1959-01-23

PRIVILEGE


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On Friday, January 16 at 2.30 p.m. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) tabled two copies of the document "Canadian Economic Outlook for 1958". This was done before the exchange between the Prime Minister and myself on this matter. On January 20 I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he would make additional copies, or some copies, of this report available to hon. members of the House of Commons and to the press gallery. The minister replied, and I quote from page 75 of Hansard of that date:
-it is just impossible to accede to the hon. member's request.
I consider the refusal of these additional copies to the members of the House of Commons to be a breach of privilege and, to the press gallery, a discourtesy. In order to repair that omission, Mr. Speaker, at my request the national Liberal federation reproduced 400 copies of this document, which are available to members of the house and members of the press gallery.



WELCOME TO VISITORS IN GALLERY FROM INDIA

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will allow me I should like to refer to the fact that in the gallery today are Shri S. V. Krishnamoorthy Rao, M.P., deputy chairman of the Rajya Sabha, council of states or upper house of the Indian parliament, and Dr. the Hon. U. Krishna Rau, M.L.A., Speaker of the Madras legislative assembly. They have been attending the general council meetings of the commonwealth parliamentary association in the Barbados and have come to Ottawa to meet Canadian parliamentarians and see something of the Canadian parliament in action.
I should like, sir, to invite the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) to join with
me in extending to them a warm welcome, and at the same time ask them to convey not only to the parliament of India and the legislature of Madras but generally to the Indian people, cordial greetings from the parliament of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I should like to join the Prime Minister in the welcome he has extended to our fellow legislators from another country in our commonwealth of nations, and I do so not merely because of the fact that they represent India nor because of their own qualifications, but because we are very conscious that only a short time ago the parliament of India gave a very warm welcome to our own Prime Minister, as they had done some years before to his predecessor.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish to say that we most heartily and sincerely endorse the words expressed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition.



LATE DISTRIBUTION OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;


Mr. Speaker:: May I say I am sorry that Hansard was not here in time to be distributed. It is being distributed by the pages now. I hope hon. members will leave their copies on their desks so the page boys may put them in the files afterwards.
Another item of business of the house I would like to mention is that it would be very helpful in the operation of the new sound equipment if members would turn down the volume of their ear phones when they are not using them. If they are left on full and the members leave the chamber the ear phones continue to operate, and sometimes they can be heard for a distance of several feet. If many of the ear phones are left on they make a buzz in the house that interrupts the debate. It would be very helpful if hon. members when they are in the house and are not using their ear phones, or when they leave the house, would pull the ear phone out of the plug or turn down the rheostat.

Inquiries of the Ministry ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY



STATEMENT ON UPSTREAM CHANNEL DEPTHS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) asked for information regarding channel depths between the Welland canal and the head of the lakes. I told him I would get that information for him. Since I believe there is general interest in this matter, I should like to give a very brief report now.
The United States corps of engineers continues to assume responsibility for the deepening in the channels upstream from the Welland canal. The limiting depth from the Welland canal to lake Superior is 21 feet in the upbound channel at Amherstburg; the downbound channel at that point has a depth of 25 feet. The Detroit river dredging is expected to be completed in 1960 to a depth of 25 feet, which will provide a draft of 23 feet.
Dredging is in progress in the St. Mary's river, but until completion about 1962, the existing depth of 21 feet for upbound navigation and 25 feet for downbound navigation will remain in effect. The deepening to regular seaway standards-that is, over-all depth to 27 feet-is scheduled for 1963 in all channels.



POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF U.S. DIRECTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his attention has been drawn to a report from Washington that a United States official has refused to give an assurance that United States directors of the Aluminum Company of Canada would not be prosecuted under the trading with red China law if that Canadian company sold aluminum to China.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article to which the hon. member has referred, but I thank him for drawing my attention to it.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, by way of clarification I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the


question of the Leader of the Opposition to the minister on Wednesday dealing with the diversion of water from lake Michigan at Chicago. My question is, did the Canadian government raise any objection to the bill concerning the Chicago diversion which was before the United States congress last year?


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


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


Sidney Earle Smith: It did, sir; in essence it did.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) asked me a question regarding municipal incentive programs in the province of Quebec, and particularly with respect to Montreal. In the answer I gave I regret that I possibly caused him some discomfort or embarrassment. I was informed that the province of Quebec had some 100 projects submitted by various municipalities in that province. Some of these have already been processed and approved by the federal government. However, since then I have been informed that while the city of Montreal submitted a number of projects to the provincial government amounting to some $8 million, they were not submitted on the proper forms. The province of Quebec has returned them to Montreal in order that they may list them on the proper forms, and I understand that is being done now.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

[Stage Direction]
for 1955 and 1958
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he would now give to

the house the figures I asked for yesterday- I refer to the dominion bureau of statistics figures-for total unemployment for December of 1958 and for December of 1955.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the figure for December, 1958 is, of course, 440,000. The figure for December, 1955 is 200,000. When I referred to unemployment in 1955 I referred to the period in March, 1955 when the figure was 403,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In order to complete the figures, would the hon. gentleman give us the figure for March, 1958?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, it is well known to the hon. gentleman but I will repeat it to him in case he has not heard it. It is 590,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. It proves that the statement the minister made was wrong.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: The hon. gentleman wants to waste the time of the house.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister in a position to confirm a statement of the mayor of Sydney Mills, an ex-member of the coal board, that three months ago A. V. Roe of Canada submitted recommendations to the dominion coal board designed to alleviate prospective cut-backs in the Nova Scotia coal industry, but the board has not dealt with them?
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, as I previously indicated, we have had representations from the dominion coal board, or rather from Dosco, in connection with coal production and the assistance which the government might provide. I have already told the hon. member, and I now repeat, that the matter is being considered and that we have had no official notice from the company regarding any staff reductions or production cut-backs.
(Text):


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister explain to the house why there are no representatives from Nova Scotia on the dominion coal board? (Translation):


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the matter was also referred to the dominion coal board, and I understand that Mr. Hartigan, the former director, will be replaced shortly.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan)?
According to yesterday morning papers, the Montreal T.V. producers are planning to come to Ottawa next Tuesday to submit their grievances to the Minister of National Revenue who reports for the C.B.C.; could the minister tell us whether he proposes to meet that delegation?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that he is asking a hypothetical question, namely that if a certain event takes place what will the minister do, and I think he might await the event rather than ask for a decision in advance with regard to something that has not yet occurred.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I put my question differently and ask the hon. Minister of National Revenue whether the striking C.B.C. producers have asked him to meet them next Tuesday?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisier of National Revenue):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, unless it has come in within the last hour or two, I do not have anything in my office about that.
(Translation):


Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: In case the minister concerned is unable to meet the producers, could the government do so?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I did not
understand the hon. member's question. Will he repeat it?
(Translation) :


H.-Pit Lessard: I should like, if I may, to
direct my question to the Prime Minister. In the event of the minister concerned being unable to meet the producers who are coming here Tuesday, could the government do so?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether or not the hon. member heard my remarks about the earlier question, but his question is in exactly the same category. In my opinion it is hypothetical.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I ask a question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. If the minister has not received any communication requesting an interview, has the Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet received one?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member directing his question to a particular minister?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am directing my question to the Prime Minister. If the Minister of National Revenue has not received any communication requesting an interview with the group of producers in Montreal, has the Prime Minister received any communication making such a request?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): I have no recollection of any such message having been received, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking from recollection now, but I think I would remember.
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), as senior minister of the province of Quebec.
It is still on the same subject-in view of the breakdown of negotiations between the Montreal television producers and the C.B.C., does the Solicitor General propose to intervene either by approaching his colleagues or otherwise, in an attempt to find a solution to this conflict which has lasted long enough?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this situation is, of course, most regrettable. It is regretted by the people, by the ministers of the province of Quebec and all others. However, as everyone knows, this is a dispute between C.B.C. producers and C.B.C. authorities. Both the Minister of National Revenue, who reports to the house for the C.B.C., and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), have very closely followed developments of the dispute. Unfortunately, under the circumstances, I cannot say how it will turn out, or what will happen. It would be mere conjecture and I do not know what we will be able to do in the circumstances. However, you may be assured that we are following developments very closely. We hope that on both sides common sense will prevail and that an agreement will eventually be reached so that the Canadian people, who foot the bill, may enjoy first-rate television programs.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton).
Could he say whether his department will issue a commemorative stamp to mark the second centenary of the battle of the Plains of Abraham?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will have one.
(Text):



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a question, sir, which I should like to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Unfortunately I have not given her notice of it, but it is something of which I am sure she will have immediate knowledge. I did not want her to think she was being neglected in this presentation of questions. I wonder if the minister has received from the government of British Columbia a request for federal cabinet approval for complete liquor rights for native Indians out there and, if so, what action is contemplated.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No representations have yet reached my desk. If they are in the mail no doubt they will come forward in time. I have received nothing to date
(Translation) :



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton).
To help relieve unemployment, does the hon. minister propose to realize his dearest wish, that of restoring twice-daily mail delivery service?


William McLean Hamilton: Not right now, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He has changed his mind.

(Text):



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Did the minister receive representations from the Miramichi salmon drifters association requesting changes in the Miramichi salmon drift net season? If the minister did receive such representations, will this matter be referred to the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to thank the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi for giving me notice of this question, which I received since coming into the house. I may say that such representations have been received. The normal procedure is that they will be referred to the Atlantic salmon co-ordinating committee.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the current unemployment situation in the city of Nelson, B.C. and the desire of a good number of persons to obtain employment, can the minister inform the house when construction of the proposed headquarters for the R.C.M.P. in that city will commence?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had word within the last few days, but that contract has already been let and I believe work is already in progress.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
"maclean's" magazine On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the article written by Farley Mowat and appearing in the current issue of Maclean's magazine, which article deals with government policy with respect to Eskimos in the north?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest it is hardly appropriate to invite general comment on such a broad subject on the orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry SEARCH AND RESCUE



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF ATLANTIC COASTGUARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Roy McWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement attributed to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, of November 13, 1958, to the effect that the government is still considering the establishment of a coastguard for the Atlantic coast, can the Minister of Transport tell the house if action will be taken to establish such a coastguard at this session of parliament?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under consideration.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister now prepared to report to the house on the progress of the cost survey of the Chignecto canal to be undertaken by the Department of Public Works, as announced in this house on August 28 last, when he promised to report at a later date?


George Harris Hees: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I have a supplementary question. Has the survey been undertaken?


George Harris Hees: The survey certainly has not been completed. I will confer with my colleague the Minister of Public Works to find out what is the position.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has it been started?


George Harris Hees: I told the hon. member I would speak to my colleague. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works will answer now.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member will check his Hansard for last year I think he will find that I said a study had been undertaken by the department.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the Minister of Public Works prepared to report on the progress of that survey?


Howard Charles Green: No.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



D.E.W. LINE-FLYING OF CANADIAN FLAG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a silly answer I got from him the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the hon. member will-


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I should like to ask the minister if in view of the fine weather which has been forecast for Canada today he would permit the Canadian flag to fly over defence establishments in Canada.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I explained the other day, flags are not flown over Arctic stations during severe weather nor are they flown during hours of darkness, and there are long hours of darkness in the Arctic at this time of the year. When it is suitable to fly a flag at the Arctic stations, the Canadian flag will be flown.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it a fact, then, that our flag can brave the battle but not the breeze?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. The minister has referred to what he classifies as the Canadian flag. I wonder if he could indicate what he means by that.


George Randolph Pearkes: The flag which is recognized at the present time as the flag to be flown over the Canadian stations of the Canadian armed forces is that usually described as the red ensign with the coat of arms of Canada in the fly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister say by what authority that flag is flown?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mackenzie King's.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be presuming too much, but it seems to me that is a matter of law, and the hon. member should not really be asking the opinion of the Minister of National Defence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The order in council of September 5, 1945.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I will ask the Minister of Defence now if he would be good enough to answer the question I asked the other day. Will the United States flag fly side by side with the Canadian flag when the weather does warm up in the Arctic?


Mr. Speaker:: I was about to suggest that that was a hypothetical question, but I expect the weather will warm up in the Arctic.


George Randolph Pearkes: It has been customary that when there are special occasions flags of other countries should be flown as a courtesy in conjunction with the flag of Canada, and on such occasions those flags are flown. For instance, on certain national or international days the flags of many countries are flown in front of the parliament buildings. If a United States flag or any other flag is flown over an Arctic station it would be done as a matter of courtesy.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: In that event I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell me now what change in the sovereignty over the Arctic D.E.W. line stations there is now that was not there a week ago, before he made his statement of last Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not very clear as to what the hon. member is asking, but if it is what I think it is, it is out of order.



INQUIRY AS TO COST OF BOMARC INSTALLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. According to the newspapers he is reported as having said that the cost of the installation for the Bomarc missile would be between $10 million and $100 million. Could he give us a more accurate figure today?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker; it is impossible to give an accurate figure today.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. An event occurred in this house last night which as far as I know is without precedent in Canadian or British history. A former member of this house was observed to take his seat on the floor of this chamber.
Those of us who observed this occurrence were, I must confess, so startled at the temerity and presumption of such an action that before we were able to draw the matter to the attention of the incumbent of the Speaker's chair the gentleman concerned escaped. I have a twofold request to make to you; first that you clarify the position of former members who resume their seats

without proper authority. Secondly, in the event of a man being taken into custody by the sergeant-at-arms, I am wondering where that person would be confined.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions of order and privilege should be taken up at the time they arise. Of course it would be improper for anyone not a member of the house to enter the house without its permission, but I am afraid that was a matter of yesterday, and we are dealing with today's business.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and ask him if he expects to be able to announce the appointment of a civil defence director in the course of the next few days or, if not, when he expects to be able to make such an announcement.
Is the minister also in a position to tell the house when we may expect to see the report prepared by the former chief of staff in respect of civil defence?


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to make the statement to which I made reference in my reply to a similar question on January 20. General Graham's report is still under active study. I think I should point out, however, in view of the hon. member's inquiry as to the possibility of tabling the report, that this is a report prepared at the request of the government by a man who, in addition to being a distinguished Canadian soldier, was also at the time and continues to be a member of the public service of Canada. General Graham did not cease to be a member of the public service when he retired from his post as chief of the general staff on August 31 last. He was merely seconded from the defence department for a period of four months to prepare the civil defence report, which he has now completed.
This report must therefore be considered a privileged document, containing the views and recommendations of a member of the public service of Canada submitted for the consideration of the government. This was General Graham's understanding in the preparation of the report. Because of this, in addition to the considerations I have already mentioned, references appeared in the report to Canada's defence arrangements, all of which require the report to be treated as a privileged document.
The Address-Mr. Slogan


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I have an answer to the first question, namely when the civil defence director for Canada will be appointed? That post has been vacant now for some eight months.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member is quite right. The post has been vacant, and 1 am unable to state at this moment when it will be filled.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who is acting now as head of civil defence in Canada?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Major General G. S. Hatton is deputy co-ordinator.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 22, 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. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I never anticipated that it would take me two days to deliver my maiden speech.
At this time I should like to join in the welcome that has been extended to our two distinguished guests from other nations of the commonwealth who are visiting us today. I hope their stay here will prove to be as rewarding and educational as it has proven entertaining.
Last night at the hour of adjournment I had disposed of that part of my speech in which I dealt with the position of the opposition. I had gone on to outline some of the great challenges we face in the world today. 1 discussed the great demand for qualified and dedicated leadership. Of what does leadership consist? The greatness of a leader lies in his dignity, his diplomacy and his belief in democracy. Dignity consists of simplicity, sincerity and seriousness of purpose. Diplomacy consists of the ability to respect the other person's point of view, the ability to reason and the ability to co-operate.
In brief, democracy consists of the fundamental freedoms; freedom to believe, freedom to speak those beliefs; freedom of the press to perpetuate and criticize those beliefs. There is also freedom from fear of persecution for your views; that is, the right to be wrong. I suggest that this last is the most important for without it the others perish. More recently a new freedom has evolved, freedom from want, and we all subscribe to it to a degree. However, when economic

The Address-Mr. Houck freedom is overextended it tends to infringe on political freedom. There is a danger of drifting in that direction today. Economic freedom versus political freedom is the biggest issue of the day and one that will hold the stage for many decades to come. We must find a formula of the relativity of the two that is consistent with the principles of democracy.
Just as there is a demand for leadership, there is a demand on leadership. A leader must be prepared to give far more than he will ever receive, for leadership is a life of selflessness, service and sacrifice. High as are the qualifications of leadership that I have outlined there are, I submit, hon. gentlemen in this chamber who meet those qualifications. But I would also submit that there is one man who meets those qualifications in an outstanding manner and his name, like that of Abou ben Adhem, leads all the rest. I refer to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
To hon. members of this house of all parties may I say this, Mr. Speaker. All of us have a great heritage to which we must live up, and as individuals we should stand for principles we know are right. There is a great challenge before us. As individuals we should not bow before overbearing majorities or vociferous minorities whoever they may be. Nor should we yield to the defeatist cry that "It can't be done". That cry has re-echoed on Canada's frontiers in the past, when it could be done and was done. Our people place in us their faith and hope for peace and progress. It seems to me that all of us in this chamber are pressing our shoulders to that great wheel which turns the gears of democracy and leads to progress. I am sure that somewhere in that great book in which the annals of Canadian history are written each one will make his little mark with a job well done.


Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset may I say that one returns to a new session of parliament with mingled feelings. One experiences a sense of anticipation, looking forward to meeting various members of parliament in sincere friendship and wondering how they are faring in their individual ridings. But one is also touched with deep regret when one learns, as generally happens, that we are called upon to pay our respects to a few of our number who have been called to their great reward.
I believe we also return with a feeling of anxiety about what the speech from the throne is going to contain. To the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne may I repeat what has been said

so well on many previous occasions. I felt they brought honour not only to themselves but to the party they represent and to the House of Commons as well in the fine and masterful way they talked about this speech that contained so little about which one could talk.
I also want to say, and I say this seriously indeed, that I extend a hearty and warm welcome to the new members of this house. Unfortunately our party did not fare too well in terms of strengthening its representation in this chamber, but I was especially glad to welcome to our midst the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who has a wealth of experience in parliamentary procedure and who will contribute much from his vast experience and ability.
I also wish to extend a sincere welcome to the hon. lady who represents the riding of Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman). I say that because I have always had a soft spot in my heart for her father, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simeoe (Mr. Rowe), with whom I have enjoyed a warm friendship extending over many years. He and I have in common something which is not shared by many other hon. members in this house, in that we both were born in the Unted States, and this has served to draw us together more closely than the reins of his race horses.
I hope it will be of interest to hon. members if I devote some time reporting to the house about the recent meeting in Washington of the joint Canada-United States interparliamentary committee. I feel I owe it to the house to report about our meeting. Before doing so, however, I want to say a hearty word of thanks not only to the Prime Minister but to my leader for honouring me by allowing me to serve on the committee. This was not only an honour to me but to the riding of Niagara Falls which I have the honour to represent, and the people of that area accepted it as such.
A few weeks ago, as hon. members will recall, some of us had the honour to serve on a committee appointed by this house to meet with a similar committee from the house of representatives of the United States to discuss important problems of mutual concern respecting our two great countries. It might be amusing to hon. gentlemen to know that at our very first meeting we discussed the proper name for this body. There were many good suggestions made, and after they were all taken and shuffled we finally decided and had rather a small baptismal service- that the committee be christened the Canada-United States interparliamentary group.
I wish to say that I was proud of our speaker in Washington and proud of the speaker of the other place as well because

of the leadership they gave us, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) so well said the other day. I can say this, Mr. Speaker, that in the limited experience I have had-and I know I am speaking the thoughts of the other members of the committee-we never experienced such wonderful hospitality as we met when we arrived and during our stay in Washington. I pay my utmost respect, and I find it rather difficult to find words adequately to express our sincere appreciation, to our embassy in Washington. I am so glad the Prime Minister has seen fit finally to appoint our ambassador to Washington, but his aides down there were performing a wonderful job. On leaving there I felt that they had left nothing undone that could have been done for our enjoyment. I think they are servants of whom we in Canada can be justly proud.
I also wish to say a word in regard to Mr. Merchant, who most hon. members know very well. He was formerly ambassador from the United States to Canada and now serves as undersecretary of state of the United States. I wish to thank him for the wonderful reception he and his wife gave to our committee. I was so glad we were allowed to take our wives along. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether the United States ever saw any better looking women than we had with us on that day. One of the highlights was that we were allowed to go to the White House and meet the President of the United States. It was a wonderful reception. We were invited into his office. He shook hands with each one personally; then he talked to us off the cuff, if I may use the expression, for about 10 minutes, and then he posed for a picture at his desk with our visiting Canadian group and before we left he shook hands with each one again.
I want to say that was one of the thrills of our meeting. He said then, and I noticed he used it in his speech to the nation, and these words will always stay with me in regard to our group visiting Washington; and I think it well for us to follow this on our side: "One basic purpose unites us; to promote strength and security side by side with liberty and opportunity."
Perhaps hon. members would like to know the composition of the committee. I shall go over it very quickly. First there was the Speaker of the other place, Senator William R. Brunt from Hanover and Senator Sydney John Smith from Kamloops. From this house we had our own esteemed Speaker and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the
The Address-Mr. Houck hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Thrasher) and myself. We felt honoured to act on that committee.
Why was there such a committee? Why did the Prime Minister see fit to appoint such a committee, and why did the house discuss at no great length last session the formation of such a committee to meet with our friends to the south of us? May I put on record what some of the United States senators had to say? This is what Senator George Aiken from Vermont, one of the older senators, a very fine man, chairman of that committee, performing a wonderful job not only on behalf of his state but on behalf of the United States, had to say:
Reports of friction are exaggerated. Areas of agreement and co-operation are far more numerous than areas of disagreement.
Senator Richard Neuberger of Oregon, who was not on the committee, said:
Relationships have worsened during the past year because of needless irritations over tariffs, world wheat markets, mutual use of the upper Columbia river and similar problems. Canadians have exaggerated the degree to which their pride in national growth must be turned against the United States: this may have been agitated during the last Canadian election. Relationships could be improved by a plan for gradual elimination of all tariff barriers over a five-year period.
Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington said:
Relations slipped badly last year but Canada and the United States reassessed their stand. As a result relations are now on upturn.
Representative Frank Boykin of Alabama said:
Our relations did deteriorate during the past 12 months but are now on upswing.
Representative Sam Rayburn from Texas is certainly a man about whom we read in the press. He continues to be one of the finest men in the House of Representatives. Indeed, he could have had the nomination for President of the United States at different times, but he said, "If I had taken nomination for the presidency of the United States I would be out of a job at the present time." He has been Speaker of the House of Representatives for many years, and to know him is to appreciate him. He said:
Our relations are good because they must be.
Truer words were never spoken, Mr. Speaker. He said:
I expect to do everything I can to keep them on the highest level.
Representative Henry Reuss of Wisconsin said:
Slightly improved. Biggest single factor was the passage by congress of an amendment that requires our surplus disposal program to be so administered as not to interfere with the marketings of free countries. This would alleviate displacement of Canada's wheat exports.

The Address-Mr. Houck
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that one could not help believing that those business meetings we had with representatives of the United States opened a new chapter of splendid friendship pertaining to Canadian-United States relations.
We decided at the meeting-and I think this will be of interest to all members of the house-that in addition to our committee of nine we would ask this house, and the United States committee agreed with this- to permit at future meetings 15 to 24 members of the house to accompany the committee. We decided that we would not necessarily hold all the meetings in Washington and Ottawa. We felt that if we had something to discuss with the United States about the Columbia river or some British Columbia problem it would be only right that we should go to British Columbia. United States representatives felt that if it was something having to do with the western United States it would be well for the committee to travel out to the western part of the United States.
I think it was a good thing that the committee felt that all hon. members should have the same status and the same opportunity as the regular members of the committee, and that they should be permitted to take part in discussions as well. Therefore when we have our next meeting I hope we shall have other hon. members with us. If we go to Quebec I hope we shall have Quebec members accompanying us.
Then we discussed the time and place of the next meeting. We decided we should meet at least twice a year. We decided that our meetings would be absolutely informal. Although we felt we could not bring forward any definite resolutions at the present time -that rests with the higher levels of government-we felt we could at least make recommendations and give some advice to the higher levels of government, and we thought that would be a good step toward the solution of some of our problems.
We decided that our next meeting would be in June, to correspond with the official opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. We would also like the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to be here while our house and Senate are still in session so they can see how we act here and, if possible, witness the prorogation of parliament. We also decided that, if possible, the committee should not only visit Ottawa and the St. Lawrence but we would take the members to various parts of Quebec as well as having them sail the length of the Welland canal and, of course, we would never overlook having them spend a day in Niagara Falls.

We decided that at the next meeting we would discuss certain problems. We had a round table discussion, and each member put forward what he thought would be the most important problems to discuss. The problems that were put on the next agenda were, first, defence relationships, and then trade problems, boundary water issues, water disposal, investment policies, revival of the Hyde Park agreement, fisheries problems, defence production questions and the co-ordination of Canadian and United States foreign policies.
When the opening of congress took place, Mr. Speaker, we heard the President of the United States make his address to the nation and I was most impressed, as I am sure you were, Mr. Speaker, with the opening of congress that day. Naturally security guards were all over the place. The galleries were packed, and when everything was ready Speaker Rayburn and Vice-President Nixon came to the platform. Then the usher-at-large announced that the ambassadors from foreign countries were entering the house, and they formed a wonderful group for us to see. Then the judges of the supreme court, in their full flowing gowns, walked down the aisle to their seats at the front. Then the members of the cabinet were introduced and walked down the aisle in a body. Then, as is the usual custom-no doubt many of you have seen this on television or listened to the proceedings on radio-the Speaker appointed four or five senators to accompany the President of the United States into the chamber. The President, of course, received a great deal of applause when his entrance was announced.
In the afternoon we were taken to the United States Senate where they have, I believe, 92 members, and one thing struck me very forcibly. Senator Aiken, one of the finest and oldest senators, said to me, "The welcome will take about five minutes. I will simply introduce each of you individually, and then you will walk halfway down the floor of the Senate and stand there. The whole thing will soon be over." I want to say to hon. members that the reception accorded us in the Senate that afternoon, as many senators told us afterwards, was unprecedented in the history of that chamber. Instead of the welcome taking five minutes it took a full 40 minutes, and it certainly warmed the cockles of our hearts when one senator after another rose to his feet in order to welcome us. It made us feel very much at home.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the house I should like to put on Hansard as an appendix the proceedings on that occasion as found in the Congressional Record. I am sure the speeches of

The Address-Mr. Houck
welcome by the senators will be of interest to all members of the house. I should like to have permission, Mr. Speaker, to put this on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Niagara Falls is suggesting that the house give leave to print as an appendix the words of welcome spoken by United States senators to the Canadian delegation. Is it the pleasure of the house to agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For the text of proceedings referred to above, see appendix, pages 288-92.1


William Limburg Houck: I think, Mr. Speaker, the
Speaker of the other place expressed the purpose of our meetings very well when he said:
This committee will fill a gap in the exchanges of thought between our two countries. We now have exchanges on the diplomatic level and the cabinet level, both confidential, but these exchanges between the rank and file of our legislatures will be less secret and meet an apparent need.
We as members of this committee look forward to important mutual benefits to Canada and the United States from the possibilities of future understanding and cooperation. A short time ago two reports were presented to the eighty-fifth congress, second session, House of Representatives, by Hon. Brooks Hays of Arkansas and Hon. Frank Coffin of Maine. I want to refer to what they said in summing up the situation. I was greatly impressed when I read their report. The thing that impressed me most was that after ten months of investigation on their part into our trade relations with the United States and the influence of the republic to the south on our overseas markets, we were really going to get some place. It was refreshing indeed to see a United States congressional committee arrive at some very definite conclusions, conclusions that virtually agreed with those of our statesmen.
I am sure these conclusions summarize the opinions of the predominant majority of Canadian businessmen. Their report recommended that Americans investing in Canada ought to be doubly responsive to Canadian sensitivity and employ as many Canadians as possible. The report adds that Canadians fear that Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies will be shut down if depression hits the United States, and that the Canadian market will again be saturated with United States products. It also urges that no upward changes in United States tariffs should be made without exploring all other possibilities, that revisions of tariffs should always be subject to review, and that businessmen should not be involved in too much red
tape at the border. It recognizes as well that the great Canadian aluminium plants were developed to supply the United States market and that Canadians do not therefore appreciate the United States imposing a duty on a product that is being produced here at their request. The report is also critical of the recent report of the United States tariff commission proposing increased duties on lead and zinc which might throw whole Canadian towns on the unemployment lists. They also recommended, and I think rightly so, that the United States consider the interests of Canada as an exporter before dumping goods on foreign markets or selling them on terms that practically exclude Canadian competition.
One thought that struck me forcibly was that seldom since the beginning of the high tariff age has a United States congressional report been so unselfish in its proposals. Certainly if it is accepted by congress it will be of great benefit to Canada at the present time and will give our own businessmen more confidence in the future. I know that we as members of parliament, including those who were members of the committee that visited Washington, certainly hope that the old guard will not liquidate the report, and that it will meet with the approval of congress. There were, of course, more recommendations made but the fact remains that something is being done, and I think this is the important thing, to improve relations between the two countries.
During our recent visit to Washington one United States senator said to me, "We feel it is important to know what you Canadians really think about us." My obvious answer to that, of course, was, "We would like to know what you think of us." But I also added that we could get along famously if the United States did not take us for granted, which would be a very great mistake. It is most important, Mr. Speaker, that we in Canada do not take the United States for granted, and that the people of the United States do not take Canadians for granted. I could not help but feel as a result of this conference-I know this feeling will be stronger as time marches on-that although there are a lot of dark spots in this troubled world there are certainly a number of bright spots as well, and one of them is the genuine friendship Canadians and Americans have for each other and the deep respect each country has for the other. We need only to think how different it is in other parts of the world where troops guard frontiers, where suspicion and mistrust are rampant, and where the attempt to spread an undemocratic

The Address-Mr. Houck ideology has resulted in chaos and has handicapped the reconstruction of the world after the most disastrous war in history.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is some 140 years since the Rush-Bagot treaty was signed which brought peace between our countries. We have gotten along very well since then, although at times there have been sources of irritation. Even after this treaty was signed there were still two sources of irritation to be settled, one of which was cleaned up by the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842 which settled the boundary line between New Brunswick and Maine. Then there was a further arbitration in 1846 which decided the boundary line between Canada and Alaska. The story from that time on has been one of increasing co-operation between Canada and the United States.
I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. We say we do not have any forts along our boundary line between these two countries. As I said in Washington we have larger forts over here, and the thing of which I am proud, and I say this to hon. members of this house, is that these forts are strong structures that will stand for a lifetime because they are based on what we call friendship. We invite the people of the United States to come here. I might use that old, familiar saying in this connection: "Happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet again". Why should we not welcome these people? We have been partners in two of the greatest wars ever fought. Our soldiers have fallen side by side with those of the United States in the common defence of a way of life which we believe to be best.
These two wars, especially the last one, have been followed by the cementing of closer ties. As I said, I live on the border between our two great countries, so I am continually reminded of the fact that the unguarded border between the United States and Canada is indeed a magnificent symbol of the real meaning of friendship. One cannot help but feel that if the world wants a formula for peace it should turn to the northern hemisphere. Our two great countries, Canada and the United States, have proven to the other peoples of the world that two nations can live side by side, not in fear but indeed in friendship. Over the years we have demonstrated again and again, as we did in the conference just concluded and will continue to do in the future, the value of getting together on problems of mutual concern.
In my opinion the real significance of our relationship with the United States is the fact that in spite of differences we have had peace, and in spite of our difficulties we have,


indeed, had friendship. Surely it is a comparatively easy thing to get along when there is nothing to quarrel about. We have had disputes, and we are going to have future disputes. We will be able to settle them in a friendly way, though at times we will have to talk frankly to each other. Certainly these discussions will not threaten our friendship in any way whatever. So far as I am concerned the United States-Canadian border is the main street of North America. Our fellowship with one another finds its inspiration in our mutual respect for freedom and our joint belief in the dignity and worth of the individual human being. It is further buttressed by our determination to safeguard the welfare and security of our people, and our resolve to maintain and defend the essential values of our society.
I have always felt that Canadians are like the people of the United States in their strong determination never to be found on the backs of the weak or at the feet of the strong, but we will be at the side of those who believe in freedom and democracy as we do. I think our history is now at the crossroads. Our deliberations in parliament, and the policies we follow, will affect future generations to come. I feel we must never lose sight of the fact when we are defining these policies that the great question of our time is whether the world will follow the high road to freedom or stumble into the dead-end street of communism. This government, as well as we in the opposition, has two or three aims. First, we must safeguard our freedom; we must maintain economic stability, and we must care for the human problems of individual citizens. In my opinion the greatest threat to democracy and freedom comes from within ourselves. We as members of parliament must have the courage to lead and to discharge our responsibilities in an effective and fearless way. Democracy, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. If we lose one we lose all.
I always take a lot of pride, Mr. Speaker, in talking about the rainbow arch at Niagara Falls, which is visible most of the time during the day. It always seems to me that is a symbol of peace and friendship between two great countries.
They told us in Washington that history was made as a result of the formation of this interparliamentary committee. Senator Aiken said he did not know of any other countries the two legislative bodies of which had met at the same level. I should like to refer to what the correspondent of the Financial Post in Washington said. He said that a major improvement in Canada-U.S. economic relations may have occurred with the agreement on a Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group.

I think the Speaker of our house said, and it was very apropos, that this fills a gap in the relations between the two countries, and we hope these discussions will be as broad as possible.
Then again, the Financial Post said that it is from congress that most of Canada's miseries with Uncle Sam stem, and hence a better congressional awareness of Canada can be a highly beneficial result of these parliamentary-congressional meetings. When Senator Aiken, the senator to whom I referred a few minutes ago, said good-bye to us he said that never before in its history had the United States congress established such close legislative links with another country. I say, therefore, that this interparliamentary group has made history, and as one newspaper so rightly said it will give us a direct channel into the United States congress.
I should like to plead with this government, Mr. Speaker, to do something about paying at least 50 per cent of the expenses of the Belleville McFarland's hockey team which will carry Canada's colours into the world hockey tournament in the coming months. As I understand it this club is looking for $50,000. I think it is a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada that this club has to ask councils in various cities and towns of the province, as well as various citizens, to share in the expenses of this team. I understand the larger cities have been asked for one-tenth of one cent per person. This does not amount to much, but it certainly seems to me that when we consider the honour this team will bring to Canada, the province from which the team comes and the federal government should each share 50 per cent of the cost. I do not feel the cost is excessive, because hockey seems to be our national game and we should at least be financially responsible for the expenses of this team. Many of these boys have good jobs, many of them have families to support, and certainly it is no encouragement to the boys on this hockey team to have to go begging for their expenses before they attempt to bring this signal honour to Canada. I hope that the Minister of Finance and the provincial treasurer will see fit to make contributions toward the expenses of this team, and I know every member will wish them good luck, feeling that they will bring us a lot of credit and honour.
There is just one more thing I wish to mention, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall be finished. I should like to speak on something that is close to my heart in my own riding of Niagara Falls. This matter affects not only silverware companies in Niagara Falls but indeed silverware companies all over Canada. I must admit that it is rather rough
The Address-Mr. Houck going when these companies are up against the price competition of stainless steel from Japan.
In the first place, Japanese imports of flat silverware into Canada for the first six months of 1958 were 1,368,000 dozen. In the second place, that amount is three times as much as Japan has imported into Canada in any equivalent period. In the third place, Japanese exports to Canada in the month of June last exceeded exports to the United States for the first time in history, the actual figures being more than 300,000 dozen to Canada versus 260,000 dozen to the United States.
Japanese imports into Canada last year by volume were about double the output of all Canadian manufacturers combined. It seems obvious that the Japanese are dumping into Canada the production that the United States quota prevents them from shipping to that country. Certainly the final result of this situation will be that unless we make some quota arrangements in the near future, we shall have no stainless steel industry here in Canada. The only conclusion one can draw is that once this industry is forced to close down because it cannot meet Japanese competition, it is doubtful if it will ever start again. The decline in Japanese exports to the United States was more than offset by the increased export shipments to Canada which took place during the first six months of 1958. In June, 1958, Canada's purchases of stainless steel tableware from Japan topped purchases made by the United States.
In Niagara Falls we have three large silverware companies. Because of the importation of this flat silverware from Japan, employment in at least two of these companies has been decreased by over 50 per cent as compared with what it was twelve months ago. I certainly hope the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance will take steps to correct this situation as soon as possible. It is an alarming situation as far as we are concerned. If this condition could be rectified it would be of material assistance with regard to the unemployment situation in the Niagara district.
May I say this in closing, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with all the sincerity possible. I hope the members of this house will take a great interest in this committee which was formed some time ago and about which I spoke. When hon. members are asked to serve on this committee I hope they will find the time to do so. They will find it well worth while to meet these gentlemen from the United States.
I want to say this, and I do so because of experience. When you are talking to these

The Address-Mr. Harkness senators and members of the House of Representatives, you are in the world series, you are talking in big time, and you must be on your mettle. They have the same feeling that we have. It is the uppermost feeling in our hearts and minds that we want to do everything we can for Canada. They want to do everything they can for the United States. We want to stand on our own feet. We are out to protect the rights of Canada. They are out to protect the rights of the United States. But when the final conclusion is arrived at, it will be a definite conclusion to the benefit of the great republic of the United States and of our great Dominion of Canada.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to those already proffered by so many members of the house to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is a particular pleasure for me to congratulate these gentlemen. The mover made an excellent speech on agriculture, a subject on which he is particularly well qualified to speak. The seconder made one of the finest maiden speeches which has ever been heard in this house.
I am going to devote my remarks today entirely to agriculture. I have, of course, practically nothing to deal with in the way of criticism as far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned. In his speech of two hours and twenty minutes, or 140 minutes, he devoted nearly half a minute to agriculture. This was rather summary treatment, Mr. Speaker, for the industry on which more of our people are still dependent, either directly or indirectly, than on any other industry in Canada. However, when the Leader of the Opposition was engaging in such great flights of fancy and imagination probably we should not expect him to devote his thoughts and his time to anything so down to earth as our food supply and the farmers who produce it. The closest the Leader of the Opposition managed to get to agriculture, practically, was the setting up of straw men and then knocking them down.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, what did he say in this nearly one-half minute which he devoted to agriculture? It consisted chiefly of a gibe at the Prime Minister and myself, and a statement that confusion existed with regard to agriculture. I think in the next few minutes I can demonstrate that there is not and never has been any confusion as far as we are concerned in our agricultural policies. This attempt on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, which was followed up by one of his supporters, to demonstrate or make

out that there is a difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and myself with regard to agriculture is completely without foundation.
On numerous occasions the Prime Minister has spoken on the desirability of a world food bank and of a NATO food bank, and by this means making use of the large agricultural production which we have in Canada. I think everybody in this chamber and everybody concerned with agriculture throughout the country is aware of the desirability of those ideas coming to fruition. However, at the present time neither of those schemes is in actual operation. Under these circumstances it is necessary for us to tailor our agricultural production to the markets which we possess and those which we have any reasonable possibility of securing. To take the statements I have made on these matters and then contrast them with the statements the Prime Minister has made as to the world food bank and the NATO food bank and so on, and attempt to show that there is a conflict between them is, as I say, a mere political trick without any foundation in fact.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) dealt with agriculture at greater length than did the Leader of the Opposition, but to no more effect. His remarks consisted chiefly of the usual loose and inaccurate statements of the type which characterized the speeches he made throughout western Canada last fall and early winter. Those speeches really all boiled down to the statement that the Conservative government had done nothing for agriculture, and the attempt was made to leave the general impression that farmers are no better off now than they were before we took office and perhaps are worse off.
Let us look at the record, Mr. Speaker. There is on the record plenty of evidence to show what is the actual situation of agriculture and of our farmers. It shows conclusively that these allegations on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia and others are not correct. First of all I should like to mention the large number of things we have done to aid agriculture and the farmers since we came into office. Most of these things are in the records of the house. I have not time today to review them all or even to mention them all, but I should like to summarize a few to refresh the memory of hon. members opposite.
Immediately after taking office we took action to dispose of some of the surpluses which were in the hands of the price support board and which had been there for a considerable period of time, to get rid of them so they would not continue to overhang the market. Within a few weeks of assuming office we put import controls and price supports on

turkeys and fowl. We put into effect a starch diversion program for potatoes as far as New Brunswick was concerned, a freight assistance program for hay in Nova Scotia, and import control on dried skimmed milk. In the first session after the election we put into effect cash advances on farm-stored grain, something we had advocated for years but which the Liberal party claimed could not be done. We placed all forms of butter and butter fat under price support and import control; we set up a royal commission on price spreads which is still sitting and which has made a very exhaustive investigation of price spreads, and the effect of its activities and its report will, I think, be very beneficial not only to farmers but also to consumers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the present chairman of that board going to continue?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Dr. Andrew Stewart is continuing as chairman of the board at the present time in order to complete the report.
We placed sugar beet under price support; we made an agreement with the United Kingdom to purchase Canadian apples; we concluded a large number of agreements under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to enable co-operatives of various kinds to market their products; we set up a system of tobacco grades to assist tobacco growers in marketing their product. At the last session of parliament we passed amendments to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to increase the payments made for animals slaughtered under the tuberculosis and brucellosis reduction program from $100 to $140 for purebred cattle and from $40 to $70 for grades.
The Canadian Farm Loan Act was amended to increase the maximum amount available for loans from $80 million to $120 million. In addition we have been carrying on a very active prairie farm rehabilitation program. Over 2,500 farm dugouts and small irrigation projects were constructed in 1957, besides a considerable number of small irrigation projects in over 70 communities; water storage projects, and work on several large dams. In addition we made a start on the South Saskatchewan dam, a project which the Liberals played around with for several years, always making excuses for not doing anything and never really getting started or showing any intention that they were going to get started.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The first funds for that were put in by Mr. Gardiner.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only money that was ever paid in for this was for engineering services under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
The Address-Mr. Harkness


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was a notice of intention.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The previous leader of the Liberal government, Mr. St. Laurent, said several times in this house, as is well known, that the Liberal government did not consider that this project should be proceeded with.
There were also considerable programs carried out under the maritime marshland rehabilitation project, in particular two large dams which are under construction at the present time. We provided assistance to Manitoba and Saskatchewan for the movement of hay and cattle if necessary as a result of last summer's drought. We provided supplementary payments to western grain producers of $1 an acre up to a maximum of 200 acres, the cost of which will work out eventually to somewhere between $41 million and $42 million. We took very active measures to increase the sales of wheat abroad and, of course, we very considerably increased those sales, as was indicated the day before yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Most important of all, we put on the statute books and into operation the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which has been of very great benefit to farmers and about which I will have more to say a little later.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a very brief summary of some of the things we have done so far as agriculture is concerned. In the election campaign of 1957 the Conservative party outlined a national program for agriculture. Since assuming office we have gone steadily forward to implement this program. I have outlined some of the steps we have actually taken. On August 30, 1958, the Prime Minister outlined the further steps we are taking, and I should like just to refer to these now and indicate the progress that has been made in connection with them.
The first of these is provision for an improved farm credit scheme. As everyone here knows, this was included in the speech from the throne, and it was indicated that legislation to bring this into effect would be brought down this session. The next is a system of crop insurance which, as was similarly indicated in the speech from the throne, will be implemented by legislation this session. The next is the soil and water conservation program. The first conference in connection with this was held on November 17 last and attended by representatives of all the provinces. Preliminary plans were laid in order to work out a practical soil and water conservation program for Canada in conjunction with the provinces, and this must be done in conjunction with the provinces because the provinces control their own natural resources.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
Next is the rural redevelopment program on which we have been working from the point of view of research. In the course of time we will be making an announcement of a program to implement this research. The next is a forage bank-


Paul Joseph James Martin: What does that mean?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -in order to provide forage, particularly in the drier parts of this country, to ensure that a satisfactory livestock economy can be maintained.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the rural redevelopment program?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman will find a brief outline if he will look up the speech made by the Prime Minister on August 30 of last year; I have not time to go into it in detail now.
Another important phase of our program is to increase exports. We have done that, as I have indicated, as far as wheat and certain other agricultural products are concerned, but we intend to do more, as has been indicated to the house, under the Colombo plan and other aid programs. This is an essential feature of our agricultural program, a constant effort to take advantage of every opportunity possible to increase our exports of agricultural commodities.
Mr. Speaker, I have listed some of the things we have actually done, and given the house an indication of our program and the progress we have made in connection with it. I think what I have said is in itself a complete refutation of the allegation that nothing has been done, and the allegation that there has been confusion. The only confusion has been on the part of our political opponents. They have attempted in every way possible to sow confusion and give the farmers of Canada a completely incorrect idea of what their situation is and of what the Conservative government has been doing to assist agriculture. Their efforts, as was demonstrated in the last election, have been notoriously unsuccessful, however, and I am quite sure they will continue to be unsuccessful.
I should now like to look at the statistics to show what the position of the farmer has actually been during the past year as compared with his position in the immediately preceding years when the Liberals were in power. The Leader of the Opposition of course paints a picture of gloom. Everything has gone to pot, according to him, including agriculture, but the record shows that exactly the opposite situation prevails. Agriculture and our farmers are in a better position today, and were in 1958, than for several years previously. All we need to do in order

to demonstrate that this is the case is to look at the cash income from the sale of farm products for the past several years.
I have in my hand a summary of cash income from the sale of farm products covering the years 1954 to 1958 and taken, of course, from the records of the bureau of statistics with the exception of the figures for 1958, which are not yet published. However, the figures for that year are those estimated by officials of the economics division of the Department of Agriculture and they will bear a close resemblance to the final figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe the figures for 1958 are available, with the exception of the last three months of that year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, but they are not available for the total year. Let us examine these figures and see the true situation. In 1958 wheat produced cash income amounting to $415 million as compared with $375.9 million in 1957, a very considerable increase. This same commodity produced income amounting to $323.9 million in 1954, $331.8 million in 1955 and $461.8 million in 1956.
What has been the situation with respect to potatoes? They produced cash income in 1958 amounting to $42 million as compared with $37.2 million in 1957, $43.4 million in
1956,	$34 million in 1955 and $29.3 million in 1954.
Fruits and vegetables are also of interest. Fruit in 1958 produced cash income of $41.5 million as compared with $39.9 million in
1957,	while vegetables produced income of $65 million in 1958 as compared with $58.1 million in 1957. Yet, in spite of that fact, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan) in speaking last Wednesday, as reported at page 165 of Hansard of January 21, 1959, stated:
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 worst since before the war.
As a matter of fact they have been the best they have been in the last five years, as these figures definitely show. This is the type of inaccurate statement which hon. members of the opposition constantly make. Now let use examine cash income produced by tobacco. In 1958 tobacco produced income of $87 million as compared with $73.1 million in 1957 and $66.9 million in 1954. Cattle, which commodity is perhaps the most important listed here, also shows a remarkable increase in returns, $607 million for 1958 as compared with $482.3 million for 1957 and $392.2 million for 1954. Hogs produced $312 million in 1958 as compared with $292.3 million in 1957. Poultry produced $195

million as compared with $168.6 million in 1957; and in all these cases the preceding years indicate returns that are much lower.
I shall not endeavour to place on record all the figures contained in this summary, but let us also consider dairy products, which produced income of $491.5 million in 1958 as compared with $459.6 in 1957; and again the returns for the previous years are lower.
These figures indicate as clearly as anything could indicate the fact that the Canadian farmer is better off in 1958 than he was in any of the preceding four years under the Liberal administration. Let us now examine the total cash income as contained in this summary. In 1958 the total cash income of farmers was $2,869 million as compared with $2,593.8 million in 1957. Let us also examine the percentage increase over the years. In 1958 it was more than 10 per cent greater than in 1957 and 7J per cent greater than in 1956, 20 per cent greater than in 1955 and also 20 per cent greater than in 1954.
Another notable point in this connection is that the improvement was not confined to any one region of Canada but extended right across the country. The provincial improvement in cash income was very close to the national average of a little better than 10 per cent in all provinces except Prince Edward Island, where it was not quite as large. As a matter of fact all of the provincial estimates of farm cash income for the first nine months of 1958, the only published figures presently available, indicate that farm cash income was higher than in the same period in 1957. And so, as far as the nation as a whole is concerned, cash income is 10 per cent greater for 1958 than for 1957 and 20 per cent greater than for 1954 or 1955, and this condition extends across the country, not being restricted to one area. I believe these figures are pretty conclusive.
Of course some hon. gentlemen opposite will say this does not present a true picture of the situation because the cost of goods and services used by farmers went up more than the income did, and therefore the cost-price squeeze was still operating. I am a little surprised that someone has not expressed this view already, and had the hon. member for Assiniboia been here I am sure he would have stated this to be the case.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the farm organizations have, of course. That is their main grievance, is it not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was always their
grievance under the Liberal administration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not to the same extent.
The Address-Mr. Harkness


Douglas Scott Harkness: But it cannot be so at the present time because it is no longer correct. It was not the case in 1958. In other words the cost of goods and services used by farmers did not rise more than their cash income did; this cost rose very little indeed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Three and one-half per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member says "Three and one-half per cent", which shows how very little he knows about the subject.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just the consumer price index from the bureau of statistics.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to quote from The Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada, the January 1959 issue. This is a publication issued by the economics division, marketing service, Department of Agriculture, and is referred to as the "Situation and Outlook" issue. I recommend to hon. gentlemen opposite who are interested in agriculture that they secure a copy of this review, which I might state is distributed without charge to all hon. members on request.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are they available?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. I think the hon. member has shown his ignorance sufficiently and should avoid further interruptions. On page 5 of the report to which I refer we find these words:
Prices paid by farmers in 1958 for commodities and services used in production and for living were only slightly more than 1 per cent above those of 1957.
And below it states:
Although both cash income and operating expenses advanced during 1958, the greater increase was in cash income, and therefore realized farm net income was higher than in 1957.
Realized farm net income is defined at the bottom of the page as farm cash income plus income in kind minus operating expenses and depreciation charges. The paragraphs I have read illustrate the point I am making. Gross cash income went up by a little more than 10 per cent. The cost of goods and services which farmers have to buy went up by a little more than 1 per cent. Therefore I feel it is quite apparent that the cost-price squeeze which was a cause of hardship to the farmer under the Liberal administration ever since 1951-1952 has been finally halted and reversed.
Our political opponents, Mr. Speaker, are constantly seeking to give the impression that Canadian prices of agricultural products are lower than those of other countries. Actually the very reverse is the case as far as most of the major agricultural products are concerned. Our prices in Canada for
256	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness most of those products are as high, or higher, or nearly as high, depending on what product one takes, as those in any other country. I have a compilation which I had made up by the economics division of the department to indicate the prices in various countries of the world for some of the major agricultural products. It is entitled "Average Wholesale Prices of Agricultural Products in Selected Countries." The figures are for the third quarter of 1958 and are expressed in terms of Canadian currency in all cases.
Take the case of good steers. As I say, these are wholesale prices and the markets taken in Canada are in all cases either Montreal or Toronto. Good steers, United States, $24.27 per hundredweight; West Germany, $23.87; Canada, $22.59; United Kingdom, $18.61; New Zealand, $9.44; Australia, $8.37. Our price in Canada was nearly up to the prices of cattle in other countries. In the United States the price was about 1J cents to If cents above us. Hon. members can see how the prices in other countries dropped down. In the case of Australia it was a little more than one-third of the price in Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The cost of living is much lower.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The cost of living is not anything like as much lower as that. There is no comparison on those prices at all, as far as what the Canadian farmer received as compared with what the Australian and New Zealand farmers received.
In the case of hogs the price in West Germany was $33.21 per hundredweight; in Canada, $30.21; in the United States, $28.24; in Denmark, $26.26; in Australia, $24.15. The only country with a higher price was West Germany.
We now come to the price of butter. In Canada the price was 62 cents a pound; in the United States, 58 cents; in Australia, 51 cents; in New Zealand, 37 cents; in the Netherlands, 34 cents; in Denmark, 27 cents; and on the London market, which is the only place that is anything like a free market as far as butter is concerned, the price of New Zealand butter was 28 cents a pound and Danish butter 32 cents a pound. We see from these figures that the price of butter in some of those countries is just about half the price in Canada.
We now come to cheese. In Canada the price of cheese was 34 cents a pound; in the United States, 33 cents a pound; in West Germany, 28 cents a pound; in Australia, 28 cents a pound; in New Zealand, 21 cents a pound; in the Netherlands, 19 cents a pound.
Let us take eggs. In the United Kingdom eggs were 60 cents a dozen; in Canada, 55


cents; in West Germany, 49 cents, and in the United States, 42 cents.
These figures illustrate without any question at all, I think, that as far as the majority of the major agricultural products are concerned Canadian prices are either nearly as high as or higher than those of any country in the world. Somebody will ask, what about wheat? As far as wheat is concerned this is not the case, but this is the one major agricultural product in which Canadian prices are not right up at the top.


Mr. Peters:: Will the minister permit a question? Will he put on record the producer figures rather than the figures he has given which include mark-ups of various kinds?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is impossible to get any comparative figures on that basis, because the return to the producers varies from town to town depending on transportation facilities, truck and water competition with rail transportation and so forth, and it is the same in other countries. The only comparative figures that one can get are those wholesale prices, as I say, which are quoted regularly in every country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In some of those other countries they have cost of production figures which are more scientific than ours.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That may be the case; nevertheless this comparison shows what the prices are, and I think everybody will have to admit that is the case. They are exactly comparable types of prices and they show that the position of our farmers, rather than being very much worse than the position of farmers in other countries, as far as almost all products are concerned is far better than that of farmers in other countries.
These good prices relative to those in other countries, Mr. Speaker, are due to the operations of the Agricultural Stabilization Act and to the great improvement in our exports of agricultural products, particularly of cattle, to the United States. The value of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to farmers is not, I think, appreciated by very many people. The members of the opposition, particularly the members of the C.C.F. party, have always tried to measure the value of the old Liberal farm prices support act and of this stabilization act by the number of dollars that are paid out under it, or the losses which are incurred under it. This, of course, is no measure whatever of the effectiveness of farm prices support legislation. Its value or effectiveness is not measured by the actual amount of money which is paid out under it to support prices, but by the extra number of dollars which are put into the pockets of the farmers.

This can best be illustrated by the case of dairy products during the last year in Canada. We estimate that the farmers of Canada have received at least $100 million more for dairy products than they would have received had the stabilization legislation not been in effect. The reason this is so is that had we not had the stabilization legislation in effect and import controls to protect those stabilized prices, which we could not have had otherwise, the prices the farmers would have received for butter, for cheese and for other dairy products would have been the world prices plus our tariffs.
Now, the general world price, the export price that butter was coming in at, would have meant that butter would have been coming into this country at the most at not more than 40 cents a pound, and probably less. If you take it at that level the effect of the stabilization act was to add $80 million to the returns to farmers over what they would have had if it had not been in effect. In the case of cheese it would have been about $10 million; in the case of dried skim milk and manufactured products of that kind, another $10 million; and the cost was very much less to keep this cheese program in effect which, as I say, added $10 million to the farmers' income. It will cost the taxpayers about $1 million-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister, but it being one o'clock I now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, before the
luncheon adjournment I had been pointing out that the value of the Agricultural Stabilization Act to the farmers of Canada cannot be measured by the amount of money paid out under that legislation but rather by the great increase in the amount of money which it puts into the pockets of the farmers. I had taken as an example the chief dairy products which we support. I would finish with respect to that matter by saying that as far as butter is concerned the increase in the amount of money the farmers have received over what they would have received had this act not been in effect is in the neighbourhood of $80 million in the past year. To date we have probably spent about $1 million. We will have to spend considerably more before we finish disposing of the butter we now hold but I must say that even if it costs the taxpayers between $5 million and $10 million 66968-9-17
The Address-Mr. Harkness that is a very small amount in comparison with the value of the legislation to the farmers of the country engaged in the dairy industry and to the economy as a whole. Sixty-nine per cent of all the farmers in Canada secure either all or part of their income from dairying.
I should like to say a word about the scope of the stabilization act. During the past year we have had 23 commodities under support. I do not have time to outline what they are but any member can get a list of them at any time if he wishes to apply to me for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are there any others to be added?


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, I would point out that under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which the Liberals had in effect for 12 years, only 15 commodities were supported in the entire 12 years that the legislation was in effect and in any one year only a very few commodities were ever under price support whereas during the first year the stabilization act has been in effect we have had, as I say, 23 commodities under price support.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the minister heard my interjection. Are there any others to be added?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That will appear in due course as it becomes necessary to put them under price support. In that connection I might say that I hold in my hand a very interesting article written by the Right Hon. James G. Gardiner and entitled "Test of Tory Farm Policy". He is talking about the stabilization act and he maintains that we set prices too high. Members of the C.C.F. party, of course, say that we set prices too low. People can draw their own conclusion from that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where did that article appear?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It appeared in the Leader-Post under date of January 13, and if the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) wants some fairy tales to read to put him to sleep at night I recommend this as one that he should put first on his list.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is from Mr. Gardiner it must be a very substantial document.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is the most peculiar
reasoning in connection with farm matters that I have ever seen. I should like to say something, however, about the amount of money which has been put out under the stabilization act. First of all, in the period from March 1, 1958, when the act came into effect, to December 31, we spent $73,841,000
258	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Harkness out of the revolving fund for goods. That does not mean that money or a good portion of it will not come back into the revolving fund, but nevertheless during that nine month period $73,841,000 was expended in buying agricultural products in order to support prices. In the period April 1 to December 31 the losses we took amounted to $10,211,000. We estimated that for the fiscal year April 1, 1958 to March 31, 1959 the losses or the cost-I will say "cost" rather than "losses" because it is a more accurate word-of our agricultural stabilization operations will be $18,741,000. As I have pointed out before, that does not indicate in any way what the value of the legislation has been to the farmers of the country. I should like to say a word-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister would-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute. I only have about five minutes and I do not have the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: With the minister's usual courtesy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have made very large direct expenditures to or on behalf of the farmers during 1958, much greater than most people realize. I have here a list of some of the most important and I will just read it. With respect to acreage payments during 1958-that is the $1 an acre up to a maximum of 200 acres-for which we put an amount of $40 million in the estimates, actual expenditures before the program is over will be closer to $42 million. Storage charges on grain under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act will amount to $38,800,000. We estimate that payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act will amount to $25 million. Payments under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act amounted to $17,285,988 while those under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act amounted to $2,275,000. Quality premiums on high grade hogs amounted to $6,630,000. Freight assistance on western feed grains amounted to $21 million and the amount spent in 1958 under the stabilization act, to which I have just referred, will be at least $15 million. That makes a total of approximately $166 million in direct payments on behalf of agriculture.
In addition, up to the middle of December we had paid out $30,717,000 by way of cash advances on farm stored grain. Quite a respectable total of money has been paid directly in aid to the farmers of the country in spite of the cries of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and others that we


have done nothing for agriculture and these figures indicate how completely incorrect these allegations are.
I think this brief examination of the agricultural situation shows conclusively that the downward drift of agriculture so apparent under the Liberal government from 1952 onward has been halted and reversed. The Liberal policy, or lack of policy, of sit and drift-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -has been replaced by a definite and dynamic policy which has already produced results as all the statistics show.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the minister seems to be nearing the end of his speech but his time has actually expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead. Let the minister finish.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I will just take one minute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not condemn the Liberal party in that remaining minute.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said, the statistics show that very impressive results have already been achieved and I am sure that the continuation of our polices will produce much greater results as we have time to develop our program. I should also like to point out that these encouraging improvements in 1958 were accomplished in spite of the fact that the North American continent was suffering from a recession during that year. The fact that so much improvement was secured under these circumstances is something in which the Canadian farmers, the Canadian people and the present government are entitled to take considerable pride.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker,
since the hon. gentleman's time was extended he would not mind answering my question? It is a very simple and factual one. Has the minister given any consideration to including pulpwood amongst the commodities under the prices stabilization program as the Prime Minister indicated in Rimouski was being considered?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, we gave very serious consideration to that and put a considerable amount of study on it. I believe, however, and hope that the action taken under the Combines Investigation Act against the pulp companies in connection with the purchasing of pulpwood will have very beneficial results and will look after the problem better than putting pulpwood under price support would do.

(Translation):


Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the subject of my remarks, I should like to congratulate the new member for Springfield (Mr. Slogan) for the magnificent election speech he began yesterday evening and concluded this morning. I congratulate him on his being elected member for the constituency of Springfield. I might also tell him that if he got in with a lower majority in the by-election, he need not ascribe this to loss of personal popularity but rather to the unpopularity of the government now in charge of the destinies of this country. I wish him a rewarding stay in our national parliament, albeit a short one, as you will readily appreciate, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to refer to only one remark made by the hon. member for Springfield, the one about the young Liberals of Canada. Yesterday evening, the hon. member for Springfield said that Canada's young Liberals do not have, within their own party, the same freedom of expression which the young Conservatives enjoy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that I have had the privilege and honour of being president of the Young Liberals Association of Canada, and that at no time were its members hampered in their work. On the contrary, Liberal party officials always sought out the advice of the young Liberals, and such suggestions as might contribute to the welfare of our fellow citizens. They always took keen interest in proposals put forward by the young Liberals, and young Liberals have at all times enjoyed full and complete freedom within the party. I do not know how it is with young Conservatives in Canada, and my interest in the matter is only lukewarm, I confess.
I should also like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin).
The hon. member for Provencher, honoured by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) by being entrusted with the task of proposing the address, did so in concrete, concise and intelligent fashion. I congratulate him. He told us about an area of Canada which is of interest to all of us in western Canada.
I should like also to offer special congratulations to the new member for Montmagny-L'lslet. I had the opportunity of meeting him during the last campaign and, needless to say, it was in the constituency of Montmagny-L'lslet, where I had gone to help in the election not of him but of someone else. It is 66968-9-174
The Address-Mr. Rouleau however with pleasure that I listened to him when he spoke in support of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I congratulate him in particular on his election, and say to him that he is assuming a very great responsibility, because he now has a rich heritage to develop, the heritage of 25 years of Liberal representation in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet. He is the successor to a man who honoured the province, a man who did much for Canadian politics, the Hon. Jean Lesage.
If the Hon. Jean Lesage has left the federal scene, it was not of his own choice. He did it out of a sense of duty, to help fight the dictatorship which is plaguing the province of Quebec, and the work he is now doing in the province is for the defence of democracy. I am sure that this task he has undertaken, with all the sacrifices it involves, will bear fruit and that the man who will crush dictatorship in the province of Quebec and who will become the province's next prime minister will be the former representative of the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet in the House of Commons, Hon. Jean Lesage.
Mr. Speaker, I was deeply impressed by the speech made by the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, particularly when he touched upon national unity. One of the main reasons that led me to enter politics was my desire to contribute to the building up of national unity in this great and beautiful country. I was most particularly impressed when the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet stated in his speech:
I honestly and truly believe these views to be genuinely representative of the province of Quebec.
He said that the province of Quebec was "a province like any other province". Indeed it is true, Mr. Speaker, that the great majority of Canadian citizens in the province of Quebec believe their province is like other provinces.
A few years ago, when that great statesman, Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, was prime minister of this country and represented a constituency that is located in the very heart of the province of Quebec, he stated in a memorable speech that he too was of the opinion that the majority of citizens in the province of Quebec believed their province like any other province.
Who, at that time, rose to say that the province of Quebec was not a province like the others? It was the premier of the province of Quebec. He protested the words of Mr. St. Laurent, branding Mr. St. Laurent a traitor to his province.
And who, following the lead of the premier of Quebec, rose to say that the province of Quebec was not a province like other

The Address-Mr. Rouleau provinces? Ministers, Union Nationale members of the legislature, and Union Nationale party hacks.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet and to assure him of my unreserved admiration for having the courage to assert in this house, that the province of Quebec is a province like any other province.


Mr. Louis Fortin (Monimagny-LTslel):: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Guy Rouleau: Yes.


Louis Fortin: When quoting me, would the hon. member kindly not confine himself to the words he chose but read on a few lines down to preserve the context?


Guy Rouleau: I have been reading this out of Hansard and the sentence I just quoted is a full sentence.
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I have distorted the words of the hon. member. I said a moment ago that I admired his courage, and congratulated him on making this statement. I hope he will not weaken now, and back down.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the province of Quebec is like any other province. We, Canadians of the province of Quebec, have the same opinions regarding Canadians of other provinces, and we are entitled to the same prerogatives and the same rights.
Therefore, when I hear the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet speak as he did, I wonder why, in Quebec, the provincial premier refuses to let us share in national projects, such as the trans-Canada highway.
I also wonder why the premier of the province of Quebec systematically refuses to allow young Canadians in his province to enjoy the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by Canadians in other provinces, and to benefit from the grants which are distributed by the central government?


Mr. Lucien Grenier (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that, in speaking before the House of Commons, the member who now has the floor is out of order in discussing the attitude of a provincial leader.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a free parliament.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that these problems bear on the matter of federal-provincial relations. I am now discussing national issues, as would any Canadian of whatever province.


(Text) :


Mr. Speaker:: As I followed the hon. member who has the floor, it occurred to me that his references to the premier of one of the provinces went outside of the necessary discussion of his conduct in so far as it is involved in federal affairs. I quite concede that it is in order to discuss provincial men in so far as their conduct is involved in what is properly the subject matter of debate in this parliament. However, I thought that the hon. member was getting a little bit afield at the time the point of order was taken.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. As usual I shall comply with your directions and will discuss problems that concern the central and provincial governments, as in the case of grants to universities.
When my hon. friend interrupted, I was commenting on grants to universities. Not only does the government of the province of Quebec refuse to make such grants; it forbids those institutions to accept them. There is another matter in the same field, Mr. Speaker, that I want to mention. If the province of Quebec is like all the other provinces why does its premier systematically refuse to join the hospital-insurance plan initiated by the former Liberal government and implemented by the present government?
If the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), is sincere, and means what he said in this house, I ask him to use such influence as he may have on the provincial government to say to the leader of the government of the province of Quebec, that since Quebec is a province like all other provinces, it should participate in the Canadian way of life, and in all truly Canadian projects. Moreover, the best emissary he could send to the premier of the province of Quebec-in case he has no direct access to him-would be the Hon. Antoine Rivard, a member of the Duplessis cabinet, who campaigned very actively in favour of the new member for Montmagny-L'Islet and who, in fact, is largely responsible for his victory.
The great majority of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, of whatever racial origin, in whatever province they were born, have realized they are part of a large family, the great Canadian family. I am glad that Canadians from sea to sea, have finally realized that they belong to Canada first. As a young Canadian from

the province of Quebec, who has had the opportunity to travel across the country, I do say that, personally, I feel just as much at home in Vancouver, in Winnipeg, in Saskatoon, in Toronto or anywhere else in Canada, as I do in my province.
It is for this reason that I wanted to offer very special congratulations to the new member for Montmagny-L'Islet.
He made very appropriate remarks on national unity, although he could perhaps have gone a bit further, particularly in the light of recent statements by two members of the present cabinet. In fact, quite recently in a speech which she made in Toronto the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) stated, in the face of all of Canada, that the national anthem O Canada was perhaps a pretty song, but was not the Canadian national anthem.
I sincerely regret that, while speaking of national unity, the member for Montmagny-L'lslet did not see fit to point out those falsehoods. As was said by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier), even if the national anthem O Canada is not set down as the national anthem of this country, since Canadian parliamentary institutions all came down to us from British parliamentary institutions, where tradition prevails, and since O Canada has been sung and accepted for years and years, I say that the only national anthem we have is O Canada.
Besides, along similar lines, Mr. Speaker, I really regret that, after dealing with national unity, the honourable member for Montmagny-L'Islet did not see fit to suggest the adoption of a distinctively Canadian flag, one that all Canadians could be rightly proud of, whatever their country of origin, whatever the province they live in, and which would be a symbol through which they would honour their country.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to this house and to the country that I am in favour of a Canadian flag having no sign emblematic of other areas than our own. I want an essentially Canadian flag, devoid of any mark which might suggest to other countries that this is not a free country.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet deserves the congratulations of all the members and of all Canadians for speaking the way he did on national unity. But we cannot say as much about the other issues he covered.
The Address-Mr. Rouleau
This country is facing a problem which should be of concern to all Canadians, especially those in the province of Quebec. I refer to the C.B.C. producers' strike. The hon. member for Montmagny-I'Islet did not see fit to bring up that subject, but I must say that the stand taken by the government in the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Montreal Producers Association is really incomprehensible and unwarranted.
Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer the question asked by the leader of the opposition. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) maintains he cannot intervene in this dispute, even though, under section 56 (1) of the Act, as was pointed out by the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), he is allowed to intervene.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) claims he must stay out of the dispute and not interfere in C.B.C. matters. However, he had no hesitation in stating that the strike was illegal. He did not even try to justify this serious charge which, in fact is unwarranted. Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, there has been no talk of raising the hon. minister to the bench, or of his being so raised to the bench, even though he might wish to be, and he is not at all qualified to express his views on the legality of this dispute.
Later on, in reply to a question asked by the member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier), the same minister stated that he had "no idea what salaries are being paid to C.B.C. personnel". However, that did not prevent him from stating at the end of his answer: "I am quite certain those salaries would be on a comparable level across Canada"'. In this answer, not only did the Minister of National Revenue contradict himself, but he misled this house, since all those who have even the slightest interest in the matter know-a fact of which the minister is not aware-that the salaries of the Montreal producers are anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 lower than those of the Toronto producers.
Furthermore, last Tuesday the C.B.C., through their representative, Mr. Carter, sent an ultimatum to the producers, instructing them to report for work by noon yesterday or else they would lose their jobs. And here I quote Mr. Carter's letter:
Normal television service has been suspended for the past three weeks during which the C.B.C. tried, through your association, to work out a solution to the strike you started. The C.B.C. must

The Address-Mr. Rouleau always consider the public first. Consequently, I am instructed to tell you that if your association does not substantially modify its attitude, the C.B.C. will not be able to deal with it any more, and will have to take the necessary steps to restore regular service as from twelve o'clock, Thursday, January 22, 1959, It is after serious consideration and with much regret that the C.B.C. was forced to take this decision.
It is indeed an ultimatum. And yet, yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue was not afraid to state in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote:
I am not aware of any such ultimatum as the hon. gentleman mentioned, and there is no question of delivering such an ultimatum.
Besides, yesterday evening, in the news broadcast which it used as a medium of propaganda, the C.B.C. announced that it was suspending all negotiations with the producers' association and that it would attempt, with or without them, to resume normal operations.
Following all those contradictions on the part of the minister, it is difficult to put any confidence in his statements on the matter. It is most unfortunate that the government should have appointed him as its spokesman in this matter, considering the attitude he has taken. The responsibility really belonged to the Minister of Labour, who failed in his task, by his refusal to intervene. The same could be said of the Quebec ministers who remained completely mum on the question, except the Solicitor General who, when pressed by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard), did not want to commit himself, and adopted the same attitude as that of the Ministers of National Revenue and Labour.
And yet, following the C.B.C. decision to stop all negotiations, the situation will become more and more serious. Here is what Andre Laurendeau wrote in yesterday's edition of Le Devoir:
-in its recent statement, in which it took pains to exclude all loop-holes, the management, with its threats, is condemning the strikers to the following alternative: either grovel in the dust and cringingly return to work, or fight to a finish.
I remain convinced that a shameful return to work, without dignity or honour, is of no interest to anyone. It would snap the spring. Producers, the performers, technicians, in fact all C.B.C. personnel are not engaged in the manufacture of raspberry jam. The work they do can only be done when their heart is in it. Humiliated men will no longer be able to do it.
We dare think that a dispute paralysing the whole C.B.C. French network,-thereby affecting nearly a third of the population, and all those in Canada who speak French and pay taxes,-we dare think that such a dispute deserves an hour of attention from Ottawa, as well as some efficient gesture of conciliation on the part of the supreme authority.
The Liberal party prides itself on having contributed, in the last few years to the development


of an excellent French radio and television network. If this undertaking, so essential to our country, should be paralysed through the obstinacy and harshness of certain officials, the government should be held accountable, because it failed to take action in seeking an adequate solution to the dispute. The producers, the actors and the public in general will also call it to account, and rightly so, for its failure to protect their interests.
Now, what is at stake?
Not a small radio station in some remote hamlet of the Great North, but the whole French network, -both TV and radio,-the whole government-controlled French network in a bilingual state.
There was a time when Parliament was convened to deal with a railway strike. Can Parliament persist in its wait-and-see attitude. Is it that, as seen from Ottawa, a strike which paralyzes the whole radio and TV French network, seems so trifling a matter. Are we to believe that the central government supports the C.B.C. in all its positions? Finally, is it reasonable that the central government should let the C.B.C. scuttle its whole French network?
Whether it be mediation, arbitration or special legislation: anything will be better than washing one's hands of the whole matter.
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) could have mentioned, for instance-a matter which he failed to mention in his speech-are measures which should be taken by the government to stop inflation, recession and unemployment which are now plaguing Canada. If the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet did not talk very much about this matter, it is because there is almost nothing in the speech from the throne which might have given him a chance to do so. Everyone is of the opinion that the three matters I have just mentioned are the basic problems of the Canadian economy at the present time, problems affecting Canadians in all walks of life. Yes, we are now faced with all these problems I have just mentioned; they are facing us at the present time. And only a few members of the cabinet are aware of the seriousness of the problems they are facing:	inflation, recession and
unemployment.
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) stated a few days ago, before a meeting of young Conservatives in Quebec city, that unemployment in Canada should be considered as an heritage left by the previous government. Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more wrong. The Conservative government has been at the helm of this country for almost two years, and it has done nothing to solve these problems.
The present government has been unable to deal with these problems because it lacked foresight. There are other members of the cabinet who pretend to be unaware of what is going on at the present time in the country and, instead of assuming their responsibilities, merely say that everything will be fine next year.

The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said a few days ago, as reported in the Gazette, that everything was fine in the country and that we were heading again for a golden era. That is not what I would call facing up to one's responsibilities to ensure a bright future for our country.
There are others who are more optimistic than that. In fact, no later than yesterday, I heard the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), complain that the opposition was pessimistic with regard to the problems that face us, and he added: "Pessimism is hardly a characteristic of the Canadian population". I am in complete agreement with the hon. member when he says that pessimism should not be a characteristic of the Canadian people. Our country is wealthy, it has influence in world affairs, and therefore its population should not be pessimistic as to the future of the country. However, I should like to know the thoughts of the 440,000 people who were jobless in December. I should like to know the thoughts of fathers who cannot find a job, who have no money to pay the rent or to buy food and clothing for their children; I wonder what these people think of these statements made by members of the present government, and how they could feel optimistic.
If in a country as rich as this, a man with a family is unable to earn a living, how can the people have confidence in this government? While Canadians can rightly feel confident of their country's future, it is also true that they have grounds to feel pessimistic with respect to the leadership given to the country by this short-sighted government on whose shoulders rests the responsibility for unemployment, for the recession and for inflation. The members on the government side apparently have not yet recovered from their honeymoon. They never expected to gain power in 1957, and they travelled across the country making irresponsible promises.
Mr. Speaker, my attention is drawn to the fact that there is at the moment no minister in the house. This shows the extent of their interest in the affairs of the nation, and it also shows, as I have just stated to the house, that the members of the cabinet are still on their honeymoon.
As I was saying, the members of the cabinet and members of the government stalked the country in 1957, promising heaven on earth.
The Address-Mr. Rouleau
Mr. Speaker, I greet the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), who has just entered the house.
Mr. Speaker, when they stalked the country in 1957, they represented themselves to the people as supermen. They were allegedly able to distribute all the wealth of the country and to make everybody happy. But what has happened since they took power? Today, Canada is faced with the situation I have described. Because of their lack of ability, their lack of foresight and their short-sighted policies, they have plunged the country into a situation such as we have never known in 30 years. Those supermen, Mr. Speaker, in the eyes of the whole country, those supermen now appear as experts in the art of metamorphosis and disguise. During the election campaign, in 1957, they disguised themselves as Santa Clauses, promising, as I said, heaven on earth in order to grasp power. To my mind, they have become such comedians that they should be called in as guests on the Ed Sullivan show, or perhaps act as substitutes on the French T.V. network, for all those actors they want to fire.


An hon. Member:: They gave themselves the boot.


Guy Rouleau: After being elected to manage the affairs of this country, they disguised themselves, after the last session, as carrier pigeons, I must point out here that I am not alluding to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). I understand he has hopes of becoming parliamentary secretary, or even a cabinet minister, but in fact, he has not had the opportunity, as did the others, to travel in the fashion of a carrier pigeon.
During the last session, members of the cabinet took the guise of carrier pigeons. They travelled all over the globe. While one was in South America, another was in Japan, and another in Europe. And during their stay abroad, as carrier pigeons, they underwent a metamorphosis and became parrots. While one was saying one thing in South America, and the other was saying something else in another country, still another one was saying just the opposite in Japan. And when they came back, they were interviewed by newsmen.


Mr. Graffley:: This is the same speech you made to McGill students.


Guy Rouleau: And you were defeated, too, at McGill. Since the hon. member has interrupted, may I explain that I had the opportunity to be present with him on the same stage, in front of McGill students, in the

The Address-Mr. Rouleau course of a debate as to whether the government deserved confidence; and the students defeated the government.


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, but not when they came before the people.


Guy Rouleau: When they were questioned by newsmen, we heard them say: "I did say it; I did not say it; it is not what I wanted to say; I was misquoted". The result is, in so far as vital questions affecting the Canadian economy are concerned, that the Canadians do not know where they stand, they do not know where they are going and, like the members of this house, they do not know yet what to expect.
Mr. Speaker, after their transmogrification, after shedding the guise of quondam supermen to take on the guise of Santa Clauses, carrier pigeons and parrots, members of the cabinet decided, when faced with the problems submitted to them by the opposition, to turn their backs on it, on this country's problems, and to change themselves into ostriches, so as not to see the dangers that threaten us.
Just like ostriches do, they bury their heads in the sand and show only the other end of their tuft, which they spread out in the wind, as if everything were just fine in this country.
Others who managed this country before them used to wear their plumes high on their heads and knew how to face Canada's problems. Laurier, King and St. Laurent have faced Canada's problems, and instead of hiding, like ostriches, so as to avoid looking for solutions, they knew how to meet the situation and solve these problems adequately, in the best interest of Canada.
When we came here, in Ottawa, for the opening of this session, Mr. Speaker, and even earlier, the government knew very well that it would have to meet serious financial problems. Yet, in the speech from the throne, and since that day, there has been no clear indication that the government has definite plans to meet them. Will the government reduce taxes to help Canadians? Will the government increase taxes to meet this situation? Will the government substantially reduce federal expenditures, as it had promised earlier? No one knows. The people of Canada do not know. The members of the government continue to prove that all they know is how to improvise. Some cabinet members and others on the government side, when


interrupting members of the opposition, who were chiding them for their indifference, asked us to find suggestions.
During the last two election campaigns and the last two sessions, the leader of the opposition and members of the opposition have made practical suggestions to the government. We all know that it is not the role of the opposition to govern. The government has to face its responsibilities and settle the problems with the help of advice given to it.
Finally, I want to make some constructive suggestions concerning the city of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, which I have the honour to represent here.
Yesterday, I asked to the Minister of Labour if he had definite plans to relieve the unemployment situation in Montreal and to give employment to the 88,000 jobless in the city.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if these problems that I have mentioned, and that are of interest for the whole country, do not apply to the city of Montreal.
Since I represent the riding that is part of the island of Montreal, for a few minutes, I will speak of the problems we have to deal with in Montreal. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) if he had any concrete suggestions to make in order to settle the problem of unemployment in Montreal where at present there are 88,000 unemployed. The minister, in an attempt to dodge the question, answered that at the present time there are 100 projects to reduce unemployment in the province of Quebec, and that most of those 100 projects were in the city of Montreal. After this answer, I made some inquiries. I phoned Montreal authorities and, Mr. Speaker, what was the truth in all this? Well, the answer I got in Montreal was much different from the one given to me by the Minister of Labour who, besides, had to withdraw his statement, no later than today. At the moment, no project has been accepted by the federal government to help settle the unemployment problem in Montreal, for the simple reason that no project has been submitted. Why did the Minister of Labour tell us yesterday that public works projects had been approved by the city of Montreal when none had been submitted?
Mr. Speaker, we are now nearing the end of January and the arrangements which enable us-


William Heward Grafftey: What page are you on now?


An hon. Member:: Be quiet. Be a good little boy.


Guy Rouleau: The same thing will happen to you as at McGill!
Mr. Speaker, we are now nearing the end of January and the works to be carried out under the offer made to municipalities have to be completed by next April 30. If our municipal authorities do not get approval for their works projects before the end of February, how can they help the unemployment situation in Montreal? According to the information I have received from municipal authorities, the proposed works, even if carried out, would provide jobs for only a few hundred unemployed, whereas there are as many as 88,000 in the city.
We were asked to submit definite projects regarding the works which could be carried out. For the city of Montreal itself, there are scores of major works projects which could be implemented.
Everybody knows that a large tract of land belonging to the federal government, in the city of Montreal, is located behind the court house and the city hall. It is the property usually referred to as the Champ de Mars. On January 8 last, the city of Montreal on the motion of councillor Gagliardi, seconded by mayor Sarto Fournier, asked the federal government for permission to erect a reinforced concrete structure on the Champ de Mars for parking purposes. A copy of the resolution was sent to the right hon. Prime Minister as well as to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche). This letter was sent on January 8 and since then nothing has been done. However, such a project would not only contribute to alleviate the parking problem in a congested centre of Montreal but would also provide employment.
I shall now mention briefly some other projects which could be carried out in Montreal and which other members for Montreal will advocate in the coming days.
The federal government could build a four-lane highway alongside the river, on the Montreal harbour, since it is federal government property.
The government could also consider the feasibilty of contributing to the construction of an east-west north-south subway in the city of Montreal. A subway of this kind could be used as an underground shelter in case of war.
It would also be possible for federal authorities to contribute to the construction of a road 66968-9-18
The Address-Mr. Rouleau under the mountain, which would also relieve traffic congestion in Montreal.
It would also be appropriate for the federal government to contribute on a large scale to the construction of a metropolitan boulevard in Montreal to serve as a section of the trans-Canada highway. Incidentally, when will the Quebec premier agree to participate in the national life of our country?
It would also be in order for the federal government to participate in the construction and development of municipal parks. More municipal parks are needed in Montreal, and I am convinced that some contribution by the federal government, not only would help relieve unemployment in Montreal, but would assist our young fellow Canadians.
Furthermore, it would be in order-and I referred to this in the course of the last session-to demolish the twelve slum areas we have in Montreal and replace them by houses which could help improve the welfare of our people.
At this stage I should like to support heartily the resolution adopted by the real estate board for the replacing of slums by co-operative apartments.
These are, Mr. Speaker, some of the projects I am suggesting to the government. I spoke about projects of interest to the city of Montreal, but the federal government could undertake similar works in all other Canadian cities, in view of the fact that it has decided to fight inflation, recession and unemployment through a huge public works program.
The present government determines what course is to be followed, so let the government accept its responsibilities, and let it undertake work projects, in places where such projects can relieve the unemployment crisis.
There would be other methods, much more effective, such as those put forward by the Leader of the Opposition during the last election campaign, to stabilize the Canadian economy. However, the government has embarked upon a program of public works, so let us have some immediate action, let us have public works immediately. In that way, work will be provided for those who are idle, and at the same time, things will be built that will remain as monuments in which everyone may take pride.
Mr. Speaker, I have in the course of my remarks expressed certain criticisms, but this was done in a constructive spirit, in the hope that we may always be proud of our beautiful country and also in order that our fellow

The Address-Mr. Crouse citizens may confidently expect to continue enjoying the standard of living to which they have been accustomed.
Mr. Speaker, I speak sincerely and have no intention of stooping to petty politics, my only ambition being to help my fellow citizens, as it is my duty as a representative of a Canadian constituency.
(Text):


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, may I first join with several hon. members who have preceded me and who have expressed their approval of and their satisfaction in the fact that you will again preside over the deliberations in this house. During the period that I have had the honour to represent Queens-Lunenburg I could not help but be impressed by your ability, your fairness and your sense of duty and I am certain that the affairs of this house will be conducted during this session as in the past in fairness to all and with approval of the whole house.
I would like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mover, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), and the seconder, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Though separated by great distances these two hon. gentlemen have two things in common. They have youth and an earnest desire to assist the people who have elected them to this parliament.
As one of the members from Nova Scotia I should like, on behalf of the people of that province and of the people of my own constituency of Queens-Lunenburg, to have the opportunity to voice our appreciation of the outstanding work done by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) in the past year. He has at all times lent a very sympathetic ear to our problems and the people of my constituency are pleased with the work that has been done and the work that has been planned for the coming year. Many of those projects are long overdue. In addition to providing much needed facilities for the people in the riding they are also providing work. In complimenting the minister may I say I hope he will not become complacent because there is still a number of projects awaiting his attention in the constituency, and if I should be insistent and impatient I hope he will realize that I am only trying to better the condition of the people I represent.
In complimenting the minister I would also like to make reference to the simultaneous translation system which has been installed in this chamber in a building which comes under the supervision of the Department of Public Works. I am sure all of us appreciate the provision of this new facility; it has improved our enjoyment of the debates and

I would like to suggest to the government that this facility be extended to the galleries so that those of the public who are interested in the affairs of parliament and in the government of this country may also enjoy the debates as they are carried on in both languages.
I should like at this time, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Queens-Lunenburg to renew our pledges of loyalty to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). My words are most inadequate to express to him our feelings for what he has done for my constituency, for Nova Scotia and for Canadians generally. His recent tour did much to strengthen the ties of friendship among the countries which he visited and in travelling throughout my riding I found that there could be no mistaking the great depth of feeling and admiration in which he is held by everyone.
I have the honour to represent the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg in Nova Scotia. It is a constituency that is bound on the east by the dual riding of Halifax and Colchester-Hants, on the north by the riding represented by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), Dibgy-Annapolis-Kings, on the west by Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and on the south by that mighty, moody, restless taskmaster, the Atlantic ocean.
My people in Queens county are primarily engaged in lumbering, farming, fishing and industry. They have one of the largest pulp and paper mills in Canada, located in Brooklyn, and certainly one of the most efficient. In Lunenburg county my people are engaged in farming with some lumbering and manufacturing industries, as well as both inshore and deepsea fishing operations. In this county my home town was founded in 1753 by thrifty, God-fearing Hanoverians, French and Swiss colonists. Lunenburg preserves today a quality and an atmosphere unique among towns in the maritimes. There is a quality of individualism about those people which extends throughout the length and breadth of my constituency.
When Queens-Lunenburg was settled there were the usual hardships which the colonists endured; occasional and bloodthirsty attacks were made on outlying farms by Micmac and Malecite Indians, and during the American revolutionary war the coastal towns of Liverpool and Lunenburg were frequently raided by ships from Salem and other east coast ports. In spite of those handicaps, however, our people progressed and the heritage of the original settlers has been cherished from generation to generation. Because of our geographic location our economy throughout the years has revolved around ships and the sea.

The Address-Mr. Crouse
In its wake the fishing industry has brought to my constituency a whole fleet of allied industries, all of which are in a healthy and expanding condition: marine engine manufacturers in Chester, Lunenburg, Bridgewater and Liverpool and builders of wooden ships of all sizes in Chester, Mahone Bay, Lunenburg, Dayspring and the Liverpool area. In addition to this, Liverpool and Lunenburg can boast of marine railways for the hauling of ships as well as adequate refitting yards to carry out necessary repairs, and during the past war those yards contributed to the war effort by suitably refitting naval vessels, minesweepers, corvettes and frigates.
I mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, because here is a constituency that has literally pulled itself up by its own bootstraps. Forced from the beginning to make their living from the soil or from the sea, there is no more rugged group of individuals in Canada than the good people of my riding. By their own efforts and with very little help they have maintained a fairly high level of employment throughout the years. This was accomplished by careful planning, saving, perseverance, diligence and hard work, and the same is true today.
We have heard since the beginning of this session about the unemployment problem that affects some parts of Canada and the insistent effort by members of the opposition to lay the unemployment problem at the feet of the government. We are all aware of the unemployment situation existing throughout Canada today and every responsible member of the house is kept constantly informed of conditions within his own riding. Unemployment is not something new. Recessions and unemployment go hand in hand, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) left no doubt about the inheritance of the government when he used these words on Monday, January 19, as found at page 35 of Hansard, as he looked across at the government benches, "those men who later could not see it when they were in the middle of it."
Yes, Mr. Speaker, in 1957 we were in the middle of our inherited recession. We took over a leaky ship of state and we immediately set to work to make our ship seaworthy. We are now on course and we are sailing steadily forward despite efforts by members of the opposition to rock the boat. Unemployment is not something that just happens by itself and it will not be cured by the foghorn-like bellowing we have experienced in the last few days from hon. members of the opposition and the C.C.F. The government has instituted a most effective program of winter work to cope with this situation but the two opposition parties have as many 66968-9-18J
criticisms of this program to relieve unemployment as there are dogfish on a summer trawl line and they are about as valuable.
Increased social and welfare benefits, as suggested by both opposition parties, are not the answer at the present time. Such programs only redistribute money. They do not create wealth. For the most part the people in my riding, who make their living from the sea and the soil and from lumbering, know that you can only share that which is first earned and the greater the earnings the greater the share for each person. They long ago learned that the only way their standard of living could be improved was by increasing production and sales, and their present standards were achieved by hard work and dedication to their tasks.
I believe the time has come for Canadians to stop and consider the foundations upon which this country's progress and the people's high living standards and the social security they now enjoy really rest. It was not socialism that built Canada's great cities, towns and villages. It was not state planning that directed the pioneers to explore and open up this great country or provide Canada with the manufacturing industries that give employment to many thousands of people. It was not government that brought the country's great resource industries into being. It was not officialdom that created an economy prosperous enough to provide such things as unemployment insurance, old age pensions and family allowances. No, Mr. Speaker, Canada's growth, prosperity and high living standards were built in a different way.
They developed because people were able to save with confidence, to invest freely, to take risks in new enterprises and to expect a reasonable reward for their initiative. These were the foundations upon which confederation was established and, while some of them lost money, while others were rewarded for their risk-taking, the greatest beneficiaries were the people of Canada themselves. They were provided with the goods and services they needed or wanted at prices that they were willing or able to pay. These prices were determined freely by bargaining between buyers and sellers in the open market place. I believe these basic truths are worth remembering today because the growth of Canada and the prosperity of Canadians in the future, certainly no less than in the past, depend upon such factors as incentive, savings and investment.
There is a dangerous trend evident in the thinking of many Canadians. This trend is fostered and abetted by socialist groups in Canada, not all of whom travel under the

The Address-Mr. Crouse label of the eight members in the far corner of this chamber. These socialists abhor the word "profit" ignoring the fact that when we do not have profits business and industry close down and we see loss of employment. Without profits less funds are available for expansion of existing industries and for the opening up of new industries. These are the two big sources for new jobs. Without profits less funds are available for the purchase of better tools, and in today's business world modernization is the key to success. The firm that cannot buy new tools cannot compete with those who do and goes out of business. Without profits there are no funds for new research or new product development and growth and expansion are stopped.
The plain truth is that profits create more jobs while losses create unemployment. If we are to move out of the present unemployment situation we must provide a healthy economic atmosphere in Canada for the free growth and expansion of our large and small business enterprises.
My home town of Lunenburg this year celebrates 206 years of free enterprise and progress. There is a business firm there named Zwicker and Company which has been active for 170 of those 206 years and their belief is that such a record would not have been possible under socialism, communism or any of the other isms except, of course, capitalism. This is the point I wish to prove and the belief to which I subscribe. In a growing nation with an expanding economy I believe that capitalism and free enterprise, if given an opportunity, can and will provide the answer to all our employment problems.
As I come from a maritime riding I should like to say a few words about shipbuilding, ship repairing, their allied industries and their importance to Canada. I am pleased to note in the speech from the throne that an amendment will be presented to the Canada Shipping Act. Canadian shipyards are widely separated geographically. To take care of the needs of international sea transport and the coasting trade, shipyards are required in the maritimes, the St. Lawrence area, on the great lakes and the Pacific coast of Canada. In fact, fully integrated organizations of design and technical forces and skilled shipyard personnel and facilities must be maintained in four separate and distinct areas for commercial purposes as well as for reasons of national security.
Shipyards and navies go together. The Royal Canadian Navy cannot function without shipyards in Canada to service and repair its ships and to build new ones as required. It must also have the assurance that shipyards will be available and ready to repair major

damages that its ships may suffer in the event of war. In addition, facilities must be available for servicing Canada's inland and coastal fleets, the government's own service vessels and foreign vessels calling at Canadian ports.
The level of employment in the shipbuilding industry is steadily dropping and unless positive steps are taken it will continue to decline. At the peak of the naval building program more than 15,500 men were working in the shipyards. In October of this year employment had dropped to slightly over 10,000, the lowest figure since 1950 when the naval rebuilding program was first started. Of the fourteen destroyer escort vessels in that program, nine have been commissioned and are in service with the Royal Canadian Navy. The remaining ships will be completed and commissioned some time this year. This shipbuilding program enabled shipyards in the four strategic areas of Canada to build up competent teams of skilled workers. The completed ships have undergone tests and their performance has exceeded the expectations of their designers and builders.
They have drawn praise from our friends and allies the British, Swedes and Norwegians. The shipyard teams, with their special skills to build these fine ships, are now being rapidly disbanded as a result of the slowdown in naval shipbuilding. It is true that this condition has been alleviated to some extent by shipbuilding orders placed by the Department of Transport. While this work has been helpful, it is not sufficient to keep a reasonable proportion of our yards busy.
Our Canadian way of life, with its high wage structures, results in Canadian shipbuilding prices being considerably higher than those applying in Japan, Germany, Great Britain and other competitive shipbuilding nations. Since Canadian shipyards cannot match competitive costs, orders for export shipbuilding are out of the question. Few orders can be expected from Canadian ocean ship operators who feel they cannot add to the relatively high operating costs the first cost of building their ships in Canada unless some special incentive is offered to offset the high first cost. The only remaining potential source of commercial orders is the building and repairing of ships for the Canadian coasting trade and the fishing industry.
In the event that the recommendations to the royal commission on the coasting trade are looked upon with favour by the government, this source of business will disappear entirely. Despite the predictions that Canadian flag shipping in the coasting trade will end when the useful life of the existing fleet is terminated and its place taken by

ships built and registered in the United Kingdom, the royal commission took the view that the marine industry in Canada should be dispensed with rather than helped. The fate of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, according to the royal commission, is to become little more than a repair industry. This, Mr. Speaker, is dangerous thinking. Most trading nations of the world have recognized the need to foster the development of their shipping and shipbuilding industries, and they have adopted policies of one form or another to encourage their maintenance.
The United States has the most liberal policy of all nations for aiding its marine industries, and I am not thinking of "Liberal" in the sense that the opposition may be thinking of it. From as far back as 1817 United States coastwise trade has been reserved by statute to vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by United States citizens. This assistance takes the form of cargo preference provisions, tax benefits, mortgage aid and trade-in allowances. All of these things have served to keep a large tonnage of United States merchant ships on ocean trade which otherwise would have disappeared. A study of other major shipping nations, including the United Kingdom, will show that they have found it necessary to grant some form of assistance, financial or otherwise, to maintain their fleets and to compete in the highly competitive field of international shipping.
I do not suggest that this government propose a program of aid as extensive as that being carried out by the people of the United States. However, I do believe we should have a well defined national policy of aids, similar to those adopted by other large shipping and exporting nations, which would create the proper economic climate in which our shipyards could secure orders. I believe a shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry in Canada, with adequate continuing production, is an indispensable need in a troubled world. Canada and Canadians cannot afford to allow their shipyards to become progressively less busy until they disappear. Without some measure of aid the Canadian shipbuilding industry will gradually disappear and Canada will have lost an essential instrument of defence.
Speaking of defence, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of another important point which I would like to bring to the attention of this government. The speech from the throne makes reference to NATO in these words:
In concert with its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada has reaffirmed its determination to maintain and improve the power of the alliance as a deterrent against aggression.
The Address-Mr. Crouse
We are all aware today of the great expense involved in maintaining the early warning radar bases in the northern parts of Canada and of the great emphasis placed upon the government's decision regarding the CF-105 and its alternative the American-made Bomarc missile. I do not wish to minimize the importance of these decisions, but wish to point out that all of them are based on the theory that Canada and the United States only need defence on a north and south basis. What about our east and our west coasts. Canada is touched by the sea on both the east and west coasts. The great oceans of the world are essential to the economic well-being of our country in that they produce a yearly harvest of fish and carry our commerce to the four corners of the world. They are, therefore, vital to our continued existence as a free and civilized nation.
These same great oceans, however, also shelter within their depths the greatest threat to the security of this country that we have ever been called upon to face. This menace is the submarine, a sinister black shape, lethal, invisible, and stalking its prey from under the sea. Today, the Russian undersea fleet numbers between 500 and 600 submarines. This total is increasing steadily under the impetus of a huge naval building program. While some of these submarines may be obsolete it is known that following the armistice the Russians acquired several of the most advanced types of German U-boats developed in the late stages of the war.
The harnessing of atomic power has seen its first application to ship propulsion in the submarine, and has immediately resulted in higher speeds, especially when submerged, and in the capability of remaining under the surface for almost indefinite periods. The submarine was always a formidable weapon of war, and it would now appear to have acquired a measure of superiority over its enemies which makes it extremely difficult to combat. In addition, when you add to its already greatly increased efficiency the capability of launching ballistic and guided missiles, not only from the surface but from submerged positions as well, the submarine becomes a most dangerous foe.
Let us analyse this threat to Canada. We have heard discussions of this subject. We have heard questions asked about where ballistic missile bases would be placed in Canada. We place a great deal of importance on this problem. The modern submarine can be employed as a commerce raider attacking merchant ships singly or in convoy, as a minelayer or as a missile launching platform. As a minelayer it is quite capable of entering
270	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crouse a port, laying mines and leaving the area without anyone knowing that it has done its work. It is as a guided missile launcher that the submarine poses its greatest threat. From a position off either of Canada's three great coastlines, the Atlantic, Pacific or Arctic, which are approximately 60,000 miles long, a missile-equipped submarine could send its death-dealing projectile far into the heart of this country. Whole cities, huge industrial areas, and many of our most important defence installations lie within range of these invisible foes. One missile, fitted with a nuclear warhead, is enough to destroy any one of these areas.
Any aggressor nation planning an atomic war could not find a more suitable weapon than the modern missile-firing submarine. Under international law and because of its own invisibility such a submarine can roam the oceans of the world at will. It can carry out surveys-believe me they are carrying out surveys, for I am in the fishing industry and receive reports from my captains that these submarines of unknown origin are operating on the Atlantic ocean, some of them fairly close to the fishing banks that lie off the east coast. As I said, it can carry out surveys and compile the charts that are necessary to determine the exact position from which to launch an attack, so the danger and the threat are obvious. It is an extremely difficult and tremendous task, requiring large numbers of men and materials, to counter this threat.
However, it must be done; and with the full support of the people of Canada and our allies of other NATO nations, it can be done. The prize in any future war will not be Europe with its overcrowded cities, but Canada with its unlimited resources and its room to expand. Here then is a challenge to the people of this country and to the government to take immediate steps to increase our own submarine fleet. In this way we could demonstrate that any attack against us would be doomed to failure and also that we possess the means, if necessary, to counterattack.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to say a few words about our fishing industry. During the past year there has been a marked shortage of groundfish on the Atlantic coast. When I spoke of groundfish, my seatmate asked if that was something similar to hamburger. I should therefore like to explain, to those who are not familiar with this term, that groundfish is not hamburger made out of fish. The term applies to those fish which are caught in prolific quantities off the east coast and which consist mainly of cod, haddock, pollock, hake, cusk, and rosefish, to name some of the leading
[Mr. Crouse.J

varieties. As I say, during the past year there has been a marked shortage of groundfish on the Atlantic coast, with exceptional declines shown in the landings of cod and haddock, with catches of both species being down 18 per cent and 23 per cent respectively as compared with last year. This shortage has resulted in a staple market for fresh and frozen fish and has improved the prices paid to the primary producer. In fact, there has never before been a time in Canada's history when prices paid to the primary producer, the fisherman, were as high as they are today under the Conservative government.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) is present with us this afternoon for he is also to be complimented on the implementation of the new fresh fish inspection program which will become effective in April. This program will mean greater control over the quality of fish packaged by the many shore processing plants throughout the maritimes, and will enable fishermen who land a high quality product properly cleaned and iced to receive a better price for their catch, as the emphasis is now on quality. This emphasis has made the fisherman realize he is handling a food product, and this year, for the first time in Canada's history, fresh and frozen fish will be labelled "government inspected'' or "Processed under government supervision". The implementation of this program should provide a boost for fishery products generally, for the Canadian housewife will be able to buy fish so labelled, with every confidence that she is getting the finest product available.
In the salt fish industry, however, there is a different story, with some troublesome marketing problems. Our salt fish exporters have had a favourable market in the Dominican Republic. However, this republic has a very unfavourable trade balance with Canada, and we know what that means. We have heard a good bit of comment about unfavourable trade balances. In 1957 they imported from Canada goods to the value of $5 million, and their exports to Canada had a value of only $1.3 million. The prosperity of the Dominican Republic depends upon agriculture, with sugar being their chief crop. Canada has not imported any raw sugar from the Dominican Republic since 1955, and the amount imported at that time was only 12,850 tons. The reason for this situation is that Canada extends a tariff preference on the raw sugar imports from commonwealth countries of $1 per 100 pounds, which tariff discriminates against non-commonwealth sugar producing countries such as the Dominican Republic. The inequity of this situation

is that Great Britain extends a lower preference on commonwealth raw sugar than does Canada, and Britain now imports the bulk of its sugar from the Dominican Republic.
On the other hand, Canadian fish exports to the Dominican Republic amount to about $1.5 million a year, and practically all of this fish consists of dried salt pollock, hake and bloaters. In fact, it is the most important single market for these products, taking over 50 per cent of the annual output of Nova Scotia's fishermen. It can readily be seen that this market constitutes an important source of income for a great number of our fishermen, particularly in western Nova Scotia.
Recently a Norwegian trade mission was in the Dominican Republic with a view to fostering greater trade between Norway and the republic. Should the republic take steps to divert its purchases of these fishery products to Norway, Mr. Speaker, you can well imagine the impact this action could have on this particular segment of our Nova Scotia fishing industry. Frankly, I know of no alternative market because, apart from British Guiana, salted pollock and hake are not preferred over salted cod in the Caribbean countries. Quite apart from the fact that sales to British Guiana could not be increased to a point of absorbing the surplus which would result through the loss of the Dominican Republic market, the republic invariably pays higher prices for these products.
In view of the importance of this matter, I would request that the government review Canada's tariff preferences on raw sugar with a view to lessening the present discrimination against sugar imports from these noncommonwealth countries which are the most important salt fish markets for our maritime exporters. For the information of the house, I should like to point out that we sell more salt fish to non-commonwealth countries than we sell to commonwealth countries, and that existing tariff preferences to these commonwealth countries in the Caribbean are detrimental to our fishermen and work a hardship on the industry.
In the fresh fish industry the government's present assistance policy of $160 per gross ton on ships up to 65 feet in length has been of material help to many fishermen who operate small boats. However, experience has proved that on a year-round basis these small draggers cannot be operated economically. They are handicapped from December through to the following March by high winds and winter weather and consequently cannot operate, while they are faced with fixed charges such as radar rentals, radio telephone rentals
The Address-Mr. Crouse and insurance which constantly add to their expense and decrease their earnings.
I believe the time has arrived to encourage the building of larger boats which can fish twelve months of the year and can utilize the resources of our great offshore banks. Canada today is lagging behind some other countries in modernizing her fishing fleet, particularly trawlers; and any changes made in government policy should be with a view to assisting and encouraging the fishing industry to acquire the most modern implements of production. In my opinion, this step is absolutely necessary if our Canadian industry is to compete successfully in the catching of fish and to keep pace with these other producing countries. I believe this step is necessary if we are properly to expand and develop markets on this continent in the most economical way and if we are to operate efficiently and maintain full employment in the industry. I believe this step is also necessary if our processing plants are to have an adequate year-round supply of quality fish. To this end more encouragement should be given to the building up of a modern fleet of large trawlers which are the only productive units capable of keeping an adequate supply of fish on the market every month of the year.
With these objectives in mind I respectfully suggest that the government give consideration to the building of a modern fleet by instituting a system of investment allowances as is now being done in the United Kingdom. These increased depreciation allowances should run as high as 65 per cent and should apply on all ships built in Canadian yards. To guarantee the expansion of the fleet, the amount accumulated by these allowances should be made to apply toward the construction of new fishing draggers. In addition to this, I believe the present assistance plan offered by the government should be increased, as the cost of ship construction has advanced materially in recent years.
Of further and final interest to the fishermen of my riding is the present regulation which requires large Canadian trawlers to fish outside the 12 mile limit, while all trawlers, regardless of size, of any other nation are permitted to fish within three miles of our shores. I believe it is time this regulation was revoked, for it is a ridiculous situation which permits foreign trawlers to fish within three miles of our shores while it is illegal for some of our Canadian trawlers to fish within 12 miles of our coast. I realize that it is the desire of the Canadian government to bring about an international agreement on a 12 mile fishing limit, but charity begins at home, and until such time as this

The Address-Mr. Howard can be accomplished, this discrimination against our own larger trawlers should be removed. I firmly believe that implementation of these recommendations would be a great forward step for the Canadian Atlantic coast fishing industry and greatly improve working conditions for these hardy men who make their living on the sea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would be appreciated by the chair if hon. members would try as far as possible not to read every word of their speeches. I am not implying that this was done by the last speaker, because he certainly did not do so, but it is preferable that hon. members should deliver their speeches rather than read them. The co-operation of hon. members in this respect will be appreciated.


Frank Howard: I should like first of all to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Crouse) who has just completed what I consider to be an excellent analysis of the problems of the fishermen on the Atlantic coast, and I hope that his representations with respect to year round fishing and with respect to the elimination of the foolish 12-mile and 3-mile limit business will eventually lead to action. I cannot, of course, extend any such remarks to him with respect to what the capitalist system can do and what it is good for; we all know that he and I disagree on that.
It appears to be a coincidence that today, as on the last occasion when I rose to take part in the debate on the address, the only cabinet minister present in the house should be the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean). I hope that he and I are not going to develop this into a regular practice; the comments I may have to make about fishing will be reserved for another time when I am able to deal with this subject more specifically.
It is in no perfunctory way that I wish, in addition, to extend my congratulations to the hon. and attractive member for Gren-ville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) on her election to this house. It has always been my thought that there are far too few women who participate in politics; certainly far too few who have the privilege of being elected either to this house or to the provincial legislatures or to the municipal councils. I am sure that if we had more people in our public life possessing that peculiarly womanly trait of being able to get to the heart of a problem and then to suggest a solution, we would probably have much more sense arising out of the legislation we make. I say this in a general way, because, naturally, all members of the hon. lady's sex are not endowed with the same measure of ability. I wish


her well, and I hope that she along with her two colleagues, the other two lady members, will have some influence in the party caucus and bring some sense and logic to the decisions of this government, because certainly if there ever was a government which needed sense and logic brought to its attention, and influence imposed upon it, it is this one.
It is fitting that the opening of this session should take place in the month of January, because if I recall accurately what little knowledge I have of Roman mythology there was a Roman god called Janus after whom this month was named and this government, like Janus, has two faces, one of which it presents to the general public at election time, on television broadcasts and at social events. This is the face of help, the face of assistance, the face of promise. But it wears its other face when action is desired, whenever action is necessary as far as legislation is concerned.
Some of the backbenchers of the Conservative party who have taken part in this debate appear to have concentrated their attention on one small sentence in the speech from the throne. They appear to have been blinded by a mere 20 words in that speech and to have forgotten all the other matters which were omitted from it. The fascination and charm exercised by that one sentence have resulted in far too much buttering up of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)- far too many laudatory remarks about the government, references to individuals being the greatest Canadians who ever lived, and so on-the hope being that as a result some of them would be among those chosen few who would end up by being parliamentary secretaries.
Mr. Pallet!: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now making an allegation about the motives of other hon. members who have spoken, and I suggest it would be proper for him to withdraw that remark.


Frank Howard: I thank the hon. member for having raised whatever he did raise.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that apart from this-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: I would remind the hon. gentleman down there that he is not sitting in the chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind hon. members that if they wish to ask questions while another hon. member has the floor they must first obtain his permission. They may then ask the question. However, hon. members are not permitted to interrupt a speaker.

Mr. Pallet!: I notice that another hon. member was at the side of the chair speaking to you during the time I rose. I rose, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Did you mention that you were raising a point of order? An hon. member must mention that he wishes to raise a point of order.


Mr. Palleil:: The point of order was this: the hon. member for Skeena referred in his remarks to backbenchers on the government side complimenting ministers on the excellent work they were doing with a view to obtaining promotion within the government ranks, and I suggest to you that by that reference he is making an imputation of motives which is quite improper and which should be withdrawn.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary ways of doing business have many variations and some of us at one time or another may have different points of view as to what is and what is not correct. We tend to learn as time goes by.
Mr. Pallet!: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker


Frank Howard: I assume you are considering the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Beauchesne's 3rd edition, at page 106, contains article 256, which reads as follows:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
I believe in this case it can hardly be implied that the compliments which some of the hon. members have paid to the Prime Minister and some other hon. members can necessarily be intended as meaning hon. members are doing this for ulterior motives. It is not the opinion of the chair that we can call the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) out of order for the actual remarks which he has made. However, it would be appreciated by the chair if at all times the hon. members in their speeches refrained from direct attack upon other hon. members in this house in unparliamentary style.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the manner in which this house over the years has developed its systems of conducting business would appear to require some changes. I intend to suggest some changes that should be made without in any way implying that there is any parliamentary wrong being done. Originally under this parliamentary system we had what is known as responsible government; that is,
The Address-Mr. Howard a government which was supposed to be responsible to parliament. Gradually that has been developed to the point where we now have parliament responsible to the government and not the other way around as it should be.
We have 23 hon. members of this house who are members of the cabinet and who in effect run practically every phase of our parliamentary discussion, debates and decisions. I do not think we can assume for a moment that in every government the members of that government represent the brightest people in the House of Commons because, as we know, to a degree political consideration is given to the selection of cabinet ministers in order that they may be representative of provinces across the nation.
In think we can offer a number of suggestions for the operation of this house in the consideration of its business which would give the opportunity to parliament to draw upon the best brains in the house and, give an opportunity for members to freely express their ideas and to vote freely on individual matters. In the first instance I feel there are far too many things that are classified as being want of confidence or indicating a lack of confidence in the government. If we were to confine what is or what is not a want of confidence to the motion we are now considering, to the budget debate and to the six supply motions there would be adequate opportunity for those in opposition to express by amendment their feelings with respect to what they feel the government has failed to do and in what this house should express its confidence.
When it comes to legislation and considering the laws that are to be applied to the Canadian people these, I think, should be debated freely and the votes taken on them should be allowed to be free votes so there would be provided freedom for the crossing of party lines. In that way individual government backbenchers would not feel required to support a piece of legislation merely because it had been introduced by a cabinet minister belonging to their own party.
I feel there should be far more reference of legislation to committees of the house where also free discussion and free votes should be allowed and dictation by party not imposed on members participating in the sittings of the committee. In addition, this would allow any interested citizen of Canada who cannot now appear before parliament itself the opportunity of appearing before the committee to express his ideas and thoughts on the legislation. As a result of all this I am sure we would be able to develop and enact legislation which would be to a far

The Address-Mr. Howard greater extent than is now possible legislation enacted in the interests of the Canadian people based upon the freely allowed expression of opinion and free votes of hon. members of this House of Commons.
The question of private members' bills must also be considered in a discussion of this kind. We have notification of a number of such bills on the order paper at this time. These private members' bills are representative of each political philosophy that exists in the house. I hope that this session we will not follow the practice we have in past sessions of talking out private members' bills and not allowing the house the opportunity of voting "Yes" or "No" on the idea embodied in the bills drafted by private members. We should be sufficiently conscientious to allow votes to be taken on these bills which again should be referred to standing committees for full discussion.
Motions fall into the same category as do private bills as being an expression of opinion on the part of an hon. member of this house and a free vote should be taken on the motions introduced by individual private members. These should not be talked out. The government that now controls the operation of parliament should either publicly, by saying so in the house or privately in the secret back room where they hold caucuses, reach the decision to allow this type of free expression to take place. A government sponsored bill which met amendment in committee stage or which even met defeat by free vote of hon. members of this house would not curtail the length of time the government would have in office. The government would not need to be afraid of having to call a new election nor would the government be defeated every time a piece of legislation was freely voted upon.
There are probably two bad features to the proposals I have advanced, neither one of which in my opinion is sufficiently valid to negate my proposals. One such feature is that if these proposals were put into effect they would represent an invasion of the present cabinet control over our parliamentary functions and, secondly, the adoption of the proposals would upset ministerial ego.
I believe it was two days ago that an announcement was made by a very large private corporation in this nation, namely the Aluminum Company of Canada, to the effect that it was not going to participate in selling for export to China an order for 2,000 long tons of aluminum. A question about this matter was put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and he replied to it. The answer is to be found in yesterday's Hansard. It is to the effect that as far as he

knows no outside or foreign influence has been exerted upon the Aluminum Company of Canada in deciding whether they would sell this particular block of aluminum to China. I am going to suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not make an extensive enough investigation, or he has been ill-informed about this matter. I think it is quite evident that the Aluminum Company of Canada has certainly been dictated to by forces outside of this nation in its decision not to sell this particular amount of aluminum.
Alcan made reference to the fact that the decision had been made because it might lose some of its present customers if it sold to China. Let us look and see what nations are considered to be some of its customers. One of the largest purchasers of aluminum in Canada is in the United Kingdom. In the 11-month period ended November of last year we sold $63,500,000 worth of aluminum ingots to the United Kingdom, and we ask, was it United Kingdom influence, was it the United Kingdom market that Alcan was afraid they might lose if they sold aluminum to a country under communist domination? I think we can be fairly certain that since the United Kingdom has extended diplomatic recognition to China it would not declare that if Alcan sold aluminum to China it would lose any of its markets in the United Kingdom. We also know that the United Kingdom imported aluminum from Russia, another communist country, at a price which was lower than that at which Alcan sells aluminum. Therefore, the concern of the United Kingdom is not so much that of buying from Alcan or from anybody else but in buying where they can get the best possible price.
West Germany bought $12,500,000 worth of aluminum during the same period of time, which is a minor amount compared with that bought by the United Kingdom and by the United States. United States purchases amounted to $82,200,000 during that same period. The United States and the United Kingdom are by far the two largest purchasers of aluminum from the Aluminum Company of Canada. Their purchases amounted to something in the neighbourhood of 85 per cent or better of the exports of aluminum from Canada. But we must think in terms of the United States as to whether or not that was the influential body outside of Canada that had an effect upon Alcan in its decision not to sell.
Let us look and see who are on the board of directors of this company which claims to have no ties with the Aluminum Company of America. We find that Aluminum Limited, the holding company, owns the Aluminum Company of Canada. One-half of the board

of directors consists of American citizens and have their addresses listed in such places as Westport, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Boston, Washington and New York. Incidentally, there is another chap on the board who is well-known to Canadian parliamentary life, namely the Right Hon. C. D. Howe. Therefore, certainly, United States influence has been used against Alcan. Whether it be economic or political intimidation, that is another matter but in essence it was United States influence which disallowed this potential sale of aluminum to another country. That, of course, was admitted by officials of the Aluminum Company of Canada, as reported in yesterday morning's Globe and Mail. Mr. Duncan Campbell, the spokesman for Alcan, said, and I quote:
You know what the attitude of Americans is on sales to Red China.
He was obviously indicating that it was United States interference in one form or another that prevented the Canadian company from selling this particular commodity to another country at a time when we know how much we need to expand our exports for a variety of reasons.
Let us analyse what this potential sale would have meant had it been consummated. There is first the possibility of expanding our markets for aluminum which, as we know, has been declining over the past number of months to the point, incidentally, where the Aluminum Company of Canada is now operating at about 65 per cent of capacity. There is the question of markets and the effect the sale would have had upon employment in the aluminum smelters in Canada which have been slowly, month by month, laying off production employees. That one sale would have meant approximately $1 million, or the equal of the total sales we have made during the past year to India and to Hong Kong. It would have amounted to three times what they have sold to New Zealand in that year and five times what they sold to the Argentine. It would have almost equalled what we sold to South Africa and would have compared favourably with what we have sold to other countries during the past year.
We have the question of employment to consider. Within the last year and a half the Aluminum Company of Canada has been following a policy of curtailment of production, and a discontinuance of plant expansion, all of which is connected with their laying off of employees, thereby adding to the unemployed rolls of our nation. In Kitimat, which is in the constituency which I have the privilege to represent here, about a year and a half ago the Aluminum Company of Canada suddenly overnight decided that they were not going to proceed with any further
The Address-Mr. Howard expansion and laid off more than 1,500 construction employees, thereby wreaking havoc upon those construction workers and their families, many of whom had moved to Kitimat because the Aluminum Company of Canada told them that it was a 10-year project and said so just a few months before they laid them off. There has been a steady reduction in production, and there was a recent announcement that another 10 per cent reduction in production by the Aluminum Company would take place. This has had an effect in Kitimat, Arvida and Isle Maligne and throughout the Alcan empire. Approximately 700 employees are being affected by this recent reduction.
Apart from the economic results that that sale would have had on Canada, apart from the market question, apart from its effect upon employment, there is another phase which we should consider also, namely the political results. Some time ago this government saw fit to send out trade commissioners from Hong Kong into the mainland of China to discover what the trading potentials were or what markets were there. Since the government has said over the past months that it is concerned with expanding trade it should also look at this from the point of view of its political impact on the world. We know that Russia has been able in the past year to offer aluminum on the world market at prices lower than those at which the Aluminum Company of Canada, Alcoa, Reynolds and others are selling aluminum. We also know that Russia did not offer to sell aluminum to China at those prices. I am sure we can sense the division in the unity which has existed between the Soviet union and China and which, if present developments continue, will divide those two nations politically even more.
Apart from the immediate market question, apart from the immediate employment picture, here was an opportunity for the Aluminum Company of Canada to do something on behalf of world peace by assisting in widening the division between the Soviet union and China and attempting to draw the Chinese nation closer to the western world politically if that nation has not gone too far the other way. It is certainly one aspect which should have been taken into consideration.
Yesterday I posed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which was not answered because of a statement by the Speaker that it probably was not the time and place to pose such an all-embracing question, but I shall ask it again. Not only from this decision of the Aluminum Company but from decisions of other private corporations in Canada, some of whom are direct subsidiaries of United States corporations, it
276	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Howard appears that they are unable, unwilling or afraid to make sales to certain countries. In this case the Aluminum Company of Canada was afraid for one reason or another or there was intimidation of some kind used which made them decide not to sell aluminum to China.
Having in mind the words and phrases spilled all over the country by the government about wanting to expand trade it would appear that there is ample room among the various agencies of government for the establishment of an export or import-export board, whatever you want to call it, part of whose function would be to purchase from the company concerned and make the sale to the country wanting to buy the aluminum. If we had had such a board it certainly could have played a part in the situation which developed the other day with respect to the Aluminum Company and the sale to China. Certainly as a government agency established by the authority of parliament and representing the views of the Canadian people it would have been in a position to take the Aluminum Company of Canada off the hook, having in mind that company's fears of some sort of retaliation against it by United States interests if it should make this sale. I certainly hope that the time will come when we will have such a board or agency which, in addition to other questions of trade, will be able to deal with similar situations should they arise in the future in order to ensure that our markets are expanded, that employment possibilities are increased in Canada and perhaps assist in the political sphere by promoting a somewhat more sensible approach among nations towards the common goal of world peace.
I should like to say a few words about an important question that was debated at some length in the first session I was here, 1957, was debated again in the last session, and which appears to be going to receive adequate discussion and debate this session. I made some slight reference to unemployment in discussing the question of the Aluminum Company of Canada and the proposed sale to China. We have listened to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) on a number of occasions, and on each occasion it has seemed to me that these gentlemen appear to be more concerned with statistics than they are with people. Every time the Minister of Labour has an opportunity to discuss unemployment he mentions statistics. He does not mention the impact that unemployment has on people. He does not mention the sorrow and suffering of individual families. I think the Minister of Labour has

probably been seduced by the statistics compiled for him and has forgotten entirely the unemployed people who are involved in the compilation of such statistics. I do not want to get into the realm of the different sets of figures used by the minister and others and the question of which set is correct and which is not, which one is incomplete because it does not contain certain types of workers and which one is more than complete because it contains people who are not unemployed. By doing so I would be allowing myself to become involved in figures in the same way as the Minister of Labour who is concerned solely with what the graphs show and forgets entirely that it is men and women who are affected.
In Vancouver, for instance, there are approximately 11,000 to 12,000 unemployed people at the moment who cannot qualify for unemployment insurance because they were not even able to get sufficient work during the past year to qualify for the benefits paid. Because of the failure of the government at the last session to carry out its throne speech promises-never mind its election promises-we have these 11,000 to 12,000 people in Vancouver who could not secure enough work in the last year to accumulate enough contributions even to draw the pitifully small amount paid by way of unemployment insurance.
I grew up in Vancouver around 1937 and for the first time that I can remember there are bread lines and soup kitchens. To my personal knowledge this condition has not existed for many years. The fact that there are bread lines and soup kitchens in Vancouver is certainly not the fault of the hundreds of people who have to stand and wait for hours for a sandwich that some charitable organization is able to provide. It is certainly not their fault that they do not have sufficient money unless they had money and spent their savings hoping that prosperity was just around the corner, in accordance with the Prime Minister's foolish suggestion that we should spend our way to prosperity.
The Minister of Labour forgets or maybe he does not even know of the situation I encountered personally in Prince George last fall. Prince George is in the constituency of my neighbour and friend from Cariboo. It is the central location for employment in the lumbering, construction and logging industries for the entire north central portion of British Columbia. Many loggers, sawmill workers and construction workers go to Prince George in the hope of finding employment there or being sent to a job somewhere out of the city.

In the latter part of October I was in Prince George for a few days and I met two friends of mine I had known in the logging industry and with whom I had worked. They had been sleeping in parked cars in parking lots for a whole week because they could not get work, there was no place for them to stay and they had not had sufficient work last summer to entitle them to unemployment insurance benefits. There was no charitable organization there to provide even a soup kitchen or bread line.
It is that sort of thing that goes into making up these statistics. It would do the Minister of Labour and the rest of his colleagues in the cabinet, who have been so blinded by this graph they have been talking about, a lot of good to go out and stand in a breadline once in a while.


William Heward Grafftey: Have you tried it?


Frank Howard: They should sleep in a parked car as these two lads I know had to do in Prince George.


William Heward Grafftey: Have you tried it?


Frank Howard: Let the hon. member ask his question in the proper way instead of sitting down on his fanny and yapping.
This government has to realize the human suffering that is involved in these statistics. They no longer ought to be concerned with the Prime Minister's pre-election statements, which meant nothing apparently at that time, because the actions of the government do not bear them out.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having given me an indication that my time is running out. I had one or two other comments I wanted to make, but perhaps another occasion will arise when I shall be able to make them.


Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: 
An hon. Member:: I thought there were 50.


Robert Carman Coates: No matter how many it is we would never be able to find out. We have six or seven hon. members in the opposition who get up on their feet and criticize this government. What about the rest of them? We find they are still the same old trained seals they were when they were in the government. There is no difference now. They never say anything about the government of this country. In order for the government to be efficient in carrying out the will of the people it must have a two-fisted, hard-fighting and hard-working opposition. This is the government of this nation. How can six or seven men stand up against any government? They cannot do it.
What did we hear last year from the opposition? A few of them rose to their feet groaning and whining about committee work. "We cannot be here and there at the same time," they said. Why? Simply because six or seven men were running the opposition and doing all the work and because they still refuse to assign work to the backbenchers in their party. They never gave them anything to do when that party formed the government and now they do not let them contribute to a constructive, active opposition party. I believe every man in opposition should rise to his feet and fight and I do not hesitate to say that if I were in opposition I should be happy to do it.


Mr. Habel:: You soon will be.


Robert Carman Coates: Oh, don't you worry about it, my friend. If you keep on the way you are behaving you will always sit on that side of the house. The only difference will be that your numbers will diminish and you deserve that.
It is not difficult to anticipate what we are going to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite in the next election campaign. They will go


about the country stating that they need more members in the opposition. The opposition does not need more members. They need only to put to work the members they have. In my view they are not utilizing the talents of the members they do have over there. They kept the backbenchers in their seats for 20 years without doing anything and now when they should be participating actively in the affairs of this country the backbenchers do not know how to get out of their seats.


Mr. Deschaielels:: What about parliamentary assistants?


Robert Carman Coates: Do not worry about them, my friend. It is needless for you to worry about parliamentary assistants because you will probably always sit on that side of the house if indeed you stick around. But if you continue to sit in your seat the way you always have, you will not be around too long, I can assure you of that.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: If I ever decide to deal with you, you will have cause for regret.


Robert Carman Coates: This, Mr. Speaker, is the type of opposition we have. Most of them cannot even get out of their seats when they speak. They have to sit down and talk to us. When you speak in this house you are supposed to stand up in your place.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience in listening to my remarks. There are many other matters I should like to call to the attention of this house but I realize I shall have later opportunities to do so.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the motion to adopt the speech from the throne. May I also say it is a pleasure to be back in this chamber presided over so pleasantly by a witty and able speaker.
Since I was in this house last, I have spent considerable time in my riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and covered most of that quite extensive district. I was as far north as Nain and in one respect the far north was better than the southern districts for the fishery was better than average in northern Labrador while it was a total failure elsewhere. Unfortunately there are comparatively few fishermen in this area, the great bulk of them being on the island of Newfoundland where the fishery was very poor.
There is one point I should like to mention in this respect. There is a small but locally important sea trout fishery in this area. I am told that the smoked sea trout from Nain is one of the great delicacies in food.

Unfortunately there have been difficulties in transportation. Perhaps if the C.N.R. boat which operates in these waters had a small refrigeration unit on board it might be possible to ship more of the fish to Goose Bay where it should find a ready market. Goose Bay, as hon. gentlemen know, is the site of a large and famous airport and is relatively populous.
The principal needs of southern Labrador from the federal standpoint are still communications and marine works. Some wharves and slipways are needed and air strips are badly required among other places at Cartwright, Port Hope, Simpson and Hopedale. The provincial department of highways have constructed two air strips at Nain and North West River and some further work may be needed, particularly on the latter. An air strip is also being constructed in St. Anthony by the provincial department of highways. These air strips are designed to fill the great need which exists during the period of freeze-up and break-up.
The provincial department of health operates planes for the Grenfell mission. These planes operate on floats in summer and skis in winter. But there are the periods of freeze-up and break-up, when there is too much ice and slob for floats and not enough firm ice for skis, when these planes are grounded. During these periods air strips are invaluable in these northern areas where the plane is often the instrument of life. During the fall before last eleven people died in Nain because the plane could not land with medical aid. More air strips are required to prevent recurrence of such tragedies.
Another need is for additional radio telephones. Progress has been made in this respect but there are still places which are completely isolated when winter locks up the Labrador. Small radio telephone sets can summon a doctor in time of need.
At the present time the C.B.C. operates a television station at Goose Bay but it is of low power and some increase is desirable to assure better reception at North West River some 16 miles away. The R.C.A.F. operates a radio station and within its limits gives good service. There is some desire for the C.B.C. to operate a radio station giving a broader coverage. A radio station in the St. Anthony and Battle Harbour areas to serve the Labrador is also desirable and I trust this matter will receive sympathetic attention.
However, the principal matter which I wish to stress in these remarks is the serious situation in which our fishermen find themselves.
A large proportion of the fishermen of Newfoundland live in my constituency and I might say that what applies to them applies
The Address-Mr. Granger generally throughout the province. The cod fishery is still the basic industry of our province. It is the historic industry of Newfoundland and it has had historic problems. But these problems were aggravated last year when economic disaster struck and the fishery failed. There were just no fish. With the almost sole exception of northern Labrador the fishery was practically a total failure. This was certainly true of the northeast coast much of which I visited personally. I travelled from place to place where the total catch was but a fraction of what it usually is and when some fish did appear there was no bait. This was doubly devastating. As there was no alternative employment the result was inevitable. Hardship and want occurred and this was followed by the toughest winter that many fine, independent fishermen have experienced for many years and this, of course, through no fault of their own.
The inevitable plight of Newfoundland fishermen was, of course, foreseen.
On October 21, 1958, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) as follows:
I have recently returned from a visit to my constituency where I have found that the failure of the cod fishery which is the mainstay of more than half the population of the northeast coast of Newfoundland is of even more serious proportions than earlier reports had led me to expect.
I should estimate that, because the fish were scarce and because bait was even scarcer, up to two-thids of the full-time fishermen will not have enough stamps to entitle them to unemployment insurance which alone saved a serious situation last winter.
In a normal year, even with a failure of the fishery, many of the fishermen would be able to supplement their incomes with earnings from work in the woods, but owing to the recession in the pulp and paper industry, there is little or no woods work in most areas in Newfoundland.
It is no exaggeration to say that half the fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland will be forced to go on relief in the coming winter unless action is taken by the federal government to treat this failure of the cod fishery as an emergency situation calling for action similar to that taken by the government to assist the prairie grain farmers who experienced a crop failure this year that is certainly no more serious for them than the "crop failure" in the cod fishery is to the fishermen of Newfoundland.
You will recall that on August 30 when you announced the intention of the government to ask parliament to vote $40 million of special assistance to the grain farmers you stated that your government's "concept" of a national policy is based on the belief that the national welfare demands positive action to meet the basic causes of distress and maladjustment in particular industries and regions."
The situation of the fishermen of Newfoundland this year calls urgently for positive action to meet acute distress in the fishing industry.
The simplest way to meet this problem would be for the government to use the agency of the unemployment insurance commission which has the necessary machinery and, through the commission

The Address-Mr. Granger to provide every full time fisherman with the minimum contributions to entitle him to unemployment insurance. This method would ensure that assistance went to those who actually had a failure of the fishery. The government could make a special contribution from the treasury to reimburse the fund for the full cost of these "crop failure" benefits to the fishermen. The federal fisheries officers have full records from which it would be easy to determine who were full-time fishermen.
I have referred only to the northeast coast of Newfoundland because that is the only area of which I have personal first-hand knowledge but obviously any national policy to meet the basic distress of the fishermen should be applied to the whole Atlantic region, including Gaspe and the Saguenay.
I am, therefore, sending a copy of this letter to all members of parliament from fishing constituencies in the Atlantic region as well as to the ministers of fisheries and labour and the minister from Newfoundland with a request for their support in this appeal to the government of our country to give treatment to the fishermen who have experienced a disastrous "crop failure" equal to that already given to the grain farmers of the prairies.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that the problem calls for an early statement of positive action by the federal government, if many thousands of fishermen are not to be driven to accept relief in order to provide for their families in the coming winter.
I quote this letter in full because it sets out a plan whereby assistance could have been granted to Newfoundland fishermen. In fact, I think I might safely say it was a constructive suggestion advancing an idea calculated to be helpful. The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) replied on October 28 saying, and I quote:
The matter is being looked into thoroughly by my colleagues the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries to whom I have forwarded copies of your letter.
I might add that I wired the Prime Minister on October 27, supporting the letter I have just quoted. Actually, I sent the wire on the eve of his departure from Canada and he had the thoughtfulness and courtesy to acknowledge my telegram from London.
On December 1 the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate wrote the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in connection with his letter to the Prime Minister and he said, and I quote the pertinent parts:
December 1, as you are aware, is the first day on which seasonal benefits can be paid under the unemployment insurance law and I am sure most of the fishermen who, through no fault of their own, cannot qualify for seasonal benefits will be greatly disappointed that no decision has yet been announced by the government about the suggestion for emergency "crop failure" benefits I made in my letter.
I am sure you realize, as I know the Minister of Fisheries who has been in Newfoundland does, that the need is urgent and that many fishermen have already been obliged to accept relief.
The method of meeting the problem suggested in my letter would be simple to administer and fair to the fishermen, but if the method is not acceptable to the government, I strongly urge that action be taken in some other way to meet this pressing need.

The Minister of Labour replied:
You may rest assured that every possible action will be taken to assist the Newfoundland fishermen.
I must say that I really believed assistance to the fishermen would be forthcoming. But as time went on faith began to wane. On January 8 I wired a query to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) and received the following reply:
You are aware community stage program proceeding several localities. In addition department public works has extensive winter work program in many areas. Fishermen also eligible work on federal-provincial road programs sponsored by northern affairs and national resources. All these projects will assist fishermen through work provided and lasting benefit of facilities.
This made me fear that no effective assistance would be forthcoming, except in a few places where it may be possible to get ahead with community stages during the winter. However, on Friday, January 16, I was encouraged again when the Prime Minister replied to the following question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, as reported at page 16 of Hansard:
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is going to take any action to relieve the distress caused by the failure of the cod fishery in Newfoundland, about which he will recall I wrote him last October, and which he advised me the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries were looking into urgently?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is still applicable.
However, on Tuesday, January 20, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked the Minister of Labour the following question:
I have a supplementary question, and it is this. Did I understand the minister to say consideration is no longer being given to a reduction in the number of stamps required by fishermen for unemployment insurance?
The answer was:


Michael Starr: I said, sir, no consideration is being given to reducing the 15 stamps that are required for seasonal benefits at the moment, and that includes everyone.
I share the feeling that fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador have been wronged by neglect. There was no similar attitude on the part of the government toward the prairie farmers last summer. Certainly, a Canadian fisherman deserves the same assistance as a Canadian farmer. I did not know that there was a double standard for Canadians.
I have quoted heavily from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, and while on this subject I should like to make this comment. The Minister of Labour asked a day or so ago what he did when he was in the government. I would like to reply that when he was a Liberal cabinet minister he obtained unemployment insurance for fishermen. It was also said that his suggestion contained in his

letter of October 21 to the Prime Minister came late. I can only say that it was made six days before the program of aid to municipalities was announced.
In fairness, I do not want to belittle what has been done by the federal government and in particular I would like to mention the program of community stage construction. Community stages will fill a real need. It has been experienced in the past that where small landing wharves were built in fishing settlements the wharf tended to be the focal point for fishing activities. So important did they become for the handling of nets and the processing of fish that when, as occasionally happens, one of these installations is wrecked by storm the fishery in that place is threatened.
The community stage is designed to fill this need even more efficiently. It has been increasingly expensive and difficult to get material for fishing premises and the community stage will provide much improved facilities for handling fish. It is an important evolutionary step and should contribute substantially to the preservation and improvement of the fisheries. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Minister of Fisheries for the interest he has taken in the bait situation in Newfoundland.
I have talked at length on what was needed and was not done. At this eleventh hour I want to appeal again to the government to reconsider their decision regarding special assistance to fishermen who, through no fault of their own, have not enough stamps to qualify for unemployment insurance. There are approximately 17,320 fishermen in Newfoundland and 880 in Labrador, a total of 18,200. The number of claimants for unemployment insurance on December 31, 1958, was 5,617, less than one-third. Fishermen are in need, are on relief, are unable to maintain their property. Last fall through personal visits I saw whole communities in a state of hopelessness and want. Independent people should not be condemned to relief because a freak of nature has ruined their harvest. Many fishermen will not be able to prepare properly for the fishery this spring. They will not have money to spend on necessary repairs to gear and boats. Direct assistance is needed and additional work provided during the spring months of April and May so that the fishermen of Newfoundland may be prepared for the coming voyage which I am sure we all hope will be a bountiful one.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the
The Address-Mr. R. Muir hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) on their most excellent speeches in moving and seconding the address. I hope that one or two prominent front bench Liberals listened intently to the remarks of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet because they could learn a lesson from him. May I also join with other hon. members in extending my congratulations to the newly elected members of this house.
There are many points in the speech from the throne that could be discussed but I should like to mention one of them at the moment. I refer to freight rates. For my people, the people of the province of Nova Scotia generally and, indeed, for those in all the maritime provinces, one of the most encouraging aspects of the speech from the throne is that it discloses that the government will recommend action to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the recent 17 per cent horizontal increase in freight rates. Even more encouraging is the pledge of the government made in December to institute a full study of the entire transportation problem. We in the maritimes regard this investigation as a hopeful sign that the inequities in the freight rate structure, which have contributed in no small measure to the fact that our provinces have not marched with the quick step of the other provinces in industrial progress, may finally be removed.
Our whole economy revolves around our ability to get our natural resource products to the rich central Canadian market. Located as we are on the eastern extremity of the nation and separated by hundreds of miles, we have to rely on efficient transportation at a price which will permit us to produce and give us a fair return. With the rapidly rising increases in the cost of transportation we are finding it increasingly difficult to progress. The high cost of freight has prevented us from getting a better share of markets for coal and steel produced in Nova Scotia.
At this very moment Nova Scotians are pondering another stark reminder that it costs us too much to get our goods to market. I am referring to two things. The first is the announcement by A. V. Roe of Canada Limited that its subsidiary firm, Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, will have to lay off 4,000 men from its coal mines for at least a month because of lack of orders, plus another 500 construction workers. The second is the decision of the A. V. Roe Company not to expand its steel making facilities in Sydney but instead to invest $20 million on a cold rolling mill near Montreal. One of the reasons is plain

The Address-Mr. R. Muir and simple. It is high transportation costs. We need government action to help to alleviate these problems but by the same token I feel that we should have the utmost co-operation from those who are involved in our industrial life. I repeat that we should have the utmost co-operation from those who are involved in our industrial life.
I stated on Tuesday last that to my mind the actions of the A. V. Roe Company since acquiring control of Dosco last year were questionable, and at this time I should like to elaborate on why I made a statement of that nature and why I should have these convictions. I feel that there are many thousands like me in Nova Scotia who hold the same convictions because of the action, or should I say lack of action, on the part of the new controllers of our destiny. There are 150,000 people in Nova Scotia dependent on this great corporation even for their very livelihood. It came to Nova Scotia with the deed of ownership to Dosco securely tucked in its pocket, with promises and assurances of better days. There were fears expressed in many quarters that the coal, steel, shipbuilding and railway car manufacturing industries would be carted off to the central provinces as has happened before under new ownership in the case of so many of our industries. But Avro spokesmen said that this was an unwarranted fear. In one of his official press releases Avro president Crawford Gordon said:
We have but one aim, to expand this Canadian enterprise so that it will be stronger, more enduring and more profitable to its shareholders and employees and, at the same time, contribute something strong, solid and substantial to the development of the Atlantic provinces and their people.
These are very fine words. This statement prompted Nova Scotia premier Robert L. Stanfield, after Avro's campaign for Dosco control had succeeded, to state:
You have stated your confidence in this area and your intention to develop Dosco as a maritime enterprise. We accept your assurances and we look forward to a happy association which will be beneficial to us and profitable to you. You realize, I am sure, that Dosco is not just an industry in the ordinary sense; it is the staff of life for many communities in Nova Scotia. It is something much more than just a matter of dollars and cents. I am sure that in assuming control of Dosco you have accepted in full the major responsibilities that go with that control.
But what have we found since that time? Despite its avowed policy of getting out and selling coal, enforced holidays were imposed on our miners last year. This came after a series of denials by company officials that any cut-backs would be necessary. The miners were asked to boost their production. This they did. What did they get in reward? Layoffs. Is it not a strange coincidence that these

lay-offs should occur right in the midst of the wage negotiations now going on?
At this point I should like to refer to the co-operation that has come from the coal miners of Nova Scotia. There has not been one strike in the coal mining fields of Nova Scotia since 1947. As I have said, the coal miners have co-operated in every way possible. They have maintained a hold-the-line policy as far as wages are concerned. They have certainly done their part.
To return to the corporation, despite its fervent pledge to contribute something strong, solid and substantial to the development of the Atlantic provinces and their people, Avro took a decision to erect a $20 million steel plant outside Montreal. What about its Sydney steel plant? We are told that it will benefit in that it will be asked to supply the raw steel for the finishing plant in Montreal, But will the Sydney plant be called upon to supply that raw steel or will it be acquired from other steel mills closer to the plant at Montreal? I have reason to believe it will be some time after the Montreal mill is opened, a long time at that, before Sydney's plant will supply the new gigantic mill in Montreal.
Now we are faced with another major lay-off in our coal industry. This seems to Nova Scotians to be out of keeping with the professed determination of Avro to contribute something strong, solid and substantial to the development of the Atlantic provinces and their people.
Mr. Speaker, Avro spokesmen have been dealing Nova Scotians a continuous hand of conflicting statements. "We want to progress", they say, and then they lay off our workers. "We will not do anything to hurt the maritime economy", they say, and then they shift the heart of their steel making industry from Sydney to Montreal. Nova Scotians have begun to hold new fears and doubts about the intentions of the Avro organization. The only expansion proposed by this company is a cold rolling mill near Montreal.
In addition to this, a series of company statements issued in recent months make it apparent that the company entertains long-range plans for a basic steel plant on adjacent property. If this comes to pass, then the future of Sydney as a major steel production centre will not be bright. When blast furnaces join the Montreal units to provide fully integrated operations in central Canada, what will happen to Sydney?
The Avro organization was born and has been nurtured on government contracts. The company has grown as a result of these government orders to become one of the giants of Canadian industry. Is it unreasonable, then,
*
28S

to expect that such a company should be among the first to gear its productive power to the wishes of the government and the public? Is it unreasonable to ask Avro to develop maritime economy and contribute towards the decentralization of industry?
It is my view, and one that is shared by many Nova Scotians, that the government has a right to expect co-operation from Avro and other companies that have thrived on government work. Since this government took office in 1957, it has offered material assistance to Avro and its subsidiary, Dosco. On August 22, 1957, additional assistance over and above the subvention provided on movements of all Nova Scotia coal, was authorized on shipments of coal from the Springhill collieries. On January 15, 1958, the House of Commons passed the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. Amongst other things, this act authorized the payment by the government of Canada of a subvention on coal mined in eastern Canada and used in the four Atlantic provinces in the production of electric power by steam driven generators. This was to help stabilize and ultimately increase the market for coal.
Again on February 18, 1958, the cabinet issued a directive to government departments that Canadian coal be used in all government coal-burning installations where the laid-down cost of such coal did not exceed the competitive cost of other coals by more than 20 per cent. Again on April 14, 1958, the subvention policy was revamped raising the amount of government assistance on transportation of Nova Scotia coal to Ontario and western Quebec from 45 per cent of freight rates to 60 per cent; offers were made to the company of assistance of $4 per ton on movements of coal from Nova Scotia to Europe, and on the same day, the special assistance to the Springhill mines was extended to March 31, 1959. Of course, this does not apply to Springhill mines at this time because of the disaster that occurred there.
I join with my colleague, the member for Cumberland, in extending to those brave people my sincere sympathy. Mere words of mine, in fact mere words of anyone are not any use to people who have gone through what these people have gone through. Having worked in the coal mines myself, and having come through a gas explosion in a coal mine, I know in a very small, and very minute way what some of these men have gone through.
On June 10, 1958, an order in council was approved granting an additional 55 cents per ton subvention assistance to permit the sale of approximately 175,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal in Belleville, Ontario. Again, on June 27, 1958, the federal government broadened
The Address-Mr. R. Muir the base of its subvention payment schedule so as to include amongst the cost audit items to be determined by the comptroller of the treasury the amount of the insurance, stockpile and interest charges on excess coal stockpiled in 1958. It has been estimated the additional cost will be $500,000. The provincial government of Nova Scotia assisted in this measure by agreeing to contribute one-fifth of the cost, and the federal government will contribute the balance.
Another indication of assistance is the fact that on August 18, 1958 parliament accepted a government measure granting the Dominion Coal Company a five-year recess in payment of a $5,198,242 loan which it received from the federal government to assist in the cost of mechanization of the mines. I understand that the federal cabinet now has under consideration the recommendations of the dominion coal board concerning the industry's application, made in December, for increased subventions which, it is claimed, will be needed to penetrate the heavy consuming Ontario power production market. I mentioned December as the time when these submissions were made, in order to make it clear, it was not three months ago as was noted in the Halifax newspaper recently in a statement made by a former member of the dominion coal board. I feel that in making a statement of that nature he took advantage of a situation such as this, when people are going to suffer, to make a statement for political purposes. However, I could be wrong. He is only the past president of the provincial Liberal association.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is hardly worthy of the rest of your very good speech.


Robert Muir: I shall ignore that comment, as I usually have to do in so far as comments by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill' are concerned. I should like him to go back to his newspaper if he does not wish to listen to me.
It is my hope, and certainly the hope of all Nova Scotians-the hon. member may not even be interested in our coal miners, so it might be better if he did read his newspaper -that the government will see its way clear to providing, within the framework of national and international policies, favourable action on the application in order to prevent further lay-offs and possibly reduce the length of the lay-off currently proposed by the company. I urge this sincerely and wholeheartedly, although I do know that in the short period this government has been in power it has certainly done its part.

The Address-Mr. R. Muir
In conclusion, I should like to refer to the statement of Sir Thomas Sopwith, chairman of the Hawker Siddeley group which controls Avro, made at the annual meeting. I quote:
One final word on Canada. Your interests there are in good hands, with the company being well and efficiently managed by a team of energetic young and capable Canadians. The future of Canada is bright and glowing with promise. Because of the spread and the diversification of our holdings in Canada, it is our belief, that your company is well placed to grow and to prosper with Canada itself.
Does this mean that we in the maritimes will share in this growth and prosperity to which he refers, or does it mean more closed mines and possibly a closed steel plant? Does this mean a new series of conflicting statements which are damaging to the morale of the people who live in the maritimes? Does this mean that their boasting in a recent issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald about their assets really indicates that Dosco is going bankrupt? Does this mean that the company will encourage its salesmen to get out and try to sell more coal, or does it mean we will be importing American coal into the maritimes to the very back door of our own coal mines? Does it mean, perhaps, that the proposed march on Ottawa by the coal miners of Nova Scotia should be diverted to the company's head office in Montreal or even to London-although I thought we were no longer colonials? Does this mean that despite the utmost government co-operation which has been forthcoming Avro will continue to mislead many breadwinners who are dependent on the company for a livelihood? Does it mean that, at long last, the people of Nova Scotia can rely on the word of this gigantic corporation and place their faith in it? We must remember that faith without works is dead. We have not seen much evidence of the work, so it is rather difficult for the people of the maritimes to have faith.
This gigantic corporation has the future destiny of Nova Scotians in the palm of its hand. It is gigantic. It appears that the more gigantic a corporation becomes, the more ruthless it can be. I am sure that all members in this house and all Canadians who contribute through taxation to the development of industry are awaiting the answers to these and many other questions.


Mr. Fisher:: I wonder whether the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would permit a question?


Robert Muir: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has he brought his views on this matter to bear upon the government as to the need for government intervention with this particular company?


Robert Muir: Intervention in which way?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is what I want to ask; what sort of intervention?


Robert Muir: Yes. My views have been brought before the government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If I might just put another question to the hon. member, I should like to know whether he is aware of the fact that the people of the Canadian lakehead share exactly the same views as those entertained by the maritime people about A. V. Roe Limited.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, it being nearly six o'clock, may I be allowed to adjourn the debate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. Go ahead.


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I too should like to add my congratulations to those which have been expressed to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was particularly proud of my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, for his address on agriculture. It certainly should show this house that we in the west have an extremely able spokesman for agriculture.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet on his extremely able address on national unity particularly. I was greatly interested in listening to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) the other day when he made some statements with regard to the Liberal party and national unity. I do not know whether he will fool anybody in eastern Canada with that kind of talk but we in the west have realized for the last 20 years how the Liberal party went about national unity. They split us into so many pieces that we could not possibly have an effective voice in the working of this country. As I have said, my colleague, in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, made some pertinent remarks with regard to the agricultural situation in western Canada particularly. I should just like to make some comment in that regard.
We all know that for the first time we have an energetic government working to solve the problems of agriculture. For the first time we have a government which- has recognized that agriculture has problems. That is the first important step. As you listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) in today's debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will have realized two major

things. The first is that this government has gone a long way in implementing its national policies for agriculture. The second thing is that the Liberal party is completely barren of any policy on agriculture. We in western Canada who are dependent upon our trade and our export markets were highly pleased with the trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to the commonwealth countries and to the other nations of this world. Surely we have no better salesman in all of Canada than the Prime Minister.
I should like to add a word of thanks to the Minister of Agriculture for several things which have improved the lot of the small farmer in my constituency. First of all, the acreage payments were indeed a boon to these small farmers and meant a great deal. The change in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has made it possible, for the first time in 25 years, for those farmers in my constituency at least to qualify under these regulations.
Further, I should like to thank him for what he has done to have Johne's disease or paratuberculosis in cattle included in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, as I mentioned in a speech in the house last year.
The new agricultural subjects which the speech from the throne indicates will be brought forward in legislation at this session include the crop insurance program and the new credit arrangement for farmers. These are things which the farmers have been working for over the years. Under the previous regime nothing was done. The farmers were told, "We are not worried about
The Address-Mr. H. Horner you. We have you all split up amongst a bunch of splinter parties. You have not any effective voice. We are not even going to the bother of doing anything about it"; and they did not do so.
We are also happy in western Canada, as I am sure are people in all of Canada, that this government is going to bring forward a conservation program. Conservation is an important thing. It is important to conserve our land because that is our greatest natural resource. We must look after it.


An hon. Member:: What about the march on Ottawa?


Hugh Macarthur Horner: One of my
friends has asked me about the march on Ottawa. I should like to make a comment on that march. I am not at all worried about the farmers in my constituency not having any faith in me as to whether or not I will bring their problems to the attention of this house. I would suggest sincerely to the leaders of the farm unions in all of the prairie provinces that they be extremely careful that they do not get entangled in what has become a political march or in what some people would like to make a political march. The fact that they do not have the backing of the majority of the farmers in western Canada was shown on March 31 and will be shown again at the next election.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. The hon. member may now call it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing orders.
288	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Welcome to Canadians by U.S. Senators


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. President, many of us have been looking forward to this day with great pleasure. Senators will recall that on August 8, 1958, the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 359 reading as follows:
Resolved, that the Senate committee on foreign relations shall establish a subcommittee for the purpose of exploring, with appropriate officials of the government of the United States and with members of the Canadian parliament, the desirability and feasibility of increased systematic discussion between legislators of the two countries on problems of common concern.
I shall read two sentences from the committee report of Senate Resolution 359 to indicate the motivation behind the resolution:
It was the feeling of the committee on foreign relations that an attempt should be undertaken to strengthen the bonds between the United States and its great neighbor, the commonwealth of Canada. In these critical times, it is of crucial importance that the friendship and understanding between our nations be deepened in every possible way.
Mr. President, this Senate resolution did not simply happen. For some years, members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs have been keenly aware of the special relationship between the United States and Canada and the useful results which might flow from increased contact between legislators of the two countries. In May, 1957 a report by Representative Frank M. Coffin and Representative Brooks Hays suggested that some form of parliamentary consultation between the two countries be established. In a speech at Wesleyan University on June 8, 1958, Prime Minister Diefenbaker referred to this concept. The subject was further discussed last July by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States.
Pursuant to Senate Resolution 359, I was privileged to be named by Chairman Green of the Committee on Foreign Relations to be the chairman of a liaison committee. My colleagues on that committee are Senators Mansfield, Capehart, and Morse. Last September I went to Ottawa where I was joined by Senator Capehart and we had a preliminary discussion with members of the Canadian parliament, some of whom are here today. Later in September, Representative Brooks Hays and Representative Frank M. Coffin held similar discussions in Canada. As a result of these discussions it was determined that a delegation of members of the Canadian
parliament would come to Washington at this time. Acting Chairman Morgan of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has appointed a liaison committee composed of Representative Edna F. Kelly, chairman, and Representatives Frank Coffin, Walter H. Judd, and Chester E. Merrow.
Mr. President, this is in brief the background of the introduction which I am about to make. A delegation of most distinguished members of the Canadian parliament is now with us to continue the consultations begun in Canada last fall. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record at this point in my remarks certain biographic information about the Canadian delegation.
Mr. President, it is indeed a high privilege to present to this body the Speaker of the Senate of Canada, the Hon. Mark Drouin. [Applause, Senators rising.]
Mr. President, it is also a high privilege to present to the Senate the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Hon. Roland Michener. [Applause, Senators rising.]
Speaker Drouin is accompanied by two of his colleagues, the Hon. Sydney John Smith and the Hon. William R. Brunt. [Applause, Senators rising.]
Speaker Michener of the House of Commons is accompanied by five of his colleagues, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the hon. Hazen Argue, the hon. William L. Houck, the hon. Richard D. Thrasher, and the hon. Erik Nielsen. [Applause, Senators rising.]
Mr. President, if the rules of the Senate permitted it, I would call attention to the fact that the wives of seven members of the Canadian delegation and the daughter of one member are in the gallery. [Applause.]
Mr. President, I know that other members of the Senate wish to pay their respects to our distinguished guests. I am happy to yield at this time for that purpose; and after they leave the floor, they will go to the office of the Vice President, where other Senators may meet them.


Mr.   Capehart@: Mr. President

Mr. Johnson of Texas: Mr. President, before I yield to my delightful friend, the Senator from Indiana, I wish to commend the Senator from Vermont for bringing into the chamber these very able and distinguished Canadian neighbors of ours. There is no nation for which we have more love or affection, and we are pleased beyond compare that they are here to visit with us. I look forward

Welcome to Canadians by V.S. Senators
with great anticipation to meeting them in the office of the Vice President, and listening and learning.
I yield now to my friend, the Senator from Indiana.


Mr.   Capeharl@: Mr. President, last fall I had the pleasure and the good fortune of visiting with these gentlemen in Ottawa, along with the Senator from Vermont . I urge all other members of this body and also all members of the House of Representatives to visit with these distinguished members of the Canadian parliament. I do not know how these gentlemen could have been any nicer to us than they were. If my colleagues want to encounter real hospitality and real friendship, I suggest that they visit Canada and these gentlemen.
I say to our distinguished guests that we in the United States need their co-operation and support, and we appreciate their co-operation and support. I hope we can have many meetings similar to the ones Senator Aiken and I enjoyed with them in Ottawa; and I hope that they and all other members of their parliament will visit us here.


Mr.   Dirksen@: Mr. President

Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from Illinois.


Mr.   Dirksen@: Mr. President, understanding and friendship are a two-way street. Out of friendship comes understanding, and out of understanding comes friendship; and of course, that process makes our relationship so pleasant and makes understanding so very easy.
Of course, our two countries have the common experience of Anglo-Saxon background and a common language; and out of that has come, over a long period of time, the felicity which makes you call us your neighbor, and makes us call you our neighbor.
I am glad you are here; and I believe that from parliamentary meetings such as this one and the one I enjoyed attending in Europe so recently, there comes better understanding which advances the whole cause of progress. So I am delighted to see you here.


Mr.   Langer@: Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?
Mr. Johnson of Texas:	I yield to the
distinguished Senator from North Dakota.


Mr.   Langer@: Mr. President, I wish to say to our distinguished guests and friends that I am their neighbor; I live in North Dakota. I have had many delightful experiences in meeting citizens of Canada who have visited North Dakota.
Of course, I, in turn, like to visit Canada, both to enjoy my experiences there and
meetings with its fine citizens and to enjoy the fishing. In addition we have the benefit of the great Peace Garden.
I want to compliment our distinguished visitors for the fine way their government treated the farmers of Canada after World War I. Within a year Canada cancelled every seed and feed loan. But in North Dakota alone there were 34,000 farmers; and today our government still is charging 4,000 of them 6 per cent interest a year, and the result is that the interest amounts to a great deal more than the principal.
So when we meet in the Peace Garden and when our farmers join your farmers in celebrating, our farmers are very much distressed to find that they have not received from their government the fine treatment that your government has given to the farmers of Canada.
I join my colleagues in bidding you welcome. It is most delightful and indeed a very great pleasure to see you here.


Mr. Morse:: Mr. President

Mr. Johnson of Texas: Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished friend, the Senator from Oregon, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Mr. President, I wish to say to our Canadian friends that I have the privilege of serving under the leadership of Senator Aiken, who is chairman of our so-called Canadian subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee, of which the Senator from Indiana  is also a member; and then I have the privilege of having them serve with me in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on Latin-American Affairs.
The message I would leave with our distinguished Canadian brothers is that in my opinion we have a comity of interest and obligations in respect to Latin America. I have said at meetings of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I wish to say now to our distinguished guests, that in my judgment Canada and the United States should proceed as brothers in the attempt to solve the relationships with Latin America, to the end that they may be improved and that there will be a better understanding throughout Latin America in regard to her two northern neighbors.
My conversations with members of the Canadian parliament in the past lead me to believe that you gentlemen share that point of view. Therefore, in my capacity as a member of Senator Aiken's subcommittee and as chairman of the Latin-American subcommittee, I invite you to join with us in a partnership arrangement, to the end that we may strengthen the policies toward Latin America on the part of both Canada and the United States.
290	HOUSE OF
Welcome to Canadians by U.S. Senators


Mr.   Javils@: Mr. President

Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to my friend, the Senator from New York.


Mr.   Javils@: Mr. President, I, too, would like to join my distinguished colleagues in a word of welcome to our dear friends, these distinguished members of the parliament of Canada. I represent in part the state of New York, a state with which they have many important relationships, both in the economic field, in social terms, and in governmental matters. I hazard the guess that they visit my state perhaps more than any other state in our nation.
Of course Canadians are always very welcome in New York, as they know. We count them as brothers, and we mean that very literally. Furthermore, the state of New York prides itself on its economic relations with Canada. Canada joins us in connection with the St. Lawrence Seaway and in connection with the use of the waters of the Niagara river and its tremendous power development and the great community of interest that exists between us.
I think I speak advisedly when I say that today our new Governor, Nelson Rockefeller, has very close to his heart the entire matter of United States-Canadian relations, particularly in terms of the interests of our own state; and as these gentlemen have experienced with our governors prior to Governor Rockefeller, I believe they will find a welcome hand, a warm understanding, and a spirit of great co-operation added to a spirit of new enterprise in terms of the government of the state of New York. I know I certainly bespeak the views of my colleague from New York, who does not happen to be on the floor at the moment.


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President

Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to my friend from Montana.


Mr.   Mansfield@: Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in welcoming our neighbors from across the border, members of the parliament of Canada.
Because I represent, in part, the state which has perhaps the closest contact with the most Canadian provinces, since Montana borders on British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and because I know something about the many problems which sometimes cause us trouble and difficulty, but never divide us, I am delighted that these members of the Canadian parliament are here to visit with us, to discuss these difficulties, and to arrive at common understandings.
I wish to commend the distinguished Senator from Vermont  for taking the

initiative in the establishment of this interparliamentary group, so to speak, and I wish to point out that he got the idea from Premier Diefenbaker, who, while visiting Trinity College, in Connecticut, made a speech to the effect that a liaison group of this kind would be in the best possible interest of both countries.
So I am delighted that these gentlemen are here. I hope this meeting is only the beginning of many similar meetings in the future; and 1 know that from them will come a better understanding, a better feeling, and an accentuation of the good will which has marked the relationships between our two countries, not only since both of our countries became independent, but even before then.


Mr.   Humphrey@: Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota.


Mr.   Humphrey@: Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues today in extending the warm hand of friendship and welcome to these distinguished members of the parliament of Canada.
It is my privilege to represent, in part, in this body the great state of Minnesota. Of course, Minnesota joins territorially and geographically the great country of Canada; and our relationships are cordial, friendly, and, indeed, helpful to both areas.
Likewise, we are at the end of the great St. Lawrence seaway. So that our relationships in the area of commerce with Canada are closer than ever. Many people from Minneapolis and St. Paul travel to Winnipeg, Canada, and many persons from Winnipeg come to the Twin Cities.
When I was mayor of Minneapolis, I visited Winnipeg, and the mayor of Winnipeg came to our area. Those relationships are very happy memories. But I believe now, as has been suggested today, we would do well to talk of the future, and resolve to solve our problems as good friends do, respecting the rights of each other, and making such accommodations as will provide for unity through understanding and mutual respect.
I join with the Senator from Vermont , and wish to commend him upon his worthy endeavors and leadership in establishing, on our part, this very fine example of co-operation between two great countries. I am looking forward to the coming days when we can be together again.
Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.

Welcome to Canadians by U.S. Senators
Mr. Case of South Dakota: I think probably I am one of the very few members of the U.S. Senate who found it convenient and desirable to go home last August by way of Canada. I live in South Dakota, but I went to New England, and, from lake Champlain, went to Canada. I visited Ottawa, and saw the government house, and some of the very fine and outstanding buildings there. In fact, it was my thought at the time that Ottawa was splendidly equipped to be the scene of international conferences and international groups, as it has been in the past. I am sure it will be in the future.
From there I went north, to Algonquin provincial park. I may say to my colleague from North Dakota that I saw a shorthorn cow which I thought was the largest cow I had ever seen. [Laughter.]
I have a picture of it. I am exhibiting it to my friends in South Dakota and saying, "Take a look at that, and do your best." We spent a few days at Huntsville, in the beautiful lake country of that area. It is magnificent. I was proud that it was a part of a country that is our friend, Canada.
You are most welcome here. I hope some of you will visit us in South Dakota.


Mr.   Yarborough@: Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to my colleague.


Mr.   Yarborough@: Mr. President, as one of the representatives in the Senate from the state of Texas and as a member of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, I want to join in these words of welcome to our friends, the members of the Canadian parliament with us in the Senate today. The Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee has no jurisdiction over legislation dealing with foreign relations but does have jurisdiction over laws relating to foreign commerce.
In the last session we had the privilege of passing two bills which furthered commerce between Canada and the United States. One of those bills extended the time during which a Canadian-owned steamship line may serve the 49th state by furnishing service between Alaska and the other 48 states. I think it is an anomaly that the only regular steamship service between Alaska and the other 48 states is furnished by a Canadian steamship line.
Many citizens from my state have been to Alaska. The only way they can get to Alaska overland is by going through Canada over the Alcan highway. The only transportation ties between our old 48 states and the new 49th state by land or water have been by 66968-9-19J
Canadian aid, either through using Canadian steamship service, or overland, across Canada itself. Such transportation bridge between our newest state, Alaska, and the older 48 states across the Dominion of Canada, serve to strengthen the ties of commerce and bonds of friendship that link our two nations and peoples.
In the last session of the Congress there also was passed a bill which permitted foreign-owned vessels-British and Canadian owned barges primarily-to use the inland waterways of the United States. Such laws deal with commerce, and not with treaties. They deal with people-to-people relations, further promoting the commercial relations of our two nations.
There is another phase of this subject in which our people are directly interested, and that is gas and oil lines from the great reserves in Canada to markets in the United States. More gas and oil pipelines have been projected.
Our friends will recall that during the dark days of World War II our war effort was crippled by the fact that so many ships were sunk by German submarines. The enemy at that time had only about one-eighth the number of submarines now possessed by countries behind the Iron Curtain.
In the event another such tragedy should befall us, the oil and gas pipelines which link these energy reserves with the industrial centres of our two nations would provide the means of furnishing fuel and energy to both of our countries, to help us survive in any assault which might possibly be made against us.
We want our Canadian friends to know we are appreciative of their co-operation. You have permitted the building of the D.E.W. line, the radar observation chain, in your northern territories, so that the first warning of attack on the United States or Canada will come from your territory. We are grateful to you for the great friendship and co-operation of your people in these endeavors.
I am glad to help welcome you to the floor of the U.S. Senate.


Mr.   Cotton@: Mr. President, will the Senator
yield to me?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.


Mr.   Cotton@: As a representative of a state, New Hampshire, which is a neighbor of Canada, on behalf of Senator Bridges and myself I want to express my sincere sympathy for your having had to listen to me and to other Senators in bidding you welcome.


Mr.   Lausche@: Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Welcome to Canadians by U.S. Senators
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from Ohio.


Mr.   Lausche@: As the senior Senator from the state of Ohio, which is in physical contact with Canada except for lake Erie, I wish to extend a welcome to you in your visit to the United States. I believe I speak the will of the people of Ohio when I say to you we have recognized the mutual interdependence which exists between Canada and the United States.
I feel positive that the people of Ohio recognize that the things which hurt Canada will eventually hurt Ohio. We believe that as Canada grows stronger, the United States will grow stronger. We believe that if we grow weak, Canada will inevitably grow weak. We are neighbors standing shoulder to shoulder, lifted and dropped by every good thing or every bad thing that affects us.
As a member of the Senate, I should like to say to you that in my approach to my responsibilities with respect to Canada, I will constantly have in mind that anything imprudent which I did, prejudicially affecting your dominion, inevitably will affect my nation. I think I speak the thinking and the will of the citizens of Ohio when I deliver that message to you.


Mr. Wiley:: Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.


Daniel Edward Riley: My friends from Canada, as a representative of a state bordering on lake Superior, a large part of which provides the southern line of Canada, and speaking also on behalf of the Senator who now occupies the Chair, the junior Senator from the state of Wisconsin , I bid you welcome. It is good to see some old acquaintances in this delegation, friends I made in connection with meetings of those interested in the St. Lawrence development. One I knew when attending sessions of the United Nations.
Canada has been of interest to me from the days when I was a boy and read the story of Evangeline. As I grew into manhood, I visited the cities of Quebec and Montreal. I travelled through the lake country and across the continent on the Canadian Pacific, up to Lake Louise and Banff, and on to the west coast. It seemed to me that God Almighty had created this continent to be one geographically, to be one in its political
approaches, although our governments were separate as nations, one in the religious approach of our people, and one in the economic approach to domestic and world problems.
I think it is a wonderful thing, gentlemen, that this exchange of members of parliamentary bodies has gotten underway to such a point that groups such as yours, who really are the ambassadors of good thinking and good living, visit their neighbors. It makes for the constructive building up of relationships in every direction. We welcome you, and may you begin today to have the time of your lives in the good old U.S.A.


Mr.   Thurmond@: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.


Mr.   Thurmond@: I thank the Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, since I come from one of the states of the far south, South Carolina, I take this opportunity to extend the glad hand of welcome to these distinguished gentleman from the far north, from the great republic of Canada.


Mr.   Sallonsiall@: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. Johnson of Texas: I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.


Mr.   Sallonsiall@: I may say to you gentleman from Canada that I come from Massachusetts. I was in Ottawa when the idea was first fostered of the exchange of greetings between members of the parliament of Canada and ourselves. As a Massachusetts Senator, knowing that many good Canadians are in Massachusetts and that they generally vote Republican, I am very glad to see you here.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader, the Senator from Texas, for yielding the time for the paying of tributes by the members of our body to our Canadian friends who are visiting us today. I think this is a great day for the United States and for Canada. As I stated earlier, our friends will be in the Vice President's room for a short time, where they will be glad to meet any members of the Senate. I hope all those who have not spoken, at least, as well as all those who have spoken, will meet our friends personally.

Monday, January 26, 1959