUNIST CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house an assurance or, if not, endeavour to secure an assurance that no pressures from outside Canada were brought to bear on the Aluminum Company of Canada or on Aluminium Limited in the refusal of a $1 million aluminum order from communist China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this subject matter was brought to my attention today, and I note that it has been referred to in the press this morning. I cannot at this stage give a complete answer to the hon. gentleman without an investigation of the questions he has raised on this occasion and without a complete investigation to verify the accuracy of the reports that have appeared in the press.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether the report in the newspapers to the effect that a valid permit for the export of aluminum

was issued by his department is correct? If so, because of the interest of all of us with respect to export trade, could the minister give us any information with respect to the newspaper report which stated that Alcan has refused to make aluminum available for sale in accordance with the permit?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think the second part of my hon. friend's question was answered when I was replying to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). As to the first part of the question, an export permit was granted.


SALT FISH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Roy Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister give the house a statement on what the government proposes to do to meet the marketing problem for salt fish in Newfoundland created by ending the licence for NAFEL?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) also drew this subject to my attention. In November, 1958 a committee of senior officials of the departments of trade and commerce, finance and fisheries was established to conduct an inquiry into the marketing of Atlantic coast salted groundfish after July, 1959. This committee is now completing its investigations and will report to me soon. An announcement will be made in due course.


ROYAL VISIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Limburg Houck: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am wondering whether there could not have been a very serious mistake made, or perhaps an oversight, in the itinerary of the Queen's visit to our country when the most important and most beautiful place in Canada, namely Niagara Falls, was not included.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the number of prospective questions to the same effect that are before me, may I say this. Each of us regards his own constituency as meeting the qualifications and having the superb advantages to which the hon. member referred in connection with his. Taking that for granted, the committee under the chairmanship of General Graham has endeavoured

to achieve an itinerary tor Her Majesty the Queen that will cover Canada from coast to coast in general and in particular those areas which heretofore have not received such visits.
All I can say to my hon. friend is this. Realizing all the advantages of Niagara Falls, the decision arrived at with the assistance of the committee cannot, of course, be changed from day to day in order to meet the requests of various members, however desirable those requests might be. I think my hon. friend will understand that the purpose of the trip is to enable the Queen to visit as many parts of Canada as possible. On the other hand, regard must be had to her comfort and to the opportunity to give her reasonable rest. Therefore I cannot hold out to him or to any other hon. members who have placed similar questions before me any hope of any material alteration in regard to the itinerary as already published.


James Moffat Forgie: Mr. Speaker, X sent a question to the Prime Minister this morning which he has already answered, but I consider the situation as far as the Ottawa valley is concerned to be a little different. I received some hope from the statement just made by the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Moffat Forgie: -that the visits were to be restricted to places that had not been visited before. I call the attention to the Prime Minister to the fact that it is 50 years since we had a visit from the royal family and that the Ottawa valley extends from Sudbury to Ottawa. I should like to have some consideration given to a stop-over in Pembroke, the county town of the county of Renfrew, which is in the centre of the Ottawa valley.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member appears to be reverting to his maiden speech.


WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY  INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1957-58 CROP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister inform the house if the Canadian wheat board will be making an interim payment on the 1957-58 wheat, oat and barley crops and, if so, when we can expect such payment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. No decision has been
Inquiries of the Ministry made yet with respect to further payments on the 1957-58 pool account for wheat. The Canadian wheat board was consulted by me with regard to this matter a few days ago, and has the problem under consideration. In view of the success of our wheat export program I think it is reasonable to expect that an interim payment will be made early in 1959.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORT ON ALLOCATION OP BOX CARS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has yet received Mr. Bracken's report on box cars, which on August 8 he told us was being written.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the information I gave on August 8 was accurate. I have received the report. It is in the hands of the printer, and will be available very shortly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if in the meantime the minister would mind tabling the order in council appointing Mr. Bracken, and any order in council relating to this inquiry giving the terms of reference and the powers of the inquiry.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think, Mr. Speaker, all relevant material will appear in the preface to the report.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister consider tabling the orders in council in the meantime?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall look into this. I thought it had been done, but I shall see what has happened.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made in the house with regard to the change in the D.E.W. line, as reported at page 56 of Monday's Hansard. In that statement he said:
This is a step in the direction of ensuring that in the northern territories there shall be no misunderstanding as to whom those areas belong.
My question is this. Will the Prime Minister tell the house whether or not the United States flag will continue to fly over these sites on Canadian soil?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, owing to weather conditions no flags are flying over them.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Will the United States flag continue to fly over these sites in future?


George Randolph Pearkes: That depends on weather conditions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the flying of the Canadian flag in Canada is dependent upon weather conditions?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not customary to fly the Canadian flag in Canada or any other flag during severe weather, owing to the destruction caused to the flags.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I should like to ask another question with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister on Monday. With regard to this statement I should like to quote from the original agreement, as a basis for my question, paragraph 8 concerning the financing of the line.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the kind of question that should be asked on the orders of the day. The hon. gentleman is referring to certain remarks I made in the house during the course of the debate on the address and certainly it is not a proper question under these circumstances. It is not that I am objecting to the question, but rather to the fact that it is improper procedure to be asking questions of this type on an occasion such as this before the orders of the day are called.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Then I shall direct my question to the Minister of National Defence, who made a statement to the press on Monday of this week. Can the Minister of National Defence tell me whether or not there has been any change in paragraph 8 of the original agreement between the United States and Canada with regard to the financing of the D.E.W. line?


George Randolph Pearkes: There has been no change in the financial agreements with regard to the financing arrangements in connection with the D.E.W. line.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, who is the minister who reports


to parliament for the C.B.C. Can the minister give us any further information as to what progress is being made in the settling of the dispute in Montreal between the C.B.C. producers and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give any further information about that matter. The reason I was late in coming into the chamber this afternoon was that I had a telephone call from the vice president and acting general manager in Montreal. He advises me that as the result of certain communications which emanated from the corporation there is a possibility of resuming negotiations this afternoon or tomorrow, that the matter is still open, and that conversations at least are going on today. Under those circumstances I would prefer not to go into the matter further for another few hours or a day or two until the matter is clarified.



MONTREAL


George Clyde Nowlan: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Denis asked me a question with respect to the strike which I could not catch at the moment over the translation sysem. Having read the question afterward, I can advise the house that the answer is no.



NEWSPAPER ARTICLE RESPECTING RELATIONS WITH PARLIAMENTARY PRESS GALLERY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister who speaks for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a story in the Thomson press papers by a member of the press gallery dated January 15, written by a Mr. Patrick Nicholson, which attacks the C.B.C. and raises serious questions about the ethics and propriety of the corporation's relationships with the press gallery and certain of its members? If so, has the minister any comment to make on whether such charges are under consideration by the corporation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the story in question was sent down to me from the press gallery a few moments ago, which is a strange coincidence. I have not yet had an opportunity to do more than scan it hastily, and I am not in a position to pass judgment upon it. I know, however, that this was written by

Mr. Patrick Nicholson, an experienced member of the press gallery who is, of course, entitled to his opinions, and I am sure they will carry such weight as his comments deserve.
I do not think the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who enjoyed himself so much before the television cameras last night, would agree that the people who interviewed him had no experience in writing news, or that they were not in touch with the tide of events. At least they seemed to have a reasonable knowledge of what is going on. I do think there is some merit in the suggestion that the number of appearances of other personnel could be extended beyond the circle or group which has appeared very frequently in the past.
This, however, is a matter for management; it is a matter over which I have no control whatsoever, nor do I intend to exercise any such control. As the house well knows, the board of directors has only held one meeting, a couple of weeks ago. Since then the executive committee has been meeting almost daily in connection with the strike. We hope this strike will soon be terminated, and then I will draw this story to the attention of the directors for such action as they may consider fitting.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I advised the hon. member for Laurier that I would make a further statement as soon as I received it from the management of Canadian National Railways regarding his request that the railway be asked to delay the diversionary work on Victoria bridge until the construction of Champlain bridge had been completed. The management have now given me the following statement.
The Victoria bridge is considered the most important railway transportation link in Canada. Across it passes well over a half million railway cars a year carrying commerce valued at about $2 billion and constituting by far the greater part of the traffic to and from eastern Quebec, the maritime provinces and the United States. It is necessary, therefore, that co-ordination between the Victoria bridge and the St. Lawrence seaway should be such as to present a minimum of delay, since the consequences of any interruption of this huge traffic flow would be incalculable.
Inquiries of the Ministry
With the construction of the seaway project it was necessary to arrange for the opening of the bridge to permit passage of vessels through the canals. A simple lift span would have a disastrous effect on railway and highway traffic. It was therefore considered necessary to construct a rail and highway diversion for the purpose of providing an alternative route for rail and highway traffic when the lift span is in operation at the St. Lambert lock. The co-ordination of Victoria bridge with the navigation channel has constituted a most complex problem, but the management is satisfied that the method of co-ordination finally evolved embodies the best possible solution under all the circumstances, in that it will achieve a complete separation of all types of traffic-marine, rail, and highway-without interruption to any one of them.
There was a dispute between the seaway and the railway as to which ought to bear the cost of the diversion and related facilities. This dispute was temporarily resolved by the terms of an agreement executed between the seaway authority and Canadian National Railways dated January 12, 1956, when the hon. member was president of the seaway, under which Canadian National Railways undertook to construct a diversionary bridge and to complete it, as far as practicable, concurrently with the construction of the lift span at the St. Lambert lock. There was a further understanding between the seaway and Canadian National Railways that it was vital for railway traffic to have uninterrupted movement, and that until the diversionary bridge made this possible the railway is to have control of the opening and closing of the lift span. Consequently shipping in the canal may be seriously delayed until the diversionary bridge is ready for use. The urgency for completion of the rail diversion is, therefore, definitely related to the needs of navigation, since any interruption of movement will affect shipping and not the railway.
Following construction of the diversion and related facilities, the responsibility for payment of the costs involved will be determined by the governor in council.


Egan Chambers: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement regarding Victoria bridge. I wonder if he would inquire of Canadian National Railways whether, being unable to delay the diversion work on Victoria bridge until construction of the Champlain bridge has been completed, they would be willing

Inquiries of the Ministry to delay it until the extra lane on the Jacques Cartier bridge is completed early this summer.


George Harris Hees: From information I have they feel it is important to get ahead with the work immediately. However, I shall make inquiries.


Lionel Chevrier: You have already answered that question.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister seen the statement in today's Globe and Mail that exports of cattle from Canada to the United States will be seriously curtailed by the new United States brucellosis control program, and will he inform the house what effect this program will have on exports from this country to the United States?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have seen it. I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I think it is desirable that X should make a statement in connection with the matter so that fears on the part of cattlemen which this and similar reports are likely to have aroused should be set at rest.
The implication in recent press reports that exports of cattle from Ontario will be limited mainly to the counties of Oxford and Prince Edward is misleading. On November 8, 1958 the United States introduced new cattle import certification requirements for brucellosis disease. These new regulations permit the entry into the United States of six classes of cattle:
1.	Cattle from brucellosis-free listed herds.
2.	Cattle from brucellosis-certified areas.
3.	Cattle from herds which are neither listed nor in certified areas but which have passed a negative herd test within 90 days.
4.	Cattle up to 30 months of age, officially calfhood-vaccinated against brucellosis.
5.	Range cattle of the beef breeds from western Canada.
6.	Cattle for immediate slaughter.
There are in Canada approximately 5,000 herds under the brucellosis-free listed herd policy. Cattle from all these herds are eligible for export. In Ontario two counties, Oxford and Prince Edward, are already certified areas. Three other counties, namely Halton, Stormont and Dundas, will be certified within the next few days. Nine other

counties are under test, all of which should be completed before summer. In the meantime, as herds in these counties or elsewhere pass a negative test they are eligible for export. These 14 counties include most of the major Ontario cattle export areas. A further 17 Ontario counties have been accepted for testing and will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Elsewhere in Canada, the province of Prince Edward Island has been completely certified. Three counties have been certified in Nova Scotia and five in New Brunswick, and three additional counties are under test in each of those provinces. Seven areas are under test in Quebec, although none has been certified to date. Testing is proceeding in western Canada, and some areas have been certified.
As a result of the progress in brucellosis testing and the provision for the export of western feeder cattle and cattle for immediate slaughter, the new United States requirements should not seriously restrict Canadian cattle exports. As I stated at the beginning, I hope this statement will set at rest the fears which have been communicated to me from several quarters that our exports of cattle to the United States are going to be seriously curtailed.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Having read in a recent edition of the Calgary Herald a news item stating that a federal government committee will visit the town of Fernie, British Columbia, before spring to consider constructing a penitentiary there, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of this committee to visit other places in western Canada. Is it the intention of the committee to visit the district of Drumheller?


Edmund Davie Fulton: should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Perhaps I should take this occasion to confirm to the house a statement which was issued some time ago announcing the appointment of a correctional planning committee within the Department of Justice. This committee consists of Mr. A. J. MacLeod, director of the remission services; Mr. J. A. McLaughlin, an assistant commissioner of penitentiaries, and Colonel J. R. Stone, who at the time of his appointment was provost marshal of the army.

This committee was set up following unanimous agreement reached at a conference among myself and other federal officials and attorneys general of all the provinces and other provincial ministers and officials concerned with the correctional system in Canada. The committee has as one of its functions, under the terms of reference under which it has been appointed, to visit all the provinces to discuss with provincial officials the details of the plans necessary to be made to implement the agreement in principle arrived at at the conference. As a particular part of their function they have to assess the need for further penitentiary construction, and the suitability of various areas for such institutions.
It is out of the reports in connection with that committee and with that particular part of their function, that the press report to which the hon. member refers has arisen. The committee has just completed its tour of the maritime area in the course of carrying out this function, and during the first half of this year it will be visiting all other provinces of Canada. Details of their itinerary in the west have not yet been settled, but they will investigate likely sites for construction and report to me on them. Certainly I can advise the hon. gentleman that the interests of Drumheller have been brought to the attention of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River takes the floor, I think I should say, and I hope the ministers will not take it amiss, that we have had three quite long statements in answer to questions. I presume it is the objective at this time to have short questions and short answers. Perhaps there is no harm done in producing answers to questions if they concern something that could be produced as a minister's statement under the routine heading of motions. However, I just call the attention of the house to the fact that we are having rather lengthy answers to oral questions.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I wonder if he would inform the house as to whether or not discussions have been proceeding between the management of Canadian National and the employees aimed at a revision of the Canadian National pension regulations. These discussions were proceeding satisfactorily, and might even have been concluded by now, had
Inquiries of the Ministry it now been for the fact that the management of the Canadian National saw fit to withdraw the long-held passes of employee representatives at the conference.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to speak to the management and find out about that matter.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the unemployment figures made public yesterday, and in view of the government's intention as announced in the speech from the throne to introduce legislation in this connection, the Prime Minister will not reconsider his earlier refusal to interrupt the course of this debate so that this legislation may be introduced at once?


John George Diefenbaker: My answer is this. The hon. gentleman said this government had lost the confidence of the people. We want to have that determined by a vote, and then we shall immediately proceed with our legislation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. Is the reason for not accepting the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition the fact that the government's legislation is not yet ready?


John George Diefenbaker: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is wrong.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since the Prime Minister has told us that legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act is ready, would the minister put the notice on the order paper in order that the public may know what is involved in this legislation. That probably would affect the question of confidence to which the Prime Minister referred.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question was a serious one.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Prime Minister referred to unemployment insurance amendments at all in answering any question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not listening.


Michael Starr: You were not. I do not doubt that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate is probably as confused as he always is.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly as confused as he always is.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister or the government aware that bill No. 1, which is at present before the United States congress would, if passed, authorize an additional diversion of 1,000 cubic feet per second from lake Michigan at Chicago? Does the government consider that the implementation of this legislation would have adverse effects on Canadian interests such as hydro, shipping and our present dock and harbour facilities?


Sidney Earle Smith: I am grateful to the hon. member for Lambton West for giving me notice of this question. Our embassy in Washington has brought to our attention bill H.R. 1, which was introduced by a private member in the House of Representatives of the United States on January 7. Officials of the several departments concerned are examining carefully the implications of this proposed United States legislation.
The proposed legislation has many ramifications with respect to the water levels of the great lakes, connecting channels, the St. Lawrence river and also with respect to hydroelectric generation at Niagara Falls, at the international section of the St. Lawrence river and at Beauharnois. The hon. member will recall, I am sure, that an aide memoire on this subject was delivered to the United States government on January 6, 1958, and was tabled in the house on August 2, 1958.


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


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


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a further supplementary question. Is this particular bill similar to the one which was introduced on

this subject last year in the United States congress, and concerning which the government said it had no objection to its passage?


Sidney Earle Smith: I have not seen the bill and I have not compared it, but I do understand that it is almost identical.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to an article which appeared yesterday in Le Droit of Ottawa relating to misunderstandings between the chartered banks and les caisses populaires and the credit unions?
If the answer is in the affirmative would the minister be disposed to offer his good services so that a fair and equitable solution may be reached?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman was good
enough to give me notice of his question just before I came into the house. The answer to the first question is, therefore, no. However, I think I may guess that the purport of the article concerned service charges which the chartered banks propose to impose on the transactions in the chartered banks for the accounts of the caisses populaires and the credit unions. This matter has been the subject of frequent correspondence with the Department of Finance in the course of, I should say, the last two months.
With regard to the second question, may I gratefully say to the hon. gentleman that I am touched and flattered by the implication of his question in assigning to the Minister of Finance his favourite and most appropriate role of peacemaker.


Maurice Bourget: A supplementary question. I wish to thank the minister for his answer and to assure him that the interested parties, particularly the caisses populaires and the credit unions, would greatly appreciate the services of the minister. I feel sure that the minister will agree with me that such an important problem, affecting over two million Canadians-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member rose to ask a supplementary question, but he is taking a long time about it. Perhaps he has made his point.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether any information has been given to his department by the appropriate authorities of the U.S.S.R. that the sect of Doukhobors in British Columbia known as the sons of freedom will be admitted to the U.S.S.R. and, if not, does the federal offer of financial assistance toward handling this problem in British Columbia still apply?


Edmund Davie Fulton: In answer to the first part of the question I can advise the hon. gentleman that we have received no communication whatsoever from the government of the U.S.S.R., either directly or through its embassy in Ottawa, in this regard. That is the latest information I have. I will consult with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make certain that my answer is up to date, and if it is not I will give a further answer tomorrow.
With respect to the second part of the question, I may tell the hon. gentleman that we have informed the representatives with whom we have been dealing on behalf of this particular sect of the Doukhobors that our offer still stands. It was made in good faith and still stands, and we have told them we are prepared to fulfil it if and when they fulfil the conditions laid down in respect of that offer, one of them being that we should receive satisfactory evidence that the Soviet authorities are prepared to accept those members of the sons of freedom sect who wish to go to Russia.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.  STATUS OF AGREEMENT RESPECTING THERMAL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Will the minister tell the house whether a specific agreement between the government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick has been signed relating to the construction of the thermal power plant at East Saint John and, if so, would the minister advise us when he expects to table this agreement?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Would the minister, in view of the long delay, consider communicating with the government of the province of New Brunswick in order to reach a signing of this agreement and allow the project to be proceeded with without delay, thus providing much needed employment?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The government is in constant communication with the government of New Brunswick on this subject.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Norman Leonard Spencer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister an explanation to give to the house as to why construction has not begun on the addition to the federal building in Windsor, which construction would in part relieve unemployment in that city?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question.
The contract was called on the basis of a mat foundation. Subsequent to the award of the contract the consultant architects recommended that the department investigate alternative types of foundations. These investigations are now complete, and the contractor has been instructed to proceed in accordance with the type of foundation originally specified. He has assured us today that work will start tomorrow. The contractor is Eastern Construction Company, and the amount of the contract is $1,395,000.


Murdo William Martin: I thank the
minister.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately I had no help
from the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is not the minister
aware that just before Christmas I made two telegraphic representations of an urgent character in this matter?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Have the unemployment commission

The Address-Mr. Morton offices in the country been notified in any way not to give out any unemployment figures?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. Jorgenson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was speaking of one of the problems affecting unemployment, and I stated that the problem is how to produce without pricing ourselves not only out of our own market but out of the markets of the world. I indicated that employment depends on trade and the ability to sell our services and products at competitive prices in Canada and abroad.
As I understand it there are several industries across Canada today, particularly the clothing and garment industry and some parts of the electrical industry, that must consider moving their factories from Canada because they cannot compete even in Canada or meet competition from outside countries such as Japan. Another factor contributing to unemployment has been the result of disputes between management and labour sometimes resulting in strikes. In a democratic system we must rely on the responsibility of the leaders of both management and labour to settle these disputes without government dictation, and I hope the leaders on both sides will consider the over-all effect of these actions. These are not decisions for government but rather for labour and management. Many of these problems cannot be solved entirely by legislation, subsidies, tariffs or artificial stimulants. These problems require co-operation of all the people concerned.
May I make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I do not say these things because I believe we are now in a disastrous or perilous situation, but rather because I am concerned that perhaps we might be pressured in the wrong direction, and I am voicing my concern before it is too late.
It has been a platform of our party, and I think it is the hope of every hon. member in this house, that we in this country will be able to develop our resources for the benefit of our people and to provide for a larger population. But if we price ourselves out of the markets of the world and even

out of our own markets we shall become little more than the distributors of our own raw materials, and history will record us as a nation not worthy of its heritage. I therefore suggest, in view of the importance of this to our future, that the government consider convening a national conference on unemployment and related subjects the membership of which might be composed of representatives of the three levels of government, of industry, labour, agriculture and economics, in the hope that we might solve this problem by a comprehensive and co-operative plan rather than spending time in this house hurling abuse across the floor as to who is the cause of the problem of unemployment.
Another area in which I believe we as a democratic nation are not measuring up to the competition which is being offered by the communist nations and satellites is the field of education. The implications of the scientific achievements of Russia are selfexplanatory. We can no longer pretend that we have a superior system; we must now prove it. We admit that in Canada we have no central body responsible for national leadership in this field. We must depend on the alertness of the ten provincial governments to co-operate in unison to meet the national need for high educational standards.
I commend the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) for bringing to our attention yesterday a study of our educational system as compared with those of East Germany and Russia. This report was prepared by Mr. Anthony Frisch, who was born of Austrian parents in Naples, Italy and studied science at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and McGill University. He came to Canada and during the war served with the R.C.A.F. Because of his knowledge of what has happened in Europe he became greatly concerned about the educational system in Canada. Through co-operation he obtained textbooks from Russia and Germany and from each Canadian province to use as the basis of his study. I think it is to his credit that he has given us this report so that it might be studied by educational authorities across Canada.
As was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for York Centre, the study contains a table showing a break-down of related headings of subjects in the field of science such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology as taught in Canada, Russia and East Germany. This indicates that 71 headings are in use under the Russian system in the study of science, 13 being under mathematics, 19 under physics, 25 under chemistry and 14 under biology.
In comparing these subjects and relating them as closely as he could to equivalent

teaching in Canada he found that the province with the nearest approach to teaching the 71 subjects was Ontario with 54. In the matter of mathematics, where there were
13	units, the nearest province was Ontario with nine; in physics with 19 units the nearest province was Saskatchewan with 16; in chemistry with 25 units the nearest province was Ontario with 18; in biology with
14	units the nearest province was Quebec, the English section, with 14.
In respect of education in Ontario he made the following comments:
Mathematics
Ontario courses trail the soviet courses by about three years in the soviet equivalent grades 9 and 10. In the soviet equivalent grade 11. analytical calculus, as is the case with all other provinces, is not mentioned on the Ontario syllabus.
Physics
Ontario trails the soviet by two years in the soviet equivalent grade 9; one year in the soviet equivalent grade 10: one to two years in the first part of the soviet equivalent grade 11.
Chemistry
Ontario trails by three years the first two years of high schools; by two years the soviet equivalent grade 11; and does not touch at all the final soviet year, which is devoted exclusively to organic chemistry.
Biology
Grade 13 zoology and botany cover, however inadequately, the work of the soviet equivalent grades of nine, 10, 11 and 12.
He sets out in detail tables to back up his analogies. He came to the following conclusions:
1.	The soviet are able to teach their students, at an early age, to manipulate creatively abstract terms.
2.	At no time is subject matter repeated in subsequent grades.
3.	Subjects are not popularized to spoon-feed lower grades.
4.	Practical applications of laws and phenomena receive marginal treatments.
5.	Generally, we trail the soviet three years in mathematics and two years in science.
^he curricula of the 10 provinces show marked differences.
He makes the following suggestions for consideration:
Consequently, to ensure the survival and development of our talented children, most of whom survive despite the school system, it is suggested:
1.	That the federal government declare that there exists a state of emergency in education;
2.	That the federal government, through yearly I.Q. tests administered in consultation with the provinces, select the most talented students at the grade nine level, irrespective of geographic residence or academic performance;
3.	That these selected students be called "Canada scholars";
4.	That these students, provided they attend school and only that they pass their grade, be paid scholarships of the value of old age pensions through the welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare but under no circumstances through the Canada Council as constituted at present;
The Address-Mr. Morton
5.	That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces, administer a further set of yearly I.Q. tests to all students at the grade 12 level;
6.	That the most talented of these students, provided only they pass their year, and irrespective of geographic residence, be called "Queen's scholars";
7.	That these students, as long as they attend a school or university, receive scholarships amounting to twice the amount of old age pensions.
Hon. members will note that he makes perhaps an indirect criticism of some of the teaching and methods of choosing our students on academic performance only because, in talking to me, he said that in some of our courses our students are taught to parrot back their knowledge rather than think on their own, and he felt that by emphasizing the intelligence side you would get a more independent type of student.
We may not all agree with the conclusions that he has brought before us, Mr. Speaker; we may not feel that the Russian system is perhaps as advanced as it is made out to be. Perhaps the Russian system of schools is not distributed across the country to the same extent as ours may be but I do not think we can afford to ignore those comparisons. I am also informed by Mr. Frisch that, according to his study, the Russians compare favourably with us in the humanities.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that since we have no central body responsible under government for this leadership in education as such, this might be a task that might well be gone into by the Canadian education association across Canada, which represents the ministers and the educational heads of all the provinces. Because of their experience they could study this problem and perhaps give us some leadership in the country in this respect. I think it is most important that we take those warnings now before it is too late.
We all look back at our history and we sort of laugh at those who during the days before it was discovered that the world was round clung to the idea that the world was flat. Perhaps we are in the same situation today in our history with respect to education. Many of our concepts of education and of the universe are changing and we must accept the fact that as the explorers of old, together with the leading scientists, proved that the world was round. So because of explorations now being made into space and the demands and the problems of the future world are going to be such that our present system of education, regardless of how well it may have served us in the past, is not adequate to serve our future needs.
It would be interesting to know, Mr. Speaker, among the experts whom we have employed in our various industries and research centres how many are from other

The Address-Mr. Morton countries. How much have we had to rely on experts from other countries? It is not a bad thing. We welcome those who come from other countries and we welcome their knowledge. I am almost sure that in its present development our educational system has not produced all the experts we have needed. As a matter of fact

this is an aside-we were discussing the matter of the Arrow with the members of the union in Toronto last week and they made the comment that the staff they brought together came from all countries of the world and that it would be a shame if that staff had to be dispersed. The thing that caught my attention was that in order to build up the expert staff for that task it was necessary to draw on outside experts to get the efficient team that was required.
We cannot be too proud, we cannot be blind, Mr. Speaker. We must give the Russians credit for advancement in their education. Perhaps those advances are our ultimate hope. They will learn the wisdom of letting other nations live side by side, each maintaining its own system. There is already slight evidence that the educated in Russia are seeing the folly of the dogmatic and rigid concepts of communism. I only hope that our educational leaders will swallow their pride and give us constructive leadership in improving our educational system and that we in government will give leadership in providing the funds that may be necessary.
I understand that at the present time about 3.11 per cent of personal income is being spent on education and that about 10 per cent of all the money spent on government affairs is spent on education. I should like to urge again that a select committee of the house be set up to study the financial needs of education in Canada. It is a problem that we must face. I think it is time to forget our regional prejudices and think as Canadians in developing educational systems across Canada in accordance with the needs of the provinces and of our growing nation. We should study how the central government can help financially without interfering with the rights of the provinces.
I again urge the Canadian educational association to undertake the sponsorship of a research program as to the future requirements of our country. I also urge the extension of the scholarships now provided. In the brief of the Canadian teachers' federation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) last year the following statement is made and I think that we should bear it in mind.
The full development of this country economically, culturally, socially, and spiritually demands the full development of the potentialities of its youth. The extent of education of a Canadian boy or girl should

depend upon his or her ability to benefit by further education and not upon geographical location and the parent's pocketbook. Whether or not one concedes that a full education is the birthright of every citizen, there surely can be no doubt that the best interests of the nation require that every citizen be educated to the fullest extent of his capabilities.
I trust that we as Canadians, while proud of our resources, will recognize our destiny and combine in a constructive effort within our nation and with our friends to prove to the world that our system is better than that of the communists and that it gives greater hope to the individual.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in a remarkable speech on Monday, brought to the attention of the house the inadequacies of the policies of the government in practically every field. He also chastised the government for its indecision, for its confusion and for its fumbling. I should like to limit myself this afternoon to one or two heads of government policy which to my mind are responsible in no small measure for the disastrous condition in which the country finds itself today.
Before proceeding, however, I should like to follow the tradition of the house from time immemorial and extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), who discharged in excellent fashion the tasks of moving and seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want to refer particularly to that part of the speech of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet which dealt with national unity. It has always been the doctrine of the Liberal party and all its leaders to uphold national unity in the house and throughout the country.
I should now like to refer to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had to say on Monday when he stated that the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition was not in keeping with his responsibilities. This to my mind was unfair criticism and I should like to tell the Prime Minister today that that part of his speech was not in keeping with his responsibilities as Prime Minister. The particular inference that he tried to leave that the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition were similar to those made by communist leaders and especially Mr. Mikoyan is certainly not in keeping with the kind of leadership that the Canadian people have the right to expect at this moment.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no such
implication.


Lionel Chevrier: After having made that
reference to Mr. Mikoyan, the Prime Minister went on to say, as found on page 53 of Hansard for January 19:
When one considers the difficulties confronting the free world in terms of an economic attack one must conclude this is not the time for the kind of speech that was delivered here this afternoon with such relish.
What were the points made by the Leader of the Opposition with reference to the economic situation? He outlined the unemployment problems in the country in realistic terms, at all times basing his argument upon figures taken from government statistics. On that basis he criticized the inadequacy of government policy and he urged the Prime Minister to take new steps to deal with this very serious social evil. My leader was in very good company indeed when he made these statements because, the archbishop of Montreal, Cardinal Leger, dealt with this problem on at least two occasions. Here is what he had to say.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Not in the same sense. (Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I hear someone say, "not in the same sense." Just let him listen to this. On September 18, 1958 the cardinal spoke to the delegates at the annual meeting of the federation of Catholic workers of Canada and, as reported by La Presse of Montreal, here is what he had to say:
His Eminence deplored that hundreds of thousands of workers are without work in a country immensely rich and in full development. "We cannot hide the anxieties that are inspired in us by the considerable amount of unemployment which took place last winter and which unfortunately strikes today in the homes of many workers.
I should also like to read from the pastoral letter of the cardinal which was read to all his diocesans in the archdiocese of Montreal on Sunday, January 18. Cardinal Leger said:
A Christian cannot remain indifferent in a situation which creates such great suffering. Behind the statistics and figures we must discern the men and women, the children and the aged who are reduced to poverty and exposed to the terrible temptations of despair.
Then again:
A just and lasting solution to unemployment involves respect for man's natural right to work, encouragement of a high and stable level of employment and a more salutary direction for the economy.
Note these significant words.
The situation requires the intervention of government to take new and audacious steps.
I ask the house, is that so different from what was said by my leader when he asked the Prime Minister the other day and again today whether he would interrupt the speech from the throne in order to bring forward new measures to deal with unemployment.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
I should like to discuss this question. In so doing I feel that I am in better company with the cardinal and with the Leader of the Opposition than I am with the government. But I am not alone with these two distinguished gentlemen, Mr. Speaker. Listen to what the hon. member for Prince Albert, now the Prime Minister, had to say in 1955 when he sat on this side of the house and when conditions were in no way comparable to the serious situation the country faces today and which year was the most prosperous of the 1950's. I quote from page 2034 of Hansard of March 15, 1955:
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said he very seriously regretted the developing unemployment across the country when he spoke in the house some weeks ago . . . they express solicitude. They mobilize statistics. But the Prime Minister, from whom the people of Canada want to hear, with the prestige of his position, remains silent in the face of a problem that wrings the hearts of the people.
The hon. member for Prince Albert went on to say this:
What a hopeless picture! The government, faced for the first time with serious unemployment . . . is unable to give any hope. We are unable to rouse them into placing before the people of Canada some of the picture.
Later on he said this:
We do not believe in preaching pessimism; we do not want to see the condition of affairs brought about which will create panic; but we are asking the government to act now-
Then dealing with the figures of the Canadian National Railways, which were then much better from the point of view of revenue than they are at the present time, here is what the hon. member for Prince Albert said:
Why not face that picture? Is it not a fact that some 10.000 men have been laid off? The railway-men ask: what is the picture for the future? After all, it is a government corporation and they have a right to expect information regarding the railway company owned by the dominion.
Then still further:
The municipalities are loaded down with unemployment relief . . . What is the attitude of the government?
Those are words which were used by the present Prime Minister when conditions were far better than they are today. Yet the Prime Minister dares to criticize the Leader of the Opposition because of the language which he used in his speech on Monday. I can only say:
(Translation):
Other times, other ways.
The Conservative government is starting the session on the wrong footing. Its finances are in poor shape. Over the whole fiscal year,

The Address-Mr. Chevrier the government's total deficit-including budgetary and non-budgetary items-will reach $1,600,000,000.
Where will we find the money to offset this deficit? Either by increasing taxes or by borrowing. As you know, the government decided to borrow by selling bonds. Everybody knows today that this financial policy of the government is causing a steady fall in the value of government bonds. In fact, last year in mid-December, $100 government bonds were down to $94.50.
At present, being less and less able to borrow from the public, the government is facing a financial crisis. But this is not the whole story, for the financial responsibilities of the government will cause a new increase of expenditures during the new fiscal period so that next year again the government will face another large deficit, unless it decides to increase taxes. Even if it should do so-and taxes are already high in Canada-its disastrous financial policy would nevertheless, this year, contribute to inflation and rising prices.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, prices are already on the way up, as official government statistics well show. Indeed the consumer's price index has gone up 3.5 per cent since 1957. The general wholesale price index shows that they have risen by two points in less than two months, that is last October and November, which means, as stated by the dominion bureau of statistics itself, the largest increase in two months since 1950. And, as proved by experience, an increase in wholesale prices always foreshadows a rise in retail prices, so that we must expect a record increase in the cost of living in the next few months.
We are in the very midst of inflation, and nothing can be more disastrous for a country than this. Indeed, inflation touches everybody, particularly those who are defenseless and who suffer, and especially those whose salaries do not rise as quickly as the cost of living. When prices go up, it is the white collar worker, the civil servant, widows and small wage earners who take the brunt of a lower standard of living.
The government has no overall program to fight this plague. There again, it wallows in confusion and uncertainty. With this financial crisis created by the government, and with soaring prices, there is more unemployment than in 1957. The unemployment situation remains very serious.
Not only was unemployment higher in 1958, but the number of workers was lower

than in 1957. As we were told yesterday, in mid-December there were 440,000 unemployed in Canada. In the province of Quebec, the situation is more serious than anywhere else, with the exception of the maritime provinces.
There are today, in the province of Quebec, 185,000 people looking for work. This is more than 8 per cent of the available labour force, or about one third of all the unemployed in Canada. In Montreal, 80,000 people are out of work. In Sorel, in Arvida, in the asbestos and textile industries that our hon. friends, particularly the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) were supposed to help out, conditions have never been worse.
Representatives of the textile industries complained about it yesterday, at a meeting held in Ottawa. Consequently I have no hesitation in saying that, with respect to unemployment and to the financial situation, the government has no comprehensive plan to cure the evil. Besides, the speech from the throne is non-committal and announces no new measure to cope with the situation.
We no longer hear about the great billion-dollar public works program, so often mentioned during the last elections. We hear, instead, of the winter program of assistance to municipalities.
This idea, Mr. Speaker, is not new. Indeed, the Liberals suggested it during the last election campaign, and even proposed it, as did the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) during the parliamentary session. We tried, by all possible means, to convince the government to put into force this policy. We did not succeed at the time, but the government finally decided to accept our proposal, but unfortunately its decision came too late. The plan was announced too late to improve the lot of those who suffer in these winter months. It was put forward in late October, at the very time when the Prime Minister was about to leave on his trip around the world.
Actually it was then too late for municipalities to plan such works, which should have started by early November if they were to have any effect in relieving seasonal unemployment.
Besides, the program put forth by the government is much too restrictive to deal with the problem. On December 24, 1958, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) announced that, between December 1 and April 30, his program would cost the federal

government $3,900,000. Will you please tell me, Mr. Speaker, what good an outlay of $3,900,000 can possibly be in helping the country's 440,000 unemployed? The hon. minister admitted that at the time the province of Quebec had submitted no project in connection with this winter works program.
This winter works program for municipalities can therefore be of absolutely no use to the province of Quebec, because so far she did not take advantage of it, although at this time 185,000 persons are seeking jobs. Yet in Montreal, on March 20 last, the Minister of Labour did not hesitate to forecast that unemployment would have vanished by mid-June.
What about the oft-repeated words of the right hon. Prime Minister to the effect that no one would suffer from unemployment on account of him? Will he take offence if I tell him that, at the present time, there are 440,000 unemployed in Canada?
(Text):
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), in his intervention in the debate referred to the speech of the President of the United States. I wish he had gone on to deal further with that speech which the President made to congress, his usual state of the union speech, because if he had he would have noticed a part having to do with inflation. He would have noticed that the President said that because of the serious condition vis-a-vis inflation, because of the danger of future soaring prices and to keep the economy sound and expanding, he would present to congress at once certain proposals. He went on to list them. The first was a balanced budget for next year. This is advice which the Prime Minister might well follow.
Apparently the government, in dealing with unemployment, intends to follow the kind of approach that we on this side of the house have criticized, namely increased government expenditure. At least, this is what the Prime Minister led us to believe in his speech on Monday as recorded at page 65 of Hansard for January 19, 1959. He said:
But I believe the people of Canada as a whole want us to make the necessary expenditures to meet the spectre of unemployment as it is found.
Well, you have listened to this statement by the Prime Minister. Now, contrast that with what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) had to say in Toronto in his famous speech on January 5. After going on to say
The Address-Mr. Chevrier that the expenses of government were high; that the line must be held; that expenditures must be paid; that a high standard of living and of social services and the like must be maintained, he said this, and I quote:
Nevertheless the treasury board in its current review of estimates is, I assure you, applying a firm hand to controllable expenditures.
On the one hand, the Minister of Finance is saying he is going to hold the line, but the Prime Minister is saying, when circumstances warrant it, there will be no hesitation about additional public expenditures. There is another example of contradiction and confusion.
It is equally evident that in following that object to fight unemployment, the government, as in so many other fields, lacks imagination in finding new and useful projects to initiate. When we speak in this house we are interrupted by ministers and others who say, well, what are your proposals; what have you got to offer? Even if we do not agree fundamentally with the government's approach, as was made clear by my leader the other day, I should like at this juncture to make some suggestions to the government. Unemployment, as I said earlier, is more serious in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal than in any other part of Canada with the exception of the Atlantic provinces. I am going to make three suggestions and I hope that they will receive serious consideration.
The first is for the immediate appointment of a board of engineers for the purpose of studying and reporting upon the economic advantages of linking the St. Lawrence river with the port of New York via the Richelieu river, lake Champlain and the Hudson river. This matter was taken up in the house and is contained in a resolution by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). It is a problem which is not new. Representations have already been made to the government. This matter was referred in 1937 to the international joint commission. I hold in my hand a copy of the report which was made at that time, and in effect it states this: As soon as the St. Lawrence seaway has been completed this matter of the Champlain-Richelieu canal should be given consideration by the international commission.
I wish I had time to go into the matter more fully. All I can say at this time is this: If it were given consideration and put into effect by a recommendation, of course following a report of a board of engineers, it would put to work thousands of people in an area where work is required.
The second suggestion I have to make has to do with the joint development of power

The Address-Mr. Chevrier and navigation in the Lachine section of the river. I will be told at once that this is purely a provincial matter. This is true to some extent, save that in 1947 a board of engineers appointed by the government reported that navigation and power production in the Lachine section was feasible and that if it were put into effect it would bring about greater savings in power development in the Montreal area. It is quite clear that if the recommendations contained in this report were given effect, thousands of people could be put to work.
All we have to do is see what happened in the international section of the river in so far as the St. Lawrence seaway was concerned where at least half if not more of the 25,000 men employed on that project were put to work on power development. If it were possible for the government, which is extremely friendly I understand with the government of Mr. Duplessis in the province of Quebec, to make the requisite representations and to convince him-incidentally it has already been announced by a commissioner of Quebec Hydro-that this is a project which should be undertaken without delay, as I am sure he himself is convinced, it would be a great boon to the area of Montreal.
Finally, I suggest the construction of a new bridge linking Montreal and the south shore downstream from the Jacques Cartier bridge. I am sure, from what I know of the traffic conditions, that there is no member in this house, no matter on what side of the house he sits, who would not be in favour of the construction of such a bridge. As I said earlier, I wish I had more time to deal with these three matters, but unfortunately 1 must go on.


Frank Charles McGee: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Providing I am given credit for the interruption because I have a number of matters here with which I should like to deal. Yes, on that condition.


Frank Charles McGee: I was wondering how the hon. member squares his criticism of government public works projects as an anti-recession measure with his own suggestion for a further extension of public works?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member had listened to what I said he would find that most of these projects are self-liquidating. The bridge is self-liquidating, the power project is self-liquidating and the Champlain-Richelieu project would be self-liquidating if tolls were to be charged.
I should like to commend the government for recommending to parliament the establishment of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group. I believe that that is a useful


body. The Canadian section was enthusiastically received in the United States and the speakers of both houses, I have no hesitation in saying, handled the meetings with tact and diplomacy. I should like to warn the Prime Minister, however, that he should not overstate the case, as he did the other day because, after all, this is only one of many such committees and it is hard to say how much will be accomplished by it. A large number of questions were mentioned for discussion- they did not come up for discussion, but a large number were listed for discussion-and of all these questions two seemed to stand out above all the others. The first was defence, and the next was trade.
On the question of defence I should like to say this: we are told that defence must be continental; we are told that defence must be arranged jointly with our friends in the United States, and to that there can be no objection. But defence, I think, is a two-way street. It must be joint not only from the viewpoint of the military aspect but also from the viewpoint of the economic and industrial aspect. What I want to suggest to the government in this respect is the revival of the Hyde Park agreement. This agreement was established in 1941. It was a declaration between the Right Hon. Mr. King and Mr. Roosevelt and it was established for two purposes, the first of which was to relieve the substantial adverse balance of trade which had developed between Canada and the United States at the time and next to make sure that no useless defence production facilities would be produced in either country. The circumstances today are exactly the same as they were then, and it seems to me that the time has come for a revival of the Hyde Park agreement or something akin thereto.
It is all very well for us to be told that there should be joint defence between the two countries, but how can it be joint if on the one hand we are refused the entry of our exports such as oil, lead and zinc. I notice that there is something in the speech from the throne having to do with this question, but that is not enough. I think there has to be far more than that and I think there should be a determined effort by the government to make sure that Canadian companies have the opportunity to bid in the United States market with regard to defence orders. There is very little in the way of defence orders that cannot be manufactured in Canada by our own industry.
I could take as an example the CF-105, and while I know of the difficulties in the way I will suggest that in view of the statements made by Air Vice Marshal Slemon and General Partridge it is an efficient manned interceptor in the light of the requirements for

which it was produced. It would seem to me that this would be a good place at which to start by selling this aircraft to the United States. That is just one example. There are hundreds of other things which could be produced in Canada and which could be sold in the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question, because I know he took a considerable interest in the revival of the Hyde Park agreement on the occasion of this meeting in August, or so I am informed. Did he find any reaction favourable to the CF-105 being purchased by the United States during his visit to Washington in August?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not discuss the purchase of the CF-105, but I did discuss the revival of the Hyde Park agreement and while I am precluded from mentioning names it was clearly stated to me by one member of the group that there was no reason why Canadian manufacturers should not be allowed to sell their products on the United States market.
Now I want to say a word about the dispute which arose sometime ago between the radio and television producers in Montreal and the C.B.C. which has caused the interruption of the normal operations of the whole French network during the last three weeks and which may destroy the good relationship which existed between the C.B.C. and its employees. This is a matter of deep concern, not only for the parties immediately involved in the dispute but also for all Canadians interested in an efficient broadcasting system in our country. And yet the government has done nothing to help the two parties come to a satisfactory agreement.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) stated in the house last Friday that he had taken no action whatsoever with respect to this strike, but then he went on to say that the strike was entirely illegal and, in his own words, that "rationality apparently is one thing that has been somewhat lacking in the situation." The minister, as he said, has done nothing to settle the dispute, and the words he used last Friday to describe the situation will not be useful in bringing about a satisfactory solution.
On the same day, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said he was not prepared to intervene in the dispute, adding that the parties were seeking to short-cut or ignore the provisions of the legislation designed for the final disposition of disputes dealing with representation, and he implied that he could not intervene under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act because that section provided for the appointment of a commissioner of inquiry into labour disputes on the basis of a collective agreement.
The Address-Mr. Chevrier I say to the house and to the minister that this very narrow interpretation is not compatible with the wording of the act. Section 56, subsection 1, reads as follows:
The minister may either upon application or of his own initiative, where he deems it expedient, make or cause to be made any inquiries he thinks fit regarding industrial matters, and may do such things as seem calculated to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to settlement of disputes.
Our legislation provides, of course, for a procedure of certification by the labour relations board. However, that procedure is not compulsory. Representation can still be a matter of negotiation between parties. When it is so negotiated and when such negotiations lead to a dispute, then the minister can intervene and he should do so in major conflicts such as the present one. The failure of the minister to act in this case is another example of fumbling and uncertainty on the part of the government.
The proposal made by the C.B.C. on January 16 was to the effect that the corporation was prepared to recognize the producers association and to discuss with it general working conditions, provided that if at any time there was disagreement between the two parties the dispute would be submitted for final decision to an arbitrator who would be the president of the corporation. This proposal was certainly unacceptable to the producers and would have put the president of the C.B.C. in a most embarrassing position where he would have been at the same time judge and employer.
According to press reports, the producers submitted another proposal to the C.B.C. which seemed far more reasonable. That proposal has now been refused by the C.B.C. which according to a news bulletin this morning has issued an ultimatum to its employees to return to work on Thursday of this week or else lose their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this dispute has been allowed to go on far too long. Is the Minister of Labour going to sit idly by and allow the C.B.C. to put this ultimatum into effect? If this strike were in the minister's constituency would he allow the situation to develop as it has? If it were in his constituency would he allow his colleague the Minister of National Revenue to rise and say that the strike is illegal? I doubt very much that he would.
If the C.B.C. is allowed to implement its ultimatum not only the producers are in danger of losing their jobs but the French network will lose highly qualified personnel, which cannot adequately be replaced at this time and the public, which foots the bill, is the one that in the last analysis will suffer. It is the clear responsibility not only under

The Address-Mr. Chevrier moral law but under the statute, subsection 1 of section 56 which I have just quoted, for the minister to intervene and to do his utmost to bring about a settlement of this dispute.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to touch upon another subject. Recently, two ministers of the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker's government, speaking of our national anthem, said that Canada's national anthem is God Save the Queen, and that it is ridiculous to think otherwise. O Canada, they said, was a pretty song, but does not enjoy the status of a national anthem.
There we have two ministers who, in my opinion, never understood either the word or the spirit of confederation, two ministers who never understood the true Canadian spirit. And their recent statements are much more calculated to split than to unite this country. Yet when either of them goes abroad, as often as does the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), to represent Canada, it is not God Save the Queen, but indeed O Canada that is sung at official meetings.
Under the Liberal government this matter was gone into, and the former prime minister, the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent himself, definitely stated the position. In reply to a question from the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asking whether, in fact, God Save the Queen was Canada's national anthem, Mr. St. Laurent replied that God Save the Queen had never been adopted either by the Canadian parliament or by resolution or by proclamation as a national anthem, and that, for many Canadians, O Canada was considered as the national anthem.
It is therefore not for two cabinet ministers of the present government to tell us that God Save the Queen is Canada's national anthem.
For my part, I shall always respect God Save the Queen, and will sing it in chorus with other Canadians when the occasion offers, recognizing it as the royal anthem. But in my estimation, and in the judgment, I am sure, of many Canadian citizens, the national anthem of this country remains O Canada.
In closing my observations, I should like to recall the words of Sir George Etienne Cartier, a great Conservative, but first and foremost a great Canadian.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The words are synonymous.


Lionel Chevrier: He wrote:
Comme le dit un vieil adage:
Rien n'est plus beau que son pays;


Et de le chanter, e'est l'usage;
Le mien je chante a mes amis.
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should like to join with others who have preceded me in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) for the excellent contributions they made in the course of this debate. They have indicated, as has been indicated in earlier sessions, that the Conservative party has a wealth of able young men fully competent to take part in the deliberations of this august assembly.
On this occasion I wish to deal with remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in his lengthy-and I may add far too lengthy-discursive attack on the record of the government. I shall pass over comments with regard to the somewhat similar remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who has just taken his seat because I am sure that other hon. members who will follow me will want to deal with some of his statements and will indicate very clearly that there is more confusion and indecision in the ranks of the Liberal party than elsewhere in this house. I believe that the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) would do well to confer together a little more carefully before they appear in public and make speeches enlightening the people of Canada as to the confused policy of a confused party.


Murdo William Martin: They irritated you. My hon. friend does not like criticism. My hon. friend does not want parliament to sit.


An hon. Member:: Oh, we saw you on
television.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall perhaps have some comments to make that will interest the hon. gentleman with reference to his performance last night. He has encouraged me so to do.
In his remarks the other day the Leader of the Opposition, contrary to the practices of this house and in violation of the courtesies of parliamentary debate, drew attention to certain remarks which had been made by the associate deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the express purpose of causing embarrassment to a civil servant. The Leader of the Opposition was at pains to point out that Brigadier Roberts had been appointed by this government and that he is friendly to this government. Is this an unusual state of affairs? Are we to infer

that there are civil servants not appointed by this government who are unfriendly toward it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yep.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition had a long experience in the civil service. He was appointed in 1928 by the liberal party of that day and I presume he was friendly to Mackenzie King. In the period from 1930 to 1935 we must assume that he was unfriendly to R. B. Bennett. Allow me to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the associate deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, Brigadier Roberts, is one of Canada's most distinguished citizen soldiers and that his appointment has been a singularly appropriate one.
The Leader of the Opposition apparently took a great deal of interest in the program "Press Conference" held on January 7. He obtained a typescript of the proceedings and selected bits and pieces which he thought could be used to bolster up his weak arguments. I also have a typescript and will give a more complete account of the proceedings.
Of course, the television series "Press Conference" which originates in Ottawa is the modern form of the Spanish inquisition. The questioners-they are all friends and will not mind these casual comments-are serious minded individuals obviously out to make a kill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And sometimes they
succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, last night.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think perhaps the hon. member for Essex East will agree with me that questions that have a concealed time bomb attached should be presented with a smile to give the person being questioned some idea of what is being asked. But the members of the inquisition, armed with facts, figures and documents, with careful preparation beforehand-sometimes I suspect in collusion-attempt to lay traps for the unwary.
It is an interesting experience. I did not mind it in the least; the usual pleasantries before the program; the drive home together afterwards with an intervening 30-minute period of cut, thrust and parry. I would like to offer my sympathy to the hon. member for Essex East for the difficulties which he encountered last night and my congratulations to him on the nimbleness of his evasive tactics. I think he was saved by the bell, and that he was just about to mop his brow, as Mr. Mikoyan did the other night in his press conference, when the camera faded out.
The Address-Mr. Churchill I was disappointed with the hon. member, though, knowing his skilfulness in debate that he so frequently said in answer to a question, "Well, Mr. Pearson answered that the other day", or "Mr. Pearson will answer this tomorrow; you will have to see what Mr. Pearson has to say about it." I had thought that a prima donna waiting in the wings for a call would be able to answer some of those things himself.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure that in the constructive vein in which my hon. friend is making this very interesting speech he will permit me to ask this question. Does he not think that he and his colleagues would possibly get themselves into less difficulty if they relied more on their leader than they sometimes do?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have the greatest reliance on our leader; I wish I could say the same for my hon. friend.
In the course of the press conference in which I was engaged there was one doublebarrelled question which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned on Monday and of which he did not approve. Here it is verbatim. He gave it; I will give it. This is the way it was phrased:
Now, which of these two, unemployment or inflation, do you regard as being the greatest threat to our economy during 1959?
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) put this question to the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition quibbled and evaded and said, "Of course, it is quite ridiculous to make that kind of mathematical comparison." I gave a much more forthright answer and I am going to give it in full here today. I said this:
I don't think either will be a threat to our economy in 1959. I think 1959 is going to be a good year, and so it says in the document ''The Year-end Review" which came out just at the end of December, because the recession which plagued us and the United States, starting in 1957, has pretty well come to an end. We have made a recovery from that, and 1959, with the way things are going, should be a good year for us. More people wili be employed and conditions generally will be better.
The Leader of the Opposition did not read out those words of mine which would have been helpful to him. Then, the members of the press conference came back to the question of inflation later on and I will indicate to my hon. friend that there is no confusion in the minds of the members of the party on this side of the house. We are all together on these problems. Mr. Blair Fraser asked me this question:
Did I understand you to say you do not think inflation is a threat in 1959?
160	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Churchill
I replied:
I do not think it is anything like as serious a threat as people have been trying to make out. I think there has been a great deal of talk about inflation, I doubt very much if it is a threat in 1959.
Then I asked this question.
What are the signs of it?
Of course, I was wrong. I should not ask questioners a question. They did not have the answer, anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Neither did you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They went on to talk about inflation. Mr. McKeown said:
Well, is inflation bad enough now that you are in a position that you must take dollars out of circulation in order to equalize the situation?
I replied:
I think the Minister of Finance dealt with this subject in a speech yesterday in Toronto. Have you got that in front of you? You people are very well briefed. He is not alarmed over inflation but he offers the caution to everyone to be careful. Don't blame everything on the government. Other people have to be just as cautious in regard to the handling of money as the government.
Then, let me give you the words of the Minister of Finance himself when he spoke in Toronto in a speech which was praised just a minute ago by the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: It was not praised; it was cited.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was praised so much I thought he was enthusiastic about it. The Minister of Finance said this:
I do not deplore the current evidence of concern over inflation. On the contrary, I think it is a healthy sign that people are showing concern for the preservation of the purchasing power of the Canadian dollar. That degree of public concern will, I trust, assist governments and others in grappling with the problem. I am concerned, however, that the discussion of this subject should be realistic and balanced. The danger of inflation exists, as it has existed for the last 20 years. We will not, however, overcome it by exaggerating it beyond all recognition.
Therefore, I say unemployment and inflation are not threats in the sense that the Canadian economy is in danger of collapse from these two problems. They are serious matters that have to be dealt with courageously and vigorously and that is what this government is doing.
The greatest threat to Canada's economy is the attitude of mind displayed on Monday by the Leader of the Opposition. Talking blue ruin, spreading gloom and despondency, arousing fear in the minds of our people, that is the method by which progress can be retarded, that is the method by which confidence can be destroyed, that is the


method by which Canada's name can be smeared and doubt and uncertainty aroused in the minds of foreign observers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question? Did the hon. gentleman have that view when he and his colleagues made those gloomy speeches about unemployment in 1955?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am much more an optimist than my friend, formerly from Manitoba. He has lost some of that western spirit and optimism about life. He is fogbound, I think. I was saying, how typical of the Liberal party. That is the age-old weakness of the Liberals, little Canadianism, no breadth of vision, no inspirational leadership; just expediency, carping criticism and small-mindedness. No wonder the people of Canada revolted and by the peaceful method of the ballot swept out of office these men of little vision.
Canadians are proud of their country, inspired by the prospects of a glorious future, eager for advancement and development and ready to follow inspiring leadership.
The leader of the Liberal party is engaged with his brain trust in a task of rebuilding a bomb-shattered party. I suggest to him that he examine the history of his party over the years. He will find that the greatest weakness of the Liberal party from confederation to the present time has been its inability to raise its eyes from the ground and see the far horizon.
Had the Canadian people placed their confidence in the Liberal party from 1867 to 1896 there would have been no transcontinental railway to link the provinces together; British Columbia would not have entered confederation, as was pointed out so forcefully yesterday by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. McPhillips); the prairie west would have been handed over to United States railways; Canada would have failed to achieve her destiny.
The narrow point of view of the Liberal party was demonstrated by the leader of that party during the spring election campaign. His reaction to the Conservative policy of developing the Canadian northland, a policy so brilliantly depicted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), a policy being so ably developed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) was ridiculed by the Leader of the Opposition. In his words you can see the attitude of the Liberal party toward development. This is what he said as reported in the Montreal Star of March 1. These are his very words:
They are going to build a highway in the Arctic, beginning at one igloo and ending at another.
The same attitude of mind has characterized the Liberal party with regard to the

The Address-Mr. Churchill
commonwealth. "Play down the commonwealth" has been the Liberal slogan for 40 years. In his speech on Monday the Leader of the Opposition once again played down the commonwealth. Here are his words, as reported at page 44 of Hansard, with regard to the commonwealth conference held at Montreal in September last:
There was nothing unique about it in its assembling or its results.
I was not surprised at his statement, for a few years ago I examined the record of the hon. member with regard to the commonwealth. I searched Hansard for his comments and I read his words. It was an unrewarding experience. I then recorded my findings, and as he has been quoting from some of my speeches I will quote from some of them too just for the record and for the advice they may offer to the Leader of the Opposition. This is what I said on November 27, 1956, as found at page 101 of Hansard. I was speaking then of the person who was then secretary of state for external affairs, the present Leader of the Opposition, and this is what I said:
I wish he would speak more frequently on the commonwealth in the House of Commons. I have examined the number of times the Secretary of State for External Affairs has dealt with the British commonwealth of nations in the House of Commons. He has been goaded into making statements by people mentioning the subject here or asking him questions: but he has not, certainly in recent years himself made a speech on the British commonwealth of nations.
Then, on January 22, 1957, I was speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I hope the last speech from the throne that will be issued by the Liberal party certainly for a generation. In that throne speech were these words:
My ministers remain convinced of the need to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth-
As found at page 524 of Hansard for January 22, 1957, I said:
This is indeed an unusual sentence. No such reference to the commonwealth appears in any speech from the throne from 1949 to the present time. Here and there in the preceding sessions casual reference was made to the commonwealth in those years in which commonwealth conferences were being held but this is the first occasion since 1949 on which the commonwealth has received special attention in the speech from the throne.
I suggested that the phraseology should have been as follows:
My ministers, and particularly the minister of external affairs, have suddenly discovered the British commonwealth of nations. Heretofore they have been only half conscious of its existence and have made little or no effort to maintain the basic unity of the commonwealth or even mention the subject.
The commonwealth conference held at Montreal was far from being just one among many. It was a unique conference. It was the 66968-9-11
first full-scale commonwealth conference on trade and economic problems held since 1932. It was the largest commonwealth conference ever held and one of the largest international conferences held in Canada. It was unique in scale, in the coverage of trade and economic policy matters that were dealt with, in the intensive preparations preceding it, in the number of ministers and senior officials attending from each government and in the scope and far-reaching nature of its results. It not only strengthened trade and economic ties among the commonwealth countries but it gave new impetus to multilateral policies on a world-wide basis. Many of the matters on which agreement was reached at the Montreal conference are now being followed up in broader world-wide forums such as the international monetary fund and the GATT.
This commonwealth conference came about as a result of Conservative party policy expressed repeatedly down through the years, and no one has expressed that policy more consistently or more vigorously than the Prime Minister. It was his suggestion that such a conference be held. The groundwork was laid for the conference at Mont Trem-blant a year earlier when the finance and trade ministers of the commonwealth assembled.
The results have been excellent. A basis has been laid for enlarging commonwealth trade and a basis laid for strengthening the commonwealth. The Prime Minister's recent visit to most of the member countries of the commonwealth has been just one more piece of evidence of the importance that the government places on this association of free and independent nations, and one more instance of the inspiring leadership of our Prime Minister.
What the Liberal party has never realized and does not now recognize is that Canada's status in international affairs owes much to her membership within the commonwealth. Nor does the Liberal party see that by the turn of this century Canada will occupy a position of even greater importance within the commonwealth and that that free association of nations, united under the crown and operating under the parliamentary system, will be an even stronger force for the maintenance of the freedom of mankind.
The Leader of the Opposition's flippant attitude towards the commonwealth is paralleled by his equally flippant attitude towards Canadian-United States relations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has just said that the Leader of the Opposition made flippant remarks concerning the commonwealth. Surely the hon. gentleman meant the commonwealth conference.

The Address-Mr. Churchill


Gordon Minto Churchill: I accept the correction- the commonwealth conference. On some occasions the hon. member for Essex East can be unusually helpful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am always happy to help drowning individuals.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am sorry I was not standing beside the hon. member last night at the conclusion of the press conference. I say that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition towards the commonwealth conference is paralleled by this attitude towards Canadian-United States relations. He accuses the government of uncertainty in its attitude to the United States. The fumbling and bumbling of the Liberal party over the years with the United States has been part of the multitudinous errors of the former government that we have been successfully overcoming.
Thanks again to the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada has made another advance in international affairs and relations between our country and the United States are on a better footing than they have ever been before. The Prime Minister faced up to the issue with courage in his speech at Dartmouth over a year ago. He has established the friendliest relationship with United States leaders. He has given encouragement to the meetings of cabinet ministers with the United States administration. Under his direction the latest development has been a committee of both houses to confer with representatives of the United States senate and house of representatives. At no time in our history has there been a better understanding by the people of the United States of the Canadian position. Never before has there been as wide a coverage of Canadian affairs in United States papers.
The timorous attitude of mind, so typical of the Liberal party, was due to the policy pursued by the Leader of the Opposition when he was secretary of state for external affairs. In those years he was tip-toeing through the tulips, afraid to say boo to a goose, and during the last two years he and his colleagues have attempted to portray the Conservative party as being anti-American. I well recall that when we took office 18 months ago the official Ottawa attitude was: Be careful what you say to the Americans, they might take offence. Members of the Liberal party have endeavoured to convey that type of fear ever since.
The Leader of the Opposition made some remarks concerning a speech I delivered in Chicago some time ago, and he thought that this was an expression of opinion at which he might cast some ridicule. I was referring, and the audience in Chicago understood this
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
very well, to the type of remarks made by our political opponents. As a result of this attitude during the last two years the impression created in the United States was that Canada was turning anti-American.
I had the good fortune to speak to the economic club in New York earlier. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition^ did not read my speech there and quote from it. The executive director of the economic club of New York came here twice to confer with me with regard to the nature of the speech I might make there. He said, "The impression that has been created in the United States"-it could only have been created by our political opponents-"is that your new government is opposed to Americans." He said, "Come on down and tell us about the things that are bothering you in Canada." I said, "All right, I will speak about the irritants in Canadian-United States relations", and I did. Of course, I was advised that I would be considered antiAmerican so I took the audience in New York into my confidence. I told them I had been advised by certain people that if I spoke in this fashion I would be considered anti-American.
They just loved it. After the conclusion of the speech the chairman said, "If this is anti-Americanism, give us more of it". I am sorry I have not the time in which to give some quotation from that speech I made in New York. I followed a somewhat similar line in a similar speech made in Chicago. The Americans like straightforward talk. They understand Canadians and we understand them. They are prepared to consider the difficulties that arise normally in the trading relations between our two countries.
The Leader of the Opposition then went on to talk about our trade with the United States and he again passed the remarks that he has made so often with regard to what he has called a policy of diversion of trade. Our policy has been an expansion of trade. Over the years we have taken the stand that it has been wrong to have all of our trade with the United States of America; that our trade should be world-wide; that if our trade is concentrated with one country, then we are likely to suffer when that country has a set-back or perhaps has a change of opinion with regard to some of the things that enter it. When there has been over the years a serious imbalance in our trade with one country, it is only prudence to attempt to expand your trade elsewhere in the world. That is exactly what we have done and we have had success in doing it.

Hon. members on the other side, members of the Liberal party, spoke words of derision with regard to the trade mission which visited the United Kingdom a little over a year ago. It was so successful that, of course, they had to find fault with it; and the long term results of that trade mission are being felt now in Canada. That was just one move in the general direction and following the general policy of expanding our trade throughout the world. After all, Canada is a trading nation. It is the fourth largest trading nation in the world. About one out of every five Canadians is dependent upon our export trade.
The Leader of the Opposition attempted to show that our export trade and our trade generally had declined. Let me put this on the record. On the basis of figures available to date-that is from the dominion bureau of statistics-world trade declined by approximately 7 per cent in 1958 and United States industrial production was also appreciably lower. The fact that Canada's exports were maintained in the face of these adverse conditions is a reflection not of weakness but of the underlying strength in Canada's present trade position.
In this connection a comparison of current trends with those in 1954 is relevant. The 1954 recession in the United States was milder than the recent one and European economies had continued to expand. Nevertheless, Canada's exports in physical volume terms declined three per cent between 1953 and 1954. In short, our exports have faired better in 1958 despite a weaker international situation. Our exports have been equal in 1958 to those in 1957 which established a record.
The Leader of the Opposition and his colleague talk about trade but they do not get down to the basic facts or give us the information which is required in connection with these matters so that the people can form a fair comparison. The Leader of the Opposition also talked about our wheat exports and once again, as he has done in the past, he mentioned the fact that they had exceeded those of the previous year. Then, of course, he threw in a gibe about this being due to gifts and long term loans under the Colombo plan. I hope the Leader of the Opposition was not attempting to give the impression that he is opposed to making gifts of surplus food to hungry people within the commonwealth but that is the impression that he is creating by these remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nonsense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Our wheat and flour exports in the crop year 1957-58 reached a total
66968-9-Hi
The Address-Mr. Churchill of 316 million bushels, an increase in actual cash sales of 22 million bushels without taking into account the gifts and loans which followed and put the total over the 300 million mark. That has been a substantial achievement and has greatly improved the economy of western Canada.
As a matter of fact, for those who are critical of the government's policy with regard to the export of wheat and with regard to agriculture, the following information might be interesting. In the year-end report of the minister of agriculture of Manitoba, Mr. Erik Willis, I And that everything was better in Manitoba in 1958, with one small exception. The field crops brought in a return of $168.2 million; farm animals, $64 million; wool, $128,000; dairy products $32,600,000; garden products, $9 million; poultry products, $28,725,000; and fur farming, $3.6 million. All of these figures are higher than the figures for 1957. The only place where there was a lower income to the agriculture population of Manitoba was in the production of honey and wax which dropped down about $50,000. I suppose that is the fault of the bees and not of the bee farmers.
We find there an instance of the actual practical effects of the policy followed by this government with regard to the export of agricultural products and the stabilization of the industry of agriculture.


William Moore Benidickson: Will the minister permit a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Surely.


William Moore Benidickson: I was wondering whether the minister would bring the house completely up to date and give it the information that his department gave to the country yesterday, namely that exports in the first four months of the crop year are at a three-year low with respect to wheat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether my hon. friend is accurate in his statement. The beginning of the crop year is August 1.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: From there up to January 7 the figure for the export of our wheat is close to what it was last year. I think it is a matter of only 10 million bushels below that figure of last year. That fact can be accounted for because of the longshoremen's strike which prevailed in Vancouver during the summer and cut down our shipments of grain from that port. However, the prospects are for the exports of wheat to come close to what they were for the crop year 1957-58. I think my hon. friend should

The Address-Mr. Churchill check his figures again before he makes a statement such as the one he made.


William Moore Benidickson: I am referring to the minister's release of yesterday which was reported in the press this morning.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Has the hon. member the figures there?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes. Of course the
dominion bureau of statistics simply refers to the first four months of the present crop year and refers to the fact that only the United States among the four of the world's major exporters, showed an increase in that period. According to the minister's latest report Canada's exports went down. I have not, of course, the minister's information up to January. I was glad to get it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was giving the figures for six months. I am sure my hon. friend is completely reassured and knows, as we do, that the export position with regard to Canada's wheat and flour is in good shape.
I hope he will not worry too much about that matter and that he will have a better outlook on life.
I was going to say that what the Leader of the Opposition overlooked when he was talking about loans and gifts of wheat from this country is the effect those have on increasing employment. It is a very interesting table when you examine the amount of employment that is caused by the shipment out of this country of, say, one million bushels of wheat or, as it was under that plan of long term loans and gifts, 32 million bushels of wheat.
It runs into so many thousands of truck loads from the farms; hundreds of box cars are required to be loaded with this product and a large number of ships. All the way down the line you have the farmers bringing the wheat in to the elevator, the elevator agents checking it, railway cars carrying it to seaboard, and longshoremen assisting in loading it. It requires 600 cars to move one million bushels of wheat. All the grain moved during the last crop year required 280,000 cars. About $700 million was paid out to farmers during the last crop year for their wheat, oats and barley. This is a tremendous business in which the Canadian agricultural population is engaged, and it constitutes one of the largest factors in maintaining our export trade.
Mr. Speaker, my time is running out, and I do not intend to burden the house with tables of figures. Some of this information can be given at a later stage in the debate. However, I should like to point out and re-emphasize the fact that despite the recession which affected this country, the United

States and some other countries, Canada's export trade established a record in 1957 and it was maintained in 1958. The prospects for 1959 are very good indeed. On the basis of the information which has been assembled, we face a future in which we can have confidence. All the talk we heard from the blue ruin boys can be dismissed.
There is before us an opportunity to enlarge our trade with the United Kingdom, with the commonwealth generally and with the world as a whole. We will do our level best to enlarge our exports to the United States. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) mentioned something about this a little while ago, but his government did nothing about it. Now, he tells us to take a firm position on some stand or other which they, themselves, never took. Our trade position is good. It is improving, and conditions generally throughout Canada are improving. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has pointed out, we are not suggesting that a boom is in prospect but a steady upward growth, and that is precisely what is good for the economy of this country.
When we come to the amendment moved by my hon. friends and the suggestion they make that that amendment is a reflection of the opinion across this country, I will say to them that the amendment is going to be overwhelmed by the votes of this house and it will be overwhelmed by the opinion of the people across Canada. They have confidence in the government of this country, and they have confidence in the inspiring leadership which is being given by the Prime Minister.


William Hector McMillan: In rising to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply for their contributions. They both did exceedingly well. I realize, however, that the speech from the throne was not of their making. In my opinion there is nothing in the speech from the throne to correct the ills that beset us in this country where we have so many natural resources. Traditionally, these hon. members made reference to their own constituencies and this was very interesting. I should like to follow their example and make some reference to my own constituency of Welland.
We have fine people living in the constituency of Welland. Anglo-Saxon people comprise the majority of our population, but during the last generation or so we have had a great influx of French-speaking Canadians as well as people from southern and western Europe. These people live in complete harmony, and they and their descendants are making a fine contribution to our Canadian

way of life. There is no other part of Canada that I would rather represent than the constituency of Welland.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) graced Welland with a visit last March during his election tour. No one took the trouble to invite me to that meeting but I learned what occurred there. I can assure the Prime Minister that if he will come back now, he will have an even larger meeting. Some of the people who attended the last meeting said they would provide him with a theme song, "Oh, Promise Me". The meeting the Prime Minister held in Welland was, in part at least, composed of a captive audience because school children were brought in by the bus load from schools in the surrounding school areas. Then, too, many people arrived at the meeting at no cost to themselves because a canvass had been made and car drivers were paid $5 and $10 to deliver loads of people to that meeting.
There were many people, however, who attended the meeting without any urging. I refer now to the unemployed and the fruit and vegetable growers. What they heard from the Prime Minister in the way of promises must have been music to their ears. According to the press, he promised the unemployed that no one would suffer as a result of unemployment as long as he was Prime Minister of Canada. He went even further than that, and this was afterwards echoed on television by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) when he said that the unemployment would be pretty well cleared up by mid-summer. Mid-summer has come and gone and many of these same men and women are still unemployed. Their numbers have greatly increased in the Welland area.
At the time of the June election when this government came into power, we had comparatively few unemployed. When the Prime Minister was in Welland the number stood at about 2,400. Today it is difficult to ascertain the exact number. I am told it is in the neighbourhood of 4,000. These figures used to be published, but they are not published any longer. The reeve of one municipality told me that the relief rolls were up by about 400 per cent over those of a year ago. In the practice of medicine I meet and treat many of the unemployed. I know that they want work and not the dole. Many of them have purchased homes, furniture and the other necessities of life. They have had to go into debt and they cannot meet their obligations. Surely this government should soon realize that it does not help the peace of mind of the unemployed to be told that while unemployment is greater this winter it is not increasing as greatly percentage-wise. Last night I believe the Minister of Finance, speaking in the Chateau
The Address-Mr. McMillan Laurier, used the word "proportion", and said that the proportion of increase of unemployed was not as great.
When a man is out of work, just getting a mere subsistance for himself and his family, these vague percentage quotations by the government do nothing to lighten his burden. I feel heartily sorry for the unemployed and our government is doing nothing to provide work for the younger people coming into the labour market. The new federal-provincial scheme to help municipalities provide work for the unemployed by helping to provide new projects for the municipalities is of little use. It is too little and too late.
The St. Catharines Standard for example, a few days ago had an article which said that not one man hour of work had been provided in that city for the unemployed by this scheme. Also, I have a letter here from the city of Welland claiming that the help provided under this scheme is too restricted. This was written to me by the city clerk of Welland, and he says that the council and corporation of Welland at its meeting on January 6, 1959, viewed with alarm the narrow limits of unemployment assistance and work projects available to the smaller cities in the province of Ontario. I know that this scheme is of little help in the towns and smaller cities. I am not familiar with how the scheme might work out in the larger cities, but I fail to see that it can be of any great help, particularly since I have seen the figure given out by the Department of Labour. Canada cannot afford to have so many people unemployed and non-productive. There is nothing which breaks the spirit and morale of a person more than idleness. Canadians deserve the right to work.
At the meeting in Welland the Prime Minister also dwelt on the poor returns received by fruit and vegetable growers for their products. I agree with the Prime Minister that they should have had a greater share of the national income. But what has happened since this government came to power? Many of these fruit and vegetable growers tell me that their costs have risen and their returns for 1958 in respect of their crops have been the worse since before the war. The Prime Minister made a very emotional appeal. There was a fine old lady at that meeting who came from a farm community. She wept because she said she had never heard a man speak with such sympathy for the farmers as did the Prime Minister that day. The price of asparagus was very much to the fore.
Spring was coming on, and these producers were very much concerned about the price. In the year before, under the Liberal government, the price had fallen from 23 cents

The Address-Mr. McMillan to 22 cents and in some cases to 21-|- cents. Now what has happened? The present government set the floor at 18 cents under which they placed a three cent deficiency payment, and asparagus has never since that time sold above 15 cents in Ontario and 14 cents in British Columbia. In the province of Ontario the government paid a deficiency payment of three cents a pound so that the producer in Ontario got 18 cents and the producer in British Columbia received 17 cents.
As for peaches, the floor price was set at $83 a ton which is the lowest price received by the peach growers for grade A peaches since before the war. I understand that the government has not yet settled with the growers for this year. We understand that cherries could not be all sold and that much of the crop rotted on the trees. The cold storage plants took all they could but according to the last information I received before Christmas the farmers had not been paid for this fruit put into cold storage. There is one big chain store in the Niagara district which was selling American table corn when our corn was ripe. You could stand in the store and look out the window and see the farmers harvesting their corn in the adjoining fields.
I think that our unemployment and our depressed economy are in a considerable part due to the trade and fiscal policies of this government. I will give some examples of each. Hon. members will recall that in June of 1957 our economy was good. In fact, it was so good that the Prime Minister said he could divert 15 per cent of trade from the United States to Great Britain. Hon. members will also recall that about the same time, or shortly afterwards, the United States accommodated the Prime Minister by cutting off 15 per cent of our oil imports into the northwestern United States. Then, in December of 1957, this government sent a buying mission to Britain; they were to buy and not to sell Canadian products and this was done at a time when unemployment in Britain was very low and when in Canada we had plenty. We got a report from that buying mission. This report was printed in Toronto and not by the queen's printer. Oddly enough, that report refers to nothing that was bought. It reads something like the social column of a woman's page in a newspaper. It says whom the delegation visited, by whom they were received, how they were entertained, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) joined the group, when he left it and when he rejoined it.
The only inkling I received that a big trade switch was on was in a Port Colborne newspaper. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was there, according to the paper,

and he announced that the government intended to switch even more trade from the United States to Britain than it had already done. I can thank the hon. minister for helping to elect me because by that time our unemployment in the Welland area had increased from practically nothing to about 2,400. I argued that if the big switch had helped produce that many it was surely time to call a halt to that type of cause of unemployment.
This evening I heard the minister refer to the fact that we would in time see the long term result of this attempt to switch trade to Britain. I do not know anything about the long term result; I am giving one of the short term results. I have always been greatly interested in Canada's effort to promote trade with Britain. Since our trade with the United States has been cut by about 15 per cent I wondered why our trade with Britain had not been increased. Following our buying mission to Britain, however, our imports went down by 7.6 per cent in the third quarter of 1958 and by about 1 per cent for the first nine months of 1958.
It appears to me that before our government meets in conference with the United States or even with members of the commonwealth it always seems to give them a slap in the face first. We all recall the first conference of our four ministers with their opposite numbers in the United States when secretary of commerce, Sinclair Weeks, said to reporters: "we fixed them." I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) got another explanation to mean that he meant: "We fixed them up". But the newspaper accounts, even in the Toronto Globe and Mail at that time talked about the brush-off our ministers received in Washington.
The United States is our best customer, and living along the border as I do I have an opportunity to see many of the Buffalo and Niagara Falls newspapers, among others, which circulate in our area. I have had the opportunity to read them over the years. Some have said quite openly that if the Canadian Prime Minister and his followers acted as some of them were talking, the election foreboded a difficult period in trade and other relations between the United States and Canada. One paper in my area-a paper that supports this government-went so far as to say it would not be surprised if incidents occurred between Canadians and Americans living in the Niagara district.
The United States press referred to the diversion of trade proposed by this government and later on in one or two dispatches from Ottawa it was stated that Canadian raw

materials such as iron ore would be processed in Canadian plants and not shipped south of the border to give jobs to people in the United States. I think it is fine to process all the raw materials we can but I could not conceive of a worse preparation for a conference with our United States friends.
How about the commonwealth conference itself? We have had two of them, first the Mont Tremblant conference and latterly the Montreal conference. The preparation for the Montreal conference involved an added tariff, as hon. members will recall, placed on British woollens, a procedure of this government that certainly did not go unnoticed by the British government.
I have in my hand a copy of Hansard, of the British House of Commons of December 2, 1958 when the government of that country debated commonwealth affairs and I shall quote extracts from the speeches of a Conservative member, a Labour member and a Liberal member. I should like to ask some of the members of the Conservative party in this house to read what Sir Albert Braith-waite said about the Montreal conference. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) said that the commonwealth conference was unique. We shall see how unique it was. These are the remarks of Sir Albert Braithwaite the Conservative member for Harrow West:
First of all, I should like to pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the president of the board of trade for the brilliance which they displayed in leading our own delegation to the Montreal conference. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that what they did there literally saved the conference from being almost a stalemate. They infused some life into it. At the same time I am not satisfied that the conference report is by any means a document upon which to rebuild and revitalize the British commonwealth of nations. Its implications are narrow. It is phlegmatic. It is not precise enough in its conclusions, and it gives no real, positive direction on how even those conclusions will be carried out.
I wanted something much more vital to lead our commonwealth affairs than a lot of pious platitudes. Many people have said a great many things about how we should develop the commonwealth but there has been a remarkable absence of action since the Montreal conference took place. The Canadian Prime Minister came over here and made great speeches on what should be done, but I have seen no real reflection in deeds implementing the words which he uttered.


William Moore Benidickson: They make nice speeches.


William Hector McMillan: I shall quote a brief extract from the remarks made by the Labour member, Mr. Douglas Jay, Battersea North, who after speaking about the imbalance of trade between Canada and Great Britain, went on to say:
Yet what has happened? Only this summer Mr. Diefenbaker's government actually raised their tariff
The Address

Mr. McMillan against British woollen goods, only a month or so before the Montreal conference. If I am wrong and this increase has not been put into force, I hope that the president of the board of trade will tell us. Here is an essential British export to a dollar market, produced by one of our most important industries, which at the moment is acutely depressed, and yet Mr. Diefenbaker, who professes, I am sure sincerely, to have great enthusiasm for Anglo-Canadian trade, raises the tariff against British woollen goods just before the conference.
I shall quote just one sentence from the speech of the Liberal member, Mr. Arthur Holt of Bolton West, who put his reaction to the conference in these words:
The government appears to be advancing backwards by stealth.


William Moore Benidickson: What government was he talking about?


William Hector McMillan: The British government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Too bad.


William Moore Benidickson: Good try, though.


William Hector McMillan: 
John Cameron Pallett: One cannot believe what he writes or says, then.


William Hector McMillan: It put me in mind of the time Winston Churchill was in New York and was asked what he thought of the Attlee government. He replied that when he was out of his country he never criticized his government but when he was home he never left off criticizing it. Surely, this great Conservative leader of all time, Winston Churchill, has by example long since shown us the way to keep our Canadian family affairs at home and the Leader of the Opposition has done just that. For doing so, however, he has suffered unfair criticism and ridicule from our Prime Minister.
I hold in my hand an editorial from the December 31 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail. I wish to read two sentences from it. The heading of the editorial is, "Twelve Months of Mystery", and reads in part as follows:
In his New Year's message to the Canadian people, Liberal Leader Pearson refers to the "distressing dilemma" of rising prices and inflationary pressures 66968-9-12
The Address-Miss Aitken in a period of recession and unemployment. Dilemma, irony, anomaly, farce or tragedy, mare's nest or monkey puzzle-one might call it a great many things.
Let us call a halt to this monkey business in finance. We do not want to sink into another mess like the conversion loan.
Last year the Minister of Finance said that this government did not need to take advice from anyone, and he emphasized this by saying, "let there be no question about that".
I used to listen to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I am sorry he is not in his seat. He was the opposition financial critic of the former government. I could not always agree with him, yet I thought he spoke responsibly and his views on finance were, in my mind, sounder than anything displayed by anyone so far in this government. I cannot help but express to this house the secret hope that the Minister of Finance would consult him for direction. I feel that if he had done so from the start he would not be in the financial mess in which he finds himself today.
I would like to quote one last paragraph from this Globe and Mail editorial "Twelve Months of Mystery". Perhaps it should read, "Mystery of Life Under the Tory Government." However, in the last paragraph of this editorial in the Globe and Mail I find the following:
As we say, a peculiar year; a year in which our economy found itself very much out of balance, if not indeed out of control. Sweeping changes are obviously in order from top to bottom of our economic life; and this will require strong leadership. We have a right to expect, and demand, such leadership during 1959 from those in a position to provide it.
I hope the government can provide it.


Margaret Aitken: Mr. Speaker, before embarking on a few comments I should like to add my voice to the congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Like previous speakers, I was very impressed with the speeches that the hon. member for Pro-vencher and the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet made, and I congratulate them.
I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, and continue to be surprised that we should have heard so much gloom, doom and criticism from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and now from his followers. I was surprised because it is quite obvious that he is still far removed from the grass roots in the country. You will remember that when he became leader of the party he said that it was time

The Address-Miss Aitken that the Liberals got away from the brass and back to the grass. I was surprised to hear all this gloom and doom because, as I think most of us will agree, one would have thought that after our four-month recess the Leader of the Opposition would have a better idea of what the people of Canada, the grass roots, are really thinking.
Personally, I am extremely gratified at the political consciousness of the people, certainly those in my constituency of York-Humber, and I am grateful for their awareness of the problems that face us all in Canada. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has played a major role in sparking the interest of the people in our national welfare. He has the great gift of getting close to the people, of inspiring belief

in him and in his honesty, courage and deep sense of responsibility.
On the other hand, nothing will convince me that the Leader of the Opposition, in his pitiful pessimism, is speaking for the people of Canada, the grass roots of Canada. He may have been speaking for the sadly decimated Liberal party but certainly not for the people of Canada. There are three or four items I should like to speak about with reference to the speech from the throne. Shall I go ahead or shall I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. lady leave to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, with out question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration visited any (a) Indian agencies: (b) Indian bands or villages?
2.	If so, which ones and upon what dates were the visits made?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1. (a) Yes; (b) Yes.
Questions
2. October 1, 1958, Six Nations Indian agency; Six Nations of the Grand river band. October 2,	1958, Walpole island Indian
agency; Walpole island Indian band.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount remaining in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, on December 31, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
Balance at credit of fund:
December 31, 1955-$890,857,489.63 December 31, 1956-$926,776,830.22 December 31, 1957-$877,470,144.39 December 31, 1958-$625,363,366.21
66968-9-121

Thursday, January 22, 1959