1959-01-29

Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement that I am sure will be of interest to every member of this house. The best way in which I can do it is by reading a telegram that I received approximately half an hour ago. It reads as follows:
I am pleased to report that due to the willingness of all parties to make concessions the disputes between Canadian Pacific Railway Company, B.C. Coastal Steamship Service and seafarers international union, national association of marine engineers and Canadian merchant service guild have been settled. In my presence representatives of the parties have accepted and signed terms of settlement involving collective agreements which will continue in effect until August 31, 1961. Accordingly the provision for arbitration contained in the British Columbia coast steamship service act need not be implemented.
Eric G. Taylor
Industrial Inquiry Commission POWER



COLUMBIA RIVER-ANNOUNCEMENT OF REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make an announcement the text of which has been agreed to by the governments of Canada and the United States for simultaneous release today. This announcement reads as follows:
The governments of the United States and Canada have been engaging in discussions relating to the mutually advantageous development of the waters of the Columbia river basin which cross the boundary.
In the course of these discussions it has seemed desirable to pursue as rapidly as possible the exploration of the various technical problems which bear on the formulation of comprehensive principles. For that purpose and to implement such discussions the governments of Canada and the United States have announced that identical letters were sent today by each government to the two sections of the international joint commission requesting the commission to report specially to governments at an early date its recommendations concerning the principles to be applied in determining:
(a) the benefits which will result from the cooperative use of storage of waters and electrical interconnection within the Columbia river system; and
(b) the apportionment between the two countries of such benefits more particularly in regard to electrical generation and flood control.
This request was made in furtherance of the reference of 1944 to the commission on the Columbia river in order to emphasize the need for an early report from the commission on the specific problem of the allocation of benefits to be derived from the co-operative development of the Columbia river system.
The report of the international Columbia river engineering board will be received by the international joint commission early in March of this year and will be considered at a meeting which will be held in camera in Chicago beginning March 16.
In the meantime, various related matters will continue to be discussed through diplomatic channels.
The letters were delivered by hand this morning to the respective sections of the international joint commission in both capitals, and I think we may rest assured that the commission will report to governments as soon as possible.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from seven hundred and fifty million dollars to one billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act, and to remove the limitation on the amount thereof that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the said act, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if the report is accurate that new dumping duties have been or will shortly be applied on second-hand or defective goods and remnants. If the report is accurate, what section of the Customs Tariff Act will be used for
458

Inquiries of the Ministry this purpose, and will these duties be applied to imports from the United Kingdom as well as from other countries?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National F.evenue):: I have not the act in front of me. I saw the report a moment ago. It was in the press this morning and someone drew it to my attention. It is true that I signed orders some weeks ago applying dumping duties to seconds, odd lots and second-class goods. I have not the act here but I will check today and will give a specific answer as to the section.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the minister for his reply. May I ask him whether he would be willing to table the documents concerned?


George Clyde Nowlan: The only documents were a confidential memorandum from my deputy minister to myself and the order I signed, which has appeared in the Canada Gazette.



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENTS FOR SALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question which he perhaps would take as notice if he does not have the information at hand.
In view of the fact that present regulations limit Canadian producers to a maximum sale of 2,500 pounds of uranium to any country not having a bilateral agreement with Canada, what efforts are being made to conclude agreements with other countries in the form in which we now have agreements, and what countries are involved in these negotiations?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is a widespread interest with regard to this subject, and I will accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to take this question as notice and make a complete statement in the course of a day or two.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether the governor in council has under consideration a petition on humanitarian grounds for the staying of the deportation order affecting Mr. and Mrs. Raoul Arthur Rolling and their two children, formerly of the Duchy of
[Mr. Pearson.)
Luxembourg, who have been living in this country since 1949? I might add that Mr. Justice Rand recommended that this step be taken some time ago.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am not the minister of that department and, in the second place, I have no personal knowledge regarding this matter but will take the question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: wonder whether I might direct a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the federal government's winter work projects and assistance program. Will the minister give by provinces the number of projects approved under the program and the estimated cost of the projects?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question might more properly be placed on the order paper. Is there a supplementary question?


John Russell Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker. I have another question for the Minister of Transport.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WINTER WORK PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister say whether the government has considered an extension of the winter work program as suggested by Mr. George S. Mooney, executive director of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, arising out of his statement that municipalities are caught in a squeeze between the mounting costs of direct relief and high interest rates on their capital borrowing?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mooney has not forwarded that suggestion to us and it has not been brought to our attention. At the moment we are not contemplating any changes in the municipal incentive program.



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

National Revenue. As the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia, will the minister advise the house if any action is contemplated by the government between now and the week end to forestall the lay-off of 4,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia to take place after tomorrow's shifts, as was announced this morning?


George Clyde Nowlan: No action is contemplated by the government at the moment. The premier of Nova Scotia was in touch with me this morning by telephone, following the conference yesterday to which the hon. member referred in his question yesterday. The premier, as the hon. gentleman knows and as has appeared in the press, has agreed to come to Ottawa with a delegation in the relatively near future. He was discussing with me a suitable time in the future when he could come and be able to see the members of the government. I will be in touch with him later today after consultation with some of my colleagues, and we will arrange a convenient time within the next few days when the conference can be held.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the house as to when we may expect the Borden commission report?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information on that at the moment. I will make inquiries and ascertain.


George James McIlraith: Is it anticipated that the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne with respect to the setting up of a national energy commission will be proceeded with before the report is tabled, or are the two linked together?


John George Diefenbaker: There was a preliminary report which made certain recommendations, and among them was the one in question. I think it can be taken for granted that it is the intention to proceed with the bill without regard to the final report on other matters not connected therewith.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, for the enlightenment of the house and the country I wish to address a question
66968-9-30J
Inquiries of the Ministry to that nimble batter on a sticky wicket, the Minister of Transport.
My question refers to the announcement by the minister on August 12 last of the sale of eight ships by the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited to foreign interests for $2,800,000. In view of the minister's reply on the same day to a question asked by the hon. member for Laurier to the effect that the minister had "simply made an announcement of a transaction which had been successfully and well completed by Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships," can the minister inform the house if this sale of ships-which many consider to be a saturnine sale-has been successfully and well completed?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise me that the security is sound and that they have no cause to be concerned. The payments are secured by letter of credit issued by the Banco Cubano del Commercio Exterior, and confirmed by the Bank of America International.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	[DOT]
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the discussions which have taken place in the last few days, is the minister now willing to intervene in the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its producers in Montreal either personally or by appointing a commission of inquiry, as section 56 of the act enables him to do?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my position with regard to this dispute has not changed from what it was the other day when I met the representatives of the producers.

(Translation):


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, after the answer that the Minister of Labour gave me a few minutes ago, I should like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. Since the beginning of negotiations between the C.B.C. and the Montreal producers a few days ago, has the Solicitor General proposed the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission as allowed under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is a basic principle that questions should relate to matters under the jurisdiction of the minister concerned, and its seems to me that the question the hon. member has just asked relates to a matter which is not the responsibility of the Solicitor General.



TAKING OF OATH OF OFFICE BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARB

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, which the minister took as notice? The question was as follows:
Could the minister tell us whether anyone has attended the meetings of the board of directors of the C.B.C., as a director, and the meetings of the executive committee, as a member of that committee, without having taken the oath of office in accordance with article 22, paragraph 6 of the Broadcasting Act?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the corporation that all the directors took the oath of office.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
.	DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS
On the orders of the day:
John Russell Taylor: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that there is a degree of urgency with regard to this question which I address to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the proposed industrial development near the site of the Boundary Bay airport, and in view of the proposal of the Department of Transport to the city of Vancouver regarding the reactivation, administration and operation of this airport, would the minister be prepared to meet in Ottawa the appropriate aldermen of the city of Vancouver to discuss with them the many problems arising from the proposal and the proposed industrial development?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to discuss the matter with those gentlemen.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact, as reported in this

morning's Gazette, that government spokesmen gave assurances to the representatives of the railway employees that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would meet in the main the demands of labour, would the minister now also take this house into his confidence and confirm the statement which the government's spokesmen made outside the house?


Michael Starr: The article to which the hon. member refers has not been brought to my notice, but yesterday representations were made by this group to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet. Among these were a number of recommendations with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and at that time I made the remark that some of these recommendations were now being considered as possible amendments to the act.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will there be any changes in the present regulations to ensure that a greater portion of the additional funds being made available through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be channelled into lower priced homes?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question can best be answered when the resolution with respect to the National Housing Act is under consideration next week.



CIVIC DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare relating to the Graham report. Has the government considered or is it considering making available to hon. members of this house a partial or abridged version of this report?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No consideration is being given to that at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

The Address-Mr. Boivin SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or in his absence to his "might be" parliamentary assistant, or to the acting minister. Is the Minister of Agriculture attending meetings of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presently taking place in Saskatoon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I shall take that question as notice.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether consideration has been given to the possibility of the Minister of Justice, when he is in Washington, in addition to meeting his counterpart, United States Attorney General Rogers, meeting with representatives of the House of Representatives and the Senate on appropriate committees dealing with legislation respecting which the Minister of Justice is making representations? I feel that since the law in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that ordinarily those particular bodies would not welcome the intrusion of anyone without their invitation, but the Minister of Justice will make such representations as are necessary in the proper quarters.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be just as proper for the Minister of Justice to meet with these people as it was for a parliamentary delegation to do so, which I thought was a very good move?


John George Diefenbaker: It no doubt was a very good move, but it was on the invitation of these people that the meeting took place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought it was at the Prime
Minister's suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 28, 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.
(Translation):
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose yesterday evening, I was about to say that, so long as the government persists in procrastinating, the opposition will play its role in this debate; however, we are prepared to vote on the motion right away, and to go on with the business of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, there are many subjects about which I would have liked to deal in the course of my speech, but since my time is about to expire, I shall deal with a subject very much in the news these days: that of our national emblem, which, incidentally, I first advocated in this house, on July 11, 1946. Personally, I am still in favour of a purely Canadian flag, and I hasten to give my reasons for claiming a distinctive flag. Due account must be taken of certain factors which have not yet been pointed out. First, we should remember that a flag should represent, above all, the sovereignty of a country; second, that the sovereignty of a country resides in its parliament which is composed of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. Another point to note is that the place of honour on a flag is in the upper part, near the staff. Thus, the Union Jack represents the sovereignty of the British government, and this is, in any case, what is wanted by some people, in particular the premier of Ontario.
May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of a national flag is not a responsibility of the province of Ontario or of any other province, but a direct responsibility of the federal government and of the federal parliament.
If, as on the red ensign, the Union Jack on a red background were to remain in the inner upper corner of the flag-therefore, in the place of honour-we would thereby admit the sovereignty of the English parliament over ours, which, to any well-informed person, would seem a formidable mistake, especially since the adoption of the statute of Westminster in 1931, when recognition was given to the sovereignty of Canada and of other commonwealth countries which then had dominion status.

The Address-Mr. Boivin
We should also avoid committing the error of reproducing on this flag, such symbols as the fleur-de-lys, the maple leaf, the beaver, the sheep, or other symbol of any kind.
A flag has nothing to do with a coat of arms: no symbol should be attached to it, because it is, in fact, a recognition of sovereignty.
Generally, the best flags merely consist of three or four bands of colour to which no particular meaning is attached.
I noted during my recent trip to France that the French display with pride and respect the red, white and blue flag of the French republic. Why, for instance, can't we have a simple flag with three or four stripes of colours other than those used by other nations, naturally, and if, in spite of everything, we want to add certain symbols, we could include a white stripe to symbolize the snow which covers our country during half the year, a blue stripe to symbolize the three oceans which surround our continent, a yellow stripe for the golden wheat of the prairies and a red stripe which would symbolize the colour of the uniforms of Wolfe's soldiers, on the Plains of Abraham.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, that would be much better than the thousands of designs suggested to the committee that looked into this matter a few years ago, designs which included all the animals of creation, all the stars in heaven, and as many maple leaves as are found in all the sugar bushes of my province, not to mention lines running from the northwest to the southwest, counter to all concepts of an honourable symbol of a country that glories in the legitimacy of its sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank all Canadians who submitted to the committee a design of their preferred flag. The contributions were numerous and sincere, which means that, in addition to those people, every true Canadian expects parliament to choose a distinctive flag that will enjoy the place of honour in Canada, the most beautiful country of the world.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister takes the floor, may I say that while I have not considered it out of order to discuss the flag question in this debate, as several members have done, I think I should say that if and when the same subject is reached on the order paper I would not take kindly to a repetition of these speeches at that time.


George Harris Hees: Before I commence my remarks on my main theme, Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the many other members of this house in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) upon the excellent speeches they gave in moving and seconding the address in reply. These speeches were positive, constructive and well delivered. The people of their constituencies have every reason to feel proud of the young men they have sent to Ottawa as members of parliament, and who are conducting themselves in such an admirable fashion. Like so many other speeches that have been delivered in this house during this and past sessions by men and women who support the government, these two speeches are indicative of the reason that the Conservative party is today the party of youth as well as the party of the people.
As I said, these speeches were positive and constructive. I only wish I could say the same thing for the next speech we heard in this house, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). This speech was filled with criticism, and it contained nothing as an alternative to the methods and the measures which the Leader of the Opposition criticized so strongly. Since the Leader of the Opposition had had four months in which to prepare his speech we had been looking forward to a speech which would let us know the Liberal approach to the problems that are facing the country today. We had been expecting, in addition to the normal criticism which one always expects from the Leader of the Opposition and which it is his duty to make, to hear some positive suggestions concerning how the Liberals would run the country if they were the government today. However, the opposition today appears to be just as devoid of positive suggestions as it has been during the past two sessions.
In our democratic form of government, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has two responsibilities. The first responsibility is to oppose, and point out, if it can, the shortcomings of the government and the government's program. The present opposition is trying desperately hard to do this, but they just do not seem to be able to get the proper facts and figures assembled at the one time to enable them to do so. These figures they get from the Martin statistical service continually seem to let them down.
The second duty of an opposition is to demonstrate it can be an alternative government. This the opposition has completely failed to do. They have failed to do it because an alternative government must have a policy,

and this opposition has no policy. We are still waiting to hear how this opposition would improve on the measures which they criticize. They refuse to tell us, simply because they do not know. If they have a policy, let us hear at least some suggestions concerning it. We have heard no suggestions in any of the debates so far.
In his speech on leaders' day the Leader of the Opposition painted a very gloomy picture of our economy, and he tried to depict a state of blue ruin. Of course the Prime Minister in a very kindly way set him straight by pointing out, as recorded on page 58 of Hansard for January 19, 1959, that, in the past year, Canadians worked more, earned more, spent more, and saved more, than in any comparable year in the history of this country. He pointed out also that during the past year, disposable personal income increased by 6.3 per cent; net farm income increased by 22.4 per cent; interest and dividends, and net real income, rose by 6.5 per cent; other disposable income rose by 4.5 per cent; and personal and direct tax declined by 7.8 per cent.
This is the kind of blue ruin the Leader of the Opposition tries so desperately to convince the people of Canada they are suffering from today. That kind of misrepresentation is, I believe, an insult to the people of Canada. The people of Canada today are not accepting it any more than they did last March. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when referring to last March I am reminded of the fact that one senior Liberal the other day made what I considered a very sensible suggestion. He suggested that perhaps we could make our humane slaughter legislation retroactive to March 31 last. I think that might be a good suggestion.
If these prophets of doom and gloom would get out of their offices, get away from the crepe they keep hanging around their shoulders and around their speeches, and get out across the country where they could talk to the businessmen, farmers, fishermen and lumbermen, the people who really make this country go, then they would learn something. What they would learn would be that the people of this country have a great deal of confidence in this country's economy, in this government, and particularly in our Prime Minister. The people of this country are confident that our economy is going to continue to move steadily forward. They are confident of that because they know this economy is soundly based. They are planning, they are building, and they are expanding. They have confidence and faith in the future of this country even if the members of the opposition have not.
The Address-Mr. Hees
I think the kind of criticism and condemnation of the economy of the country that we have been hearing so often in this house from members of the opposition is serving no good purpose. It is simply inconsistent with the facts. They would do a great deal better if they started boosting instead of knocking and started helping the people of this country do the excellent job they are doing in moving this country's economy forward.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would do a great deal of good for these men of little faith if they would speak, for instance, to the people who are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the iron ore development in the Ungava bay region. Those people do not lack confidence in Canada's future. It would do them good to talk to the private investors who propose to spend $10 million this year in investigating and developing oil and gas prospects in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. Those people do not lack confidence in the economy of this country. They have plenty of it. It would do them good to talk, as I did a few nights ago, to the executives of a Canadian steel company which is going to spend $28 million on an expansion program in the next ten months. They have no lack of confidence in the economy of this country; they have tremendous confidence in it. Their facts and figures show that the economy of this country is going ahead, and that is why they are building to keep pace with its expansion.
That is the spirit of confidence, Mr. Speaker, that is pervading our whole economy. It is pervading everybody, with the exception of the members of the official opposition. They are too busy waiting around day after day, hoping that some larger unemployment figures are going to be produced so they can gloat over them. If they would start getting positive and stop being negative they would be doing a great deal better job as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, who are supposed to be working for the betterment of the whole of Canada.
Let us now turn, Mr. Speaker, from the negative and destructive side, as depicted by what the opposition is saying, to the positive and constructive side, as represented by what the government is doing. I should like to give three examples of what a department of this government is doing, as all departments of this government are doing, to further our national development program. As we all know national development, particularly in a country the size of Canada, requires tremendous transportation facilities, to assist free enterprise in developing and expanding the economy. In developing the country we need three most important things
464	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hees in the way of transportation facilities, namely airfields, harbours and ships, including both icebreakers and supply ships. In the last election, the Leader of the Opposition scoffed at and made great fun of our development program. As you will well recall, Mr. Speaker, he described it as simply a program of building roads from igloo to igloo. He said that we were doing no more than had the former Liberal administration.
I should like to give comparative figures for the three categories of national development I have mentioned, namely shipbuilding, airfields and the building of harbours. I am going to compare what is being done today by this government with what was done by the former Liberal government in the last year in which they were in office, namely the fiscal year 1956-57. First of all, in the development of airfields and air terminals, in the year 1956-57 the Liberal government spent $22 million. It built four terminals and completed 26 runways. In this present year we are spending $56 million and will complete six terminals and 37 runways. In other words we are doing approximately two and a half times what the former government did in a comparable period when they were in office.
Then let us turn to the question of developing harbours.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether I might be allowed to ask the minister a question at this particular point.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister give the house an indication of how many of these projects about which he has talked as being undertaken in the last year were initiated by the previous government?


George Harris Hees: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I would say very few if any.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do not say "offhand".


George Harris Hees: I would say very few if any.
Then, Mr. Speaker, let us turn to the developing of harbours. During the year 1956-1957 the former Liberal government spent $13 million. During the present year we are spending $28 million, or more than double the program carried out at that time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister tell us how much of that $28 million is going to be funnelled into the Canadian lakehead as an answer to the Duluth development?


George Harris Hees: We have a program of development at the lakehead which the hon. member knows about very well indeed, and which I think he will agree is a farsighted, comprehensive, and adequate program, and one which will do a first class job for the lake-head. If he has any contrary opinions may I say that it is the first time he has expressed to me anything except complete approval of the plans the government has for the developing of harbour facilities at the lakehead.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we find this with regard to the building of ships, icebreakers, landing craft and supply ships which are necessary for our convoys that move into the Arctic in the summer time, and to move ships of commerce in the lower gulf and the maritime provinces. Whenever icebreakers are needed, they are called into action and do a first class job, and are most essential for any commercial development program. In 1956-57 the Liberal government built three ships and six landing craft, at a total cost of $6 million. This year we are building ten ships and 52 landing craft, for a total of $22 million, or nearly four times as big a program as the Liberal government carried out in that important field during the last year they were in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about our merchant marine?


George Harris Hees: Does the Leader of the Opposition mean the merchant marine which the Liberal government let go down from about 500 to 18? Is that the merchant marine to which the Leader of the Opposition is referring?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now that the minister is on this question of ships, perhaps he would give us comparative figures with regard to the tonnage of the merchant marine when the government came into office and the figures as of today.


George Harris Hees: When we came into office, as I remember it, the merchant marine had been let drop from approximately 500 ships which were under Canadian registry-


Lester Bowles Pearson: In war time.


George Harris Hees: -right after the war; and it dropped down to 18 under the government of which my hon. friend was a member. When we took over the number was about 18. We have sold eight, as the hon. member knows only too well, and for the reason that he knows only too well, of the vessels of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship. I believe the rest are on Canadian registry. That would leave something about 10. I am not sure of the exact figure but it is something

like that. Does that answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a good answer.


George Harris Hees: I just want to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition has all the information he desires.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Under the government of my hon. friend the number dropped from 18 to 10.


George Harris Hees: And under the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, the number dropped from 500 to 18. That gives you an idea of the mathematics which led to the development of the Martin statistical service. It is catching on. That is the kind of figuring they do. Even the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be a sensible, reasonable man, able to add two and two together, has caught that same plague that seems to be pervading the whole Liberal party today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister another question, because I want to get this matter straight. Does he contend that our merchant marine had dropped from a post-war figure of 500 ships?


George Harris Hees: It dropped from a large figure; I do not know how many. It seems to me it was about 500.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will get the figure.


George Harris Hees: It was several hundred and it dropped down to 18. The programs I have spoken about, Mr. Speaker, which are so much larger in these very important fields than what the Liberal government in its last year in office carried out, even though the need for development was just as great then, even though they had the same opportunity to carry out the same kind of programs as we are. These projects are providing, not only much needed transportation facilities to make it possible to develop the country, something in which this government is interested, and in which the former government showed a considerable lack of interest, but are also providing a great deal of much needed work.
We have estimated that the projects being carried out this year for the Department of Transport; the agencies which report to the department; and the crown companies for which the Minister of Transport reports to parliament, will provide work for about 25,000 more men than was provided in the same categories during the last year the Liberal government was in office. The program I have outlined is typical of the Conservative government's attitude toward national development, a program which the Leader of the Opposition scoffed at in the last election campaign and described as building roads
The Address-Mr. Crestohl from igloo to igloo, and said we were not doing any more than they had done.
I think I have clearly demonstrated what we are doing, and why we are doing it. We do things constructively, instead of just talking destructively; the only thing the opposition seems able to do. We believe in providing the necessary transportation facilities to assist free enterprise in doing the job it has done for the past 100 years, and which has developed the economy of the country. We believe in providing these facilities to the greatest possible degree that we can. We are providing these transportation facilities, not only to help the economy in the southern regions of the country, but to develop the vast wealth in our northern regions as well.
This program is consistent with what has always been the policy of this party as far as developing the country is concerned. Nearly 100 years ago our first great Conservative prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, saw very clearly the need for providing transportation facilities in the form of a great transcontinental railway to make it possible for free enterprise to develop the country from east to west. Today, we are fortunate in having another great Conservative prime minister who sees with equal clearness the need for providing transportation facilities of a modern character to enable free enterprise to complete the job, and develop the country from south to north.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who has just taken his seat, I too wish to join our colleagues in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Hut I am in good company with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) when I say that if my remarks must of necessity be brief they are none the less very sincere.
I should like to address myself very briefly to three matters, one of which was included in the speech from the throne, one of which was not included in the speech from the throne and which I respectfully submit should have been dealt with, and the third a matter that has evolved during this debate. The first matter I should like to refer to is the bill of rights and human freedoms of the Prime Minister. I consider that this measure will be welcomed and is welcomed by the entire country. It can become a Canadian Magna Carta; and because it can become that I should like to point out that in being reduced to writing there is a danger that it might tend to circumscribe or limit the freedoms and the human rights which are now enjoyed.
For that reason I say that the government should exercise the greatest caution possible

The Address-Mr. Crestohl and do everything in its power to make certain that all viewpoints are heard and all ideas are expressed and included in a document that will in truth be a charter of human rights. There might be some danger if we do not take these precautions.
Canada has been described as a mosaic of minorities, and that is true. There are different points of view, different cultures, different backgrounds, all of which must be very carefully considered to make sure that the mosaic will be fully represented in our Canadian charter. Therefore I want to support as ardently as I can the suggestion of my leader that a parliamentary committee composed of members of both houses of parliament be appointed in order to study all the angles, all the problems, all the points of view before we finally circumscribe and enclose within a framework the fundamental freedoms and human rights which Canadians now and in the future may enjoy. Let us make certain that everything is included, because once the charter is reduced to writing it can become quite a dangerous document.
I suggest that first of all the government should invite legal experts, professors of law at the universities, sociologists, church and religious leaders and labour leaders, and certainly they should invite the provinces. It is my suggestion that perhaps the provincial attorneys general should be summoned by the government to a conference, because there are conflicts of opinion with respect to whether or not the constitutional phase will be adequately covered. At the present time there is a growing fear, a growing anxiety in the country, that perhaps all the constitutional difficulties will not be overcome and that some of the rights which the Canadian parliament may suggest may come into conflict with provincial rights. A meeting with the provinces may perhaps produce some agreement that will result in the constitutional difficulties between the federal and provincial authorities being solved.
Therefore I urge the Prime Minister as strongly as I can that such a conference be convened. We are at the present time and have been deluged by recommendations from various representative Canadian organizations. We should not ignore the representations they make. We now read in the newspapers, or hear over the radio and television, articles and announcements by authorities on constitutional law which seriously question whether such a bill of rights would do the good it is intended to do or whether it would do harm, and I therefore suggest that it would be a great mistake for the Prime Minister not to exercise every possible precaution to make sure that his bill will be what it is intended to be.


Mr. Chown:: Are you for it or against it?


Leon David Crestohl: Everybody, I think, is for
it, but we are anxious to make sure that the Prime Minister will not have relied entirely on the advice he is now getting from his cabinet or from hon. members opposite but that he should seek advice from the entire country; from men who are students of sociology and men who are students of constitutional law; people who are as deeply concerned about the future of Canadians as the hon. member is and as I am.
My suggestion is a purely constructive one, and I will carry it further. This proposed measure will in all probability be adorned with the royal assent given by Her Majesty the Queen in person, and because it is a measure which will be sanctioned by Her Majesty herself I plead with the Prime Minister that he convene such a committee as I have suggested. After all, we have convened all sorts of committees in the past. Quite recently a committee was set up by parliament to study humane methods of slaughtering animals. I think hon. members opposite would agree with me that it would be ironic and incongruous if we were to appoint a committee to study how animals should die and not appoint a committee to study how humans should live.
The second topic on which I should like to touch is the question of immigration. I think the whole country accepts the fact that the people of Canada are the most valuable natural resource we have, and consequently I was disappointed that no reference was made in the speech from the throne to the question of immigration. The importance of immigration has been continually stressed by leading Canadians and quite recently by three authorities who will, I know, be acceptable to hon. members opposite. I refer to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Immigration herself. I should like, for the information of the house, to read what the Prime Minister himself said on April 27, 1957 about immigrants and immigration while he was making one of his tours. I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail:
At his first stop of the day-a conference with the ethnic press association in Toronto-Mr. Diefenbaker filled in the detail of one aspect of that program. Development, he told the editors of foreign language publications, demands manpower. The only way to meet the needs for skill and talents is through accelerated immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I underscore the words "accelerated immigration". The Prime Minister said further:
A government formed by the Conservatives, he added, will undertake an intensive immigration policy that will make available to all sections of the country those talents and skills.

And here I underscore the word "intensive". He said the party would undertake an intensive immigration policy, not, I would point out, a retarded immigration policy.
Now I turn to my second authority who, as I said, will also no doubt be acceptable to hon. members opposite, namely the Minister of Finance, who on Tuesday, June 17, 1958 is reported at page 1231 of Hansard to have said:
Population growth of itself does not ensure progress, but in a country such as ours it has a special significance. It provides a greater market for our agricultural produce and for the products of our factories and reduces our vulnerability to changes in external demand. It brings us a greater diversity of talent and the means of employing it to better advantage. It reduces the per capita cost of supplying essential services in this great land. There can be no doubt-
And I underscore the words "no doubt"-
-that the population growth of the post-war period has had these effects.
And now I turn to my third authority, no less a person than the minister of immigration herself, who is reported as follows in the Montreal Star of January 14, 1959:
Immigration minister Ellen Fairclough said today that immigrants have helped to bolster the Canadian economy by their consumer buying, by establishing new businesses and industry and by bringing money into the country.
Mrs. Fairclough denied that immigrants were taking jobs away from native-born workers.
These are very significant words, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to underline them. Then the report continues:
Mrs. Fairclough also noted that during the eight-year period 1950-58 immigrants purchased 3,879 farms and rented 849 others.
"The purchasing power of the immigrants is reflected in such purchases during the 1951-58 period as 173,000 electric or gas stoves, more than 150,000 refrigerators and more than 128,000 washing machines," she said.
"In the last 12 years immigrants have brought into this country more than $800 million in cash and securities and some $300 million in effects. In 1957 alone, they paid an estimated $190 million in direct taxes," she continued.
These are clear statements of policy by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Finance and by the minister of immigration herself.
My leader earlier in this debate spoke of contradictions, confusion and instability in many phases of government. Let me point out some very poignant cases of confusion, contradiction and instability which have occurred with regard to the government's immigration policy. I would draw to the attention of the house that the Prime Minister's glorious recommendation of an accelerated immigration policy was made in April, 1957, just prior to the election of that year.
A little over a month after that election press reports stated the following as a matter
The Address-Mr. Crestohl of government policy, and I now quote from the Ottawa Citizen of July 27, 1957. This is the quotation:
The Progressive Conservative government in a major policy announcement has placed restrictions on immigration into Canada for the balance of 1957.
For the rest of the year immigrants arriving for open placement on the labour market-those with no prearranged work contracts-have a July 31 deadline for arrival.
That was the first announcement made immediately after the election. Another press release on the same subject which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of July 27, 1957 reads:
Confronted by rising unemployment and scarcity of winter housing, the Diefenbaker government last night placed heavy restrictions on immigration for the rest of this year.
Hon. E. Davie Fulton, acting immigration minister, announced that after July 31 only persons with guaranteed jobs or financially-responsible relatives already here, will be admitted.
That was corroborated and confirmed by another responsible minister of the government, the Minister of Labour, some three months later when he said on October 16, 1957, as reported at page 29 of Hansard of that date:
I might say also, on behalf of the government, that we have curtailed for the balance of the year the influx of immigrants which swelled our total labour population.
What a contradiction of what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had said. One minister said that immigrants do not interfere with employment or take jobs from native Canadians, and the other minister in direct contradiction said the opposite.
I should like to trace for a moment the results of the immigration policy of this government. Two or three months before the election the Prime Minister made an appeal for open door immigration, and I believe he was sincere in what he said which was designed to win the vote of the ethnic group. I know he favours large immigration into Canada. No one, not even I who both in and out of season have pleaded for an open door policy for immigration, could have improved upon the statements to this effect made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Finance before the 1957 election. No one could have made more eloquent speeches. Yet the moment the election was over we heard from the acting minister of immigration a statement which like that made by the Minister of Labour almost categorically denied what had been said by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance with respect to an open door policy for immigration. Is this not a clear cut illustration of

The Address-Mr. Crestohl confusion and contradiction? Where is the policy of this government with respect to immigration?


Gordon Campbell Chown: They were just carrying out the Liberal policy.


Leon David Crestohl: Let me tell you how they were carrying out the Liberal policy. The Liberal policy brought into Canada hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration herself has outlined what these immigrants have done for Canada. How can the hon. member who interrupted say that his government carried out the Liberal immigration policy, when the figures tell a different story? If the hon. member does not know what he is talking about let him refer to the facts and figures.
I am always pleased at interruptions, Mr. Speaker. When I first came to this house I was told that if no one interrupted you when you were making a speech it indicated that no one was interested in what you were saying and you were making no impression. To that extent interruptions are symbols of interest; and if you were interrupted by hon. members opposite it indicated that you were saying things that hurt them. I am grateful to the hon. member who has just interrupted for indicating in this way that the deficiencies in the immigration policies of his government which I am pointing out and the horrible series of contradictions are a source of concern to him. What I am saying has hit home and hurts.
Let me read another interesting statement which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 5, 1959. In addressing the Oshawa Rotary club the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration released some figures of interest. The report reads in part:
The year's immigration total was less than half 1957's 282,164 and less than the 1946-56 10-year average of 126,000.
Here we have a statement by a minister of the government disclosing the fact that total immigration in 1958 was less than half that of 1957. It seems almost to have been said with a sense of pride in contradiction to former statements made by the hon. lady.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Who signed the directive reducing immigration into Canada in June of that year before the Conservative government took office?


Leon David Crestohl: There was no cut in immigration other than that announced by the present Minister of Justice, who was then acting minister of immigration. He explained that the government reduced the flow of immigration into Canada as a first step to meet the problem of unemployment. I do not know

to what extent he exposed or embarrassed the Prime Minister, who had spoken in favour of an open door policy for immigration before the election, particularly when he was pleading for the support of the ethnic groups in this country.
As I said, the article from which I read is a clear indication that immigration was reduced by one half in the period of a year. Because the Minister of Labour had said that the government stopped the flow of immigration in order not to interfere with the employment of Canadians one might assume that there would have been a corresponding reduction in unemployment in the last year, but the facts do not bear this out. Unemployment increased despite the reduction in immigration. I therefore go along with the statement made by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who said clearly that in her judgment and in the judgment of many eminent sociologists and economists immigration into Canada in no way interfered with employment.
Let me read some comments by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as reported in the Regina Leader Post of January 17, 1959:
Justice Minister Davie Fulton was the first to express his views . . . Mr. Fulton said one of the first decisions, an unpleasant one, the Conservative administration had to take was to curb the flow of immigration which had been going on at the rate of 300,000 a year.


Gordon Campbell Chown: That was a Liberal decision.


Leon David Crestohl: You are perfectly right. Under the Liberal administration 300,000 immigrants a year were coming to Canada, but that was too much for the present government. The Minister of Justice made a further statement, reported in the same article as follows:
If the flow had not been curbed, he said, the majority would have come seeking jobs and finding none. They would be "competing with Canadians for a shrinking labour opportunity".
In the same article the stand taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is commented on as follows:
Mrs. Fairclough took a slightly different tack. She said that year by year immigration brings to Canada a steady flow of producers as well as consumers of Canadian products. In a very real sense, she said, a new and important domestic market is being created by immigrants.
Now Mrs. Fairclough introduced her seemingly contradictory thoughts to what Mr. Fulton had been saying. ... In good times little criticism of immigration is heard. But when economic expansion slows down, there is a tendency on the part of some to question the value of immigration. Occasionally we hear that immigrants take work from native-born Canadians and aggravate unemployment; this notwithstanding the oft-expressed view of reputable economists that there is little or no connection between immigration and unemployment.

Here you have it, Mr. Speaker. Three responsible ministers of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, take one tack on immigration; speak very eloquently in favour of large immigration, accelerated immigration to Canada; point out and emphasize the value of immigrants to Canada, what they have contributed in the past to Canada; and within a matter of weeks three other responsible ministers take an entirely different tack. They say, curb immigration, stop immigration, and they contradict the statement of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that immigrants do not interfere with employment. What clearer example could one possibly give of contradiction, confusion and instability in government policy? I refer only to its immigration policy.
I would suggest the Minister of Labour has his problems to worry about, and therefore he announces on behalf of the government a reduction in the number of immigrants. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has her problems to worry about. She favours immigration. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is a case of the right hand in the cabinet not knowing what its left hand is doing, and that confirms the clear-cut statement of the Leader of the Opposition that there is confusion and contradiction in the government; particularly, as I have just pointed out, with respect to immigration.
I should like to make some observations on the feature of this debate, Mr. Speaker, which was emphasized over and over again by government speakers who are constantly nudging the opposition with the question, "What do you suggest; what would you do about it?" We can understand, of course, from the contradictions which are so apparent and so obvious that there could be cause for great concern among the members of the government. This is obvious, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly the result of^ inexperience. If government spokesmen would rise in their places in the house and simply say with all candor and all sincerity, "We have just taken charge of the government; we are new in this; we believe we have policies which we shall develop, but we have not had the experience, and therefore at the beginning of our administration there may be some apparent confusion, some apparent contradiction, but it will straighten itself out", I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that would be a becoming statement; it would be in line with the facts.
I suggest they should do this rather than try with great difficulty to defend all this confusion. We would have great respect for a government which would say to the country, "We have a program, we have a
The Address-Mr. Crestohl policy which we will implement, but give us an opportunity. We have not had the vast experience the former government had after 22 years of power. They were tried and experienced. We will perform just as well in time." To have failed to make that statement is in my judgment a gross oversight.
Then they say to the opposition, "What would you suggest?" "What should we do?" Well, Mr. Speaker, to nudge the opposition with these questions is a little bit ludicrous. Let us look at it. Politics being politics, will anyone say that a government will do those things which an opposition suggests? Oh, it is just so much beautiful language, so much challenging language. It is another way of saying, "We don't know what to do; what would you suggest?" When our leader makes a suggestion to the government-and he made it again recently-that a drastic cut in income tax be made so there would be more take-home pay in every employee's envelope, there would be more money thrown into circulation and more buying power and this buying power would create more production and more production would create more labour opportunities and unemployment would be reduced, what is the result? It was a practical suggestion, but it was completely ignored. It was not argued against; it was not set aside; it was just completely ignored. But they persist in asking the opposition, "What would you suggest?"
Then, Mr. Speaker, in my humble way I myself had the temerity to suggest to the government a 30-day or a 60-day sales tax holiday. That, too, would throw more money into circulation. People would be inclined to purchase; people would have more funds and would buy within this 30- or 60-day period because they would know that within that period they could purchase without having to pay sales tax. There would be an impetus to buying; buying power would be increased; production again would be increased and unemployment would be reduced. But that, too, was completely ignored even though it did have editorial support.
I would dare answer that question which is constantly put to the opposition, "What would you do?" by taking a page from history, indeed from Canadian history. What did other governments do? What did another government do at a time when the country found itself in a difficult economic condition. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our economic position is so serious today that I in any event and all hon. members should shudder at the thought that now for the second time within my memory Canadians are humbled to such an extent that they must seek food in bread lines and from free soup kitchens.

The Address-Mr. Crestohl
Immediately after the first world war, in the years 1919, 1920 and 1921, as a young man I had the sad and heartbreaking experience of seeing bread lines and soup kitchens in Montreal. And now, as I said, for the second time within my memory we learn from the press that bread lines and soup kitchens have been established in Toronto and Vancouver. This is a sad thing for us as members of parliament, representing the people, to contemplate; and I have reason to fear that this state of affairs may even spread to other cities. I urge that it is the solemn duty of members of parliament, the spokesmen of the people of Canada, regardless of political party or affiliation, to give this matter the serious consideration it deserves.
I say, Mr. Speaker, the government has the power to arrest this spreading calamity. All it needs is the courage, and courage means not to seek to do only those things which are popular or popular vote-catchers. All it needs is the courage to do those things which are necessary and urgent regardless of whether they are popular and will catch votes. It is the duty of the government to place the re-sponsibilty, the urgency and the needs of our people above political party politics. This has been done by another government.
Before I even touch on that matter I should point out that both in the 1919 and 1920 eras, when we had soup kitchens and bread lines, just as they are developing now in our country, peculiarly the governments were Conservative governments. I do not make that as an accusation but as a statement of fact. It may be sheer coincidence or perhaps, as someone has said, the Conservative party is just a hard-luck party. It is a horrible picture to contemplate, Mr. Speaker.
I say to hon. members that it may be unpopular to do certain things, but they must be done. It may be quite true, I quite understand and sympathize, that hon. gentlemen opposite even feel politically pained by this sad picture; their humane sensibilities may also be pained. However, they should stop playing painful politics, because that is what is happening. Every measure, everything that is said by the government has only one objective: Is it popular? Will it get us votes? They should not be concerned with these things so early in the administration of the government.
The Prime Minister sees visions and I too, Mr. Speaker, see visions. When I think of these bread lines, the playing of politics, the doing of only those things which are popular, then the vision I see is that of Nero and Rome.
As I said a moment ago, at another time when this country was facing a serious

economic situation another political party did things which were not very popular. If we go back to 1939, 1940 and 1941, when rigid controls were set up in this country, we find that they were not popular with anyone. They were good for the country. They may have been bad for a political party but they were necessary for the good of the country. We all recall the so-called dollar a year brigade which was pressed into service by the then government. Irrespective of the political party to which these gentlemen belonged they were summoned to the service of Canada. Canada needed their help at the time. It is quite clear that they came forward, and the government of the day did not hesitate to introduce those rigid controls, those unpopular measures. There were price controls, salary controls, rent controls and so on.
I am not suggesting these as measures the government should adopt today. I am simply pointing them out and saying they were unpopular measures that were adopted by a government which did not think of its political future but thought of its country's future. All these controls were set up, as I said, and men were summoned from all parts of Canada, irrespective of their political allegiance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Leon David Crestohl: But a note was just given to me stating that I had five minutes more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member's time expired at 12.36.


Mr. Egan Chambers (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to start my contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker, by saying how glad we all are to see Mr. Speaker back in his chair, in good health and in his usual good humour after his travels during the recess. I should like also to join with other hon.*members who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) of the address in reply. He delivered one of the best speeches I have ever heard on the subject of agriculture. He laid out, for the members of this house and for the people of the country, the program and the accomplishments of the government in that field.
(Translation):
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), for the excellent speech he made. I am sure his father and his grandfather, both former members of this house, would be proud of him and we can be sure that his career in this house will be that of a distinguished parliamentarian.

(Text):
I had not intended this morning, Mr. Speaker, to touch on the subject of immigration. However, having listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) I cannot help but point out to him that what he has been criticizing at considerable length in the way of immigration policy was, in fact, the policy of his own government. The policy of the previous Liberal government on immigration-and in my view it was not a bad policy though not always well carried out-was to regulate the flow of immigrants so that it was in keeping with the economic situation in this country. We do not want to bring in people for whom there is no housing or for whom there is no work. I will take second place to no one as an advocate of an active and full immigration policy for Canada.
However, as the hon. member pointed out in the latter part of his speech, we have had economic difficulties. It is known that many immigrants, in their first years in this country, have difficulties because their knowledge of the languages of Canada is sometimes not good enough to get them the best type of employment. Very often they are the ones upon whom economic difficulties fall most heavily. The hon. member for Cartier was suggesting, it seemed to me, that we should have brought in large numbers of people to walk the streets of this country and be a charge upon the communities in which they live, and to start out in this country in a very unhappy frame of mind. The policy of cutting back on immigration, as was pointed out by someone on this side of the house, was inaugurated by a Liberal government before the election in 1957, when they sent notices to the immigration offices throughout the world to be prepared to cut down on immigration as the economic outlook was not good.
This government, as has been shown by the speeches of the Prime Minister and other ministers, is a believer in immigration, but a believer in sound immigration. We believe in bringing people to this country when we are able to give them jobs, give them housing and give them a good start toward becoming Canadians. That is the policy of the government, and that is the policy that has been carried out. The hon. member mentioned that last year immigration was considerably lower than the previous year. What he did not mention was that immigration the previous year was the greatest since before the first war. Immigration last year compares very favourably with many of the years since the war when the policy was administered by the former Liberal government.
I come, Mr. Speaker, from the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George. It is the very centre
The Address-Mr. Chambers of the metropolis of Canada. Many of our citizens work in other ridings, and many of the people who work in our riding live in other ridings. It is therefore difficult for me to speak specifically of St. Lawrence-St. George. We are part of a larger community, and we are affected by the problems of that larger community. Apart from that, having listened to and read in Hansard the speeches of the various hon. members who have preceded me, I have noted that they have taken unto their own ridings all the compliments that can be bestowed upon a riding in Canada-I should say, all but one. I will merely say that in St. Lawrence-St. George, of all of the ridings in the country, we have the best looking women.


An hon. Member:: I thought the hon. member said all except one.


Egan Chambers: I make no exception. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, we are involved in the problems of a larger community. One of the problems facing the city of Montreal today is transportation across the St. Lawrence river. We in Montreal are grateful to the government and to the Minister of Transport for the efforts that are being made to alleviate that problem. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has been greatly interested in the problem of the Victoria bridge which is to be partially closed for alterations by the Canadian National Railways. Since we on this side of the house have been asking for constructive suggestions I thought I might ask the hon. member for Laurier whether he could not make a constructive suggestion in this regard. As everyone knows he was closely concerned with the seaway and with transportation generally in the past. In the Montreal Star of November 1, 1954 we find the following statement:
The chairman of the seaway authority, Mr. Chevrier, has announced that a formula has been found to avoid delays on Victoria bridge once the Montreal end of the seaway project has been completed. He will not say now what it is.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, this his silence has gone on long enough, and that if he knows how to keep the bridge open and still do the necessary alterations, now is the time when he should let us all in on the secret rather than simply ask the Minister of Transport questions in that regard.
In this debate the charge of the opposition seems to be that the government is confused. But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no more confusion than that which is indicted in the speeches that have come from the opposition benches. I do not want to go over all the ground, but I should like to take just one speech I heard. It was not made in this house but was made on the national radio

The Address-Mr. Chambers network by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I was interested the other day to hear him rise to make a correction in Hansard, at which time he said that he did not jive but that he jibed, and went on to clear up the point by explaining how he was using the term. When he first mentioned the term I, of course, thought that as he was an old nautical man it had to do with the well known phrase in sailing, namely to jibe, which is to go about before the wind. May I say that there is no one who spends more time before the wind than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
He began his remarks by very kindly saying that he and his party did not hold the Conservative government responsible for unemployment but that what they held the government responsible for was the fact that the government had done absolutely nothing about it; and then he jibed. He started to talk about inflation. He said that inflation was a very serious problem and that everything the government had done served to increase inflation. A moment or two previously he had said that the government had done nothing. Then he said that everything they had done was inflationary.
It is possible, in fact probable, that some of the actions of the government to alleviate the unemployment situation were inflationary. But what the hon. member failed to tell us was which of those measures he would have preferred the government had not put into effect. Was it the extension of unemployment insurance that he did not want because it was inflationary? Was it the housing program that has given work to thousands and thousands of Canadians during a difficult period? Was that what he did not want put into effect because it was inflationary? Was it the public works program, the building of roads to the north or the improvement of our harbours? Were those the things that he felt should not have been done because they were inflationary? He did not say, Mr. Speaker. However, I can suggest some things the government may have been considering which no doubt would be inflationary and which perhaps now should be dropped.
During the last session the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate took us on a magnificent tour through that riding of his, in the course of which he stopped at every harbour and community, every pile of logs and every place where there was a pile of logs ten years ago. In each and every one of those corners he found that some public work was necessary. Here it was a new dock, there a cold storage plant or some place to tie up his ship. If those works were now undertaken I suggest that they would be extremely

inflationary, and probably would cause damage not only to the country but particularly to Bonavista-Twillingate.
Yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur had something to say comparing our economy with that of communist countries. I want to make it clear right away that I am not suggesting that I think he was favouring that type of economy. However, he pointed out, and with some truth, that in those countries there is disciplined society, and that because of the disciplined society and because the efforts of every citizen can be directed, there is there an efficiency that we perhaps do not possess. This may be one of the reasons that they get their rockets closer to the moon than do the western countries.
I do not think there is anyone in this house who wants a disciplined society in exchange for our free society, and I think there are few in this country who do. Nevertheless we are in competition with the communist countries, and we must find-and I think we have done so-a substitute for this iron discipline. We must find some method of mobilizing the efforts of our people while maintaining their freedom.
To you, Mr. Speaker, and to all other hon. members I suggest that in the sense of national purpose that has been instilled into the great majority of our people by the Prime Minister we have the substitute for discipline. Today we have a country that is united as it has seldom been in its history. It is united because the people of this country believe in the program of the government. They believe in the qualities of leadership that exist in those who occupy the front benches of the Conservative party.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out, in our society there are some activities which he described as not being vital parts of production, and he named one or two. I think you could define those people who use the resources of this country solely for their own profit and without any consideration for the national purpose as doing something which is contrary to the long-term aspirations of our people. As I say, he named a couple; I could name a couple more, including those persons who take up time and newsprint to do such things as to print obscene publications and persons who use time, effort and capital to do what I would call useless things such as printing the social register.
Then we come to those whose profit is not in money but in political capital, people such as some who have spoken in this debate who will use anything they can put their finger on to turn a political profit without any consideration of the effect their words will have on the people of the country. This has been pointed out before in this debate, but when we

have members opposite stand up and say that the country is going to the dogs, that there is no direction, no future, they may make a short term political profit but what in effect they are doing is damaging the confidence of the people of the country.
People who are considering investment in employment-producing industries, people who are considering setting up new firms to develop our natural resources may feel, because these respected gentlemen say the future is dark that they should not do so at this time. So it seems to me that these people, together with those whose only consideration is monetary profit, are what you might call the negative part of our society at this time.
We on this side of the house have been criticized because occasionally we say that we support the Conservative Prime Minister. I do not know why this should be. If we say anything in favour of our Prime Minister it is suggested that we are looking for advancement only, but I make no apology. If I did not support the Prime Minister I would not be sitting on this side of the house. We follow his leadership because it is the best leadership in Canada today. It has been ably demonstrated in this debate, in the speech from the throne and by the accomplishments of the government since it came into office the year before last that we have in the Prime Minister a leader in whom the vast majority of the people of the country have confidence. It is he who has pointed out to the people of the country the national purpose of which I spoke. He has pictured to them the destiny of the country, and he is leading them along the path of progress toward that destiny.
I only want to say one other thing, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with parliament. A year or two ago we used to hear speeches on the rights of parliament and the rights of members of parliament. One of the main planks of the Conservative platform was to restore the rights of parliament, and today we no longer hear such speeches. We no longer hear complaints from the opposition that their rights are being withheld. In fact if there are any breaches of the rights of the house they still come from the opposition. I feel sorry for them. I know they are reduced in number, but I suggest to them that the way to increase their number is not by bringing their friends into the house without having them first elected.
Let them do as the Prime Minister and other members of the government have suggested. Let them bring forward constructive policies. Let them say to the people of Canada something that will lead the people to believe that they have come back from the bankruptcy of policy which put them out of office. Let them
The Address-Mr. Michaud look over the constructive, forward-looking, far-reaching program of the government and learn their lesson from it.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join at this time with those hon. members who have preceded me in this debate by extending my sincere congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson) on the able manner in which he discharged his duty.
(Translation):
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) who, in seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne, did very well. He was a credit to his electors and his constituency.
I should like also to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my satisfaction of the fact that, this session again, you are Speaker of this house.
It had not been my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the subject of immigration at this time. But after hearing cabinet ministers, and particularly the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), who complained this morning about the former Liberal government's immigration policy, I could not resist the temptation to remind the house of a few facts and incidents relating to that matter.
Allow me to quote from a few newspaper articles I have on my desk. Here is, for example, what one could read on February 15, 1955, in the paper La Presse under the title:
Conservatives want to boost immigration-Mr. Davie Fulton introduced a non confidence motion and advocated more active recruiting in Great Britain.
Note, Mr. Speaker, that if the non confidence motion had carried, it would have caused the fall of the Liberal government.
And the article adds:
The government's immigration policy is neither clear, nor consistent nor integrated. It does not meet the needs of Canada. It does not live up to the responsibilities of Canada. Its implementation involves discrimination against Canadians and non-Canadians.
474	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michaud
Some time later, on August 8, 1956, the Timmins Daily Press said:
Opposition-
The people who now form the government.
-urges more immigrants.
Again, on January 26, 1957, the Timmins Daily Press reported as follows:
Fulton says Canada slow with refugees.
And, finally, as recently as April 2, 1957, a headline in the Action Catholique read:
We must increase our population or we shall perish, says Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Speaker, may those few headlines be remembered henceforth by those who, on the government side of the house, would be tempted to criticize the policy of the former Liberal government. I hope those headlines will give them food for sober second thoughts. The inspiration they get from them might prod them into changing their attitude in the future. As the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said the other day: Other times, other ways.
(Text):
I think it is appropriate to state at this time that the debate now engaging the retention of the house has clearly indicated the seriousness of the many problems now confronting the Canadian nation. It also has shown the confusion, embarrassment and indecision which the government is displaying in dealing with these many problems. But what else could be expected? It has been said that the government promised its way to power. Now it is indicted for its dismal failure to implement its election promises.
Perhaps it would be proper to recall to the government that never before was the old French adage so true: "Qui seme le vent, recolte la tempete." How well I remember the fantastic promises made in my own riding by the supporters of the present government in the course of the last two election campaigns-jobs of their own choosing for all those who would support the present government's candidate; pensions to all within the age limit of the Old Age Assistance Act; more generous unemployment insurance benefits to the unemployed with or without the required number of insurance stamps. Public works projects were promised on every corner, even invading the field of private enterprise. Factories were promised for every village, and the provincial field was also brought into the picture during the campaign. New roads, paved if need be, were promised in every section of the county of Kent. Then came the chorus of "being on the winning side" with all its overtones 

of accompanying skull duggery regardless of how incompatible it was with all the concepts of democratic principles, the suggestion that unless you are on the winning side you cannot expect the same benefits and the same privileges.
If one recognizes that the pattern followed in my own riding was much the same as that followed throughout the whole country by Conservative spokesmen, it is little wonder that the chickens are now coming home to roost in such large numbers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the main causes of the government's present embarrassment are of its own making and the direct result of this unbridled flow of irresponsible promises which overwhelmed all media of publicity in the last two political campaigns. It is therefore the responsibility of the government and not the responsibility of the opposition, as has been so often suggested by government speakers in this debate, to meet all the expectancies aroused by its own supporters, let alone its own candidates.
Much has been said about unemployment during the course of this debate. I have no intention at this time of going into details concerning this matter. Numerous statistics have been quoted and many arguments have been advanced as to who should bear the responsibility for the present unemployment situation. However, my duty compels me at this time to say to this house that unemployment with all it comprises in terms of moral and physical suffering is far too prevalent in my own constituency.
Before leaving for Ottawa for the present session I saw cases of want and poverty that would wring your heart, cases of children without food or clothing, homes without fuel, situations that are a challenge to our democratic and Christian institutions. Statistics will never reveal the true picture of the economic conditions existing in the constituency I represent. There are an untold number of workers who are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits due to their inability last year, through no fault of their own, to earn the minimum number of stamps required, 15.
Numerous excerpts have been read from the statement of His Eminence Cardinal Leger on the subject of unemployment during recent days. I wish to cite one more extract from that timely and most important appeal:
The wealth of a country is measured by the distribution of material goods rather than by the abundance of these goods. A people which does not enjoy a just distribution of material riches-no matter how abundant these riches are-must be considered a poor people in a rich country.
One of the main causes of unemployment in my part of the country is the present

slump which affects the lumber industry. Thousands of men formerly employed in the manufacture of our pulp and lumber are now sitting idle due to lack of demand. Where pulpwood used to sell at from $15 to $17 a cord at roadside it is now sold at $8 to $10 a cord if indeed you are lucky enough to sell a few cords. The price is hardly more than the stumpage costs.
A further drawback to the pulp industry was the recent freight rate increase. Shippers have told me that this increase means an additional cost, depending upon the delivery point, of $3 to $3.40 a cord. We are told by the government that equalizing measures will be adopted to relieve producers' goods from the eastern and western parts of the country from the paralysing effects of the new freight rate increase. Efforts should be made to make these measures applicable to wood shipments along with other goods.
Mention should also be made of the recent action of the New Brunswick government with regard to woods operations by lumber companies of that province. Through arbitrary measures imposed upon these companies they are now obliged to cut on their leased lands larger quantities of wood than they would normally cut, thus curtailing the production of the small private supplier such as the farmer and settler.
These are all matters which should receive careful study from all parties concerned with a view to promoting renewed activity in the woods industry, which represents a segment of prime importance in the general economy in the province of New Brunswick.
There is one other aspect of the over-all labour field in the maritimes which is different from the situation which existed during past years. As a matter of fact, during the last five or six years two projects of major proportions absorbed the surplus available labour force which was not otherwise locally employed. I refer to the construction of Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick and the construction of air bases in Labrador. But it now seems that these two projects are nearing completion and therefore will not provide the same opportunities for employment as in the past. This situation should be corrected, if mass unemployment is to be avoided in the maritimes, by the launching of new projects of the same wide scope as those I have mentioned. Projects of these proportions were also suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam.)
Without, then, elaborating on their advisability I submit that the government should seriously consider the construction of a causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and the construction of the
The Address-Mr. Michaud Chignecto canal. The undertaking of these works would bring about the double advantage of creating a wide field of local employment for our working force as well as fostering a wider development of our commercial and industrial life.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear during the reading of the throne speech the government's intention of reviewing farm credit. The following words appear in the speech from the throne:
You will also be invited to make a comprehensive review and revision of the legislation concerning farm credit, in order that credit may be more effective in assisting in the development and maintenance of an efficient and prosperous agriculture.
The matter of farm credit is one of great concern to all those whose responsibility it is to guide agriculture at the present time. Farm groups, farm leaders and farm technical advisers, nearly all are agreed that the emphasis should be placed on larger farm units in order to reduce the cost of farm operation and increase net farm revenue.
Great interest in farm practices is emerging in the maritime provinces at this time. I should like at this time to read from a news report in the Moncton Daily Times of January 19 last:
Proper Use of Land said Fundamental-
Atlantic provinces farmers "must change their methods drastically to meet needed changes in production pointed out by agricultural research, changing marketing practices and changing consumer demands," declared Dr. Frank MacKinnon, Charlottetown, president of the Atlantic provinces economic council, in a Moncton address Saturday.
Addressing the first sales clinic of the maritime wholesale hardware association, Dr. MacKinnon said that a "fundamental necessity to the forward march of the Atlantic area economy is "proper use of our land."
"We are wasting much of this valuable asset- 2,500 vacant farms on Prince Edward Island alone. Agriculture is a basic industry upon which every other industry depends, and agriculture is changing. It is not too much to say that in 10 years most present-day farm methods will be obsolete. What are we doing about it?"
The APEC president stated that he had not heard "any good reason why a good living can't be made off a farm and why all our vacant land cannot be taken up again and utilized to the full with profit.
There is no sense in being short-sighted in agriculture; it demands careful planning and the same emphasis on giving the consumer a high quality product that has worked well in industry. Artificial, temporary aids like floor prices are good in only a limited way.
Hard facts must be faced; for example, if the Texans can sell their carrots effectively in our own stores when we are growing them here and cannot sell them, we simply have to learn how to grow and sell carrots properly.
There is gold in the grass right here, too, but we need nothing short of a complete revolution in farm methods to get it."
We shall await with great interest the introduction of the government's legislation

The Address-Mr. Michaud as it will apply to the vital question of credit assistance to agriculture.
Much has been said lately, Mr. Speaker, in regard to certain fishing practices in the maritimes. Needless to say this is of the greatest concern to all those interested in the future welfare of our fisheries, particularly the lobster industry. Many suggestions were offered as to the best methods to stop those poaching practices which seem to be common around some of our shores. The debating point centres on two main suggestions: more education, or more rigidity on the part of conservation officers. I would respectfully submit that both are essential. I recall with satisfaction a series of lectures held in my own constituency in the early summer of 1954. I remain convinced that those lectures, by and large, were beneficial, and my only criticism at this time is that such a program, or other programs of a similar nature, was not further pursued.
We were told that the fisheries department has in its possession films on various aspects of lobster fishing, the life history and the habits of this fish. I am sure that great benefits could be derived if those films were shown in every fishing community. Pamphlets on these same matters could also be distributed in schools, which the school children would subsequently bring back to their homes.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite all efforts to convince fishermen that those illegal practices are detrimental to the good of the industry and to their own personal good, we must be realistic enough to recognize that poaching is an evil that will still remain with us. This is where the department, through its protective staff, will have to intervene with the appropriate measures to master the situation. The best-intentioned fishermen, and those are surely by far the larger number, are demanding action by the department; for many are now convinced that unless a halt is put to the present scale of poaching practices the whole future of the lobster industry will be imperilled.
As an indication of the organized fishermen's views-and these are essentially wellmeaning fishermen-I should like at this time to quote from a news item which I read in the Moncton Times dated January 24 last, containing some of the recommendations made during a recent meeting held in Shediac, New Brunswick, in connection with fishing regulations. I am not commenting on the adequacy of these recommendations; I am simply quoting them as an indication of the trend of thought among the fishing people on this matter:
1. That any fisherman found with illegal lobsters in his possession be required to pay a minimum fine of $2 for each illegal lobster.

2. That any fisherman found with more than 50 per cent illegal lobsters in his possession be subject to the minimum fine of $2 for each illegal lobster, plus the suspension of licence for a 12-month period.
The news item adds:
All fishermen present were in agreement that a strict adherence to the regulations would tend to bring the industry to a higher level, and be a distinct advantage to all concerned.
The general consciousness of all those concerned with this vital matter, Mr. Speaker, augurs well for its ultimate solution.


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, you must be an innately modest man to be able to withstand the wealth of compliments handed to you in the past two weeks, but at the risk of overdoing it I am going to add my own. Also, Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice to the voices of all other members on both the government and opposition sides in complimenting the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) on the masterly performance of each.
I have, if I may say so at this time, a matter to refer to which perhaps has not been debated so far, namely the royal commission on energy resources. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there seems to be a misconception of the role of royal commissions. Royal commissions are to collect facts and make recommendations. The government may or may not accept them. Sometimes it accepts them	in full,	sometimes in part	and sometimes	not	at	all.	It is a grand	thing that
under our democratic system the government makes the final decision, as the government will doubtless do in this case.
So	far	as	the	recommendations of thatcommission are concerned, may I simply say that for my part I cannot help but be glad	that	it	has	recommended	a national
energy board, provided, however, that such energy board is not so restrictive and so final as to throttle that very energetic industry, the oil and gas industry. On the other recommendation, which may or may not be the correct interpretation, I for one must object to the suggestion that the energy board should attempt to limit the profits on equity capital, to what they consider a fair amount; because to do that, Mr. Speaker, without including in the decision the whole picture, would be to throttle the expansion which is going on at the present time and would bring an end to the risk capital without which the tremendous strides in the Canadian west in oil and gas production could not possibly have been made.
Having said that, may I say at this time- and I have not had an opportunity to do it before-that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), in his references to the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), was wistful. At this stage may I say that I would like to be nostalgic, just for a moment, because it is not so many years ago that I sat at the feet of a certain history professor at the University of Toronto called Pearson, Mike Pearson. We did not know then that his name was Lester. In those days, as we had those quiet seances in his chambers in Baldwin Hall, many of us wondered what he would become, whether he would be a great history professor or whether he would be a great football coach. I suppose he had that problem to decide himself. None of us, however, suspected-least of all I-that my old history professor would one day occupy the second most important position in this chamber, that of leader of Her Majesty's opposition. I want to compliment him at this time upon his achievement.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should say that no one could have been more amazed than I at the opening of the throne speech debate to see my old history professor, so kindly, so good-natured and so charming as he was then, come out of his corner of the ring fighting, swinging in all directions. He kept on doing that for an hour and a half, and I thought he certainly had changed. After that hour and a half the good humour we all know he possesses asserted itself, and for the next hour he made his points, yes, but he made them with a smile on his face as if to say, "Well, boys, I have to say this but does it not sound ridiculous?" I know he will not mind me saying this, because I know he has a sense of humour.
I went home over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, just to go from home to home in my riding of Rosedale, which includes such parts of Toronto as Regent Park and Cab-bagetown mentioned so eloquently by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I was somewhat amazed to find that the people there were really fed up with the debate so far. They felt that the government had been criticized, and it should be criticized, but that the criticism was of the carping, destructive type. They felt it was time the opposition parties became constructive in their criticism. I came back to the house prepared to say something about it, but I did not need to because on Monday night last the Leader of the Opposition realized the disservice that his party was doing not only to itself but to the country. Having realized this, he rose in the house and suggested that the throne speech debate be brought to an end, and quite properly so under all the circumstances.
Perhaps in the future, Mr. Speaker, we can have some constructive criticism in the throne speech debate. I would suggest also
The Address-Mr. Walker that we should consider the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps in future years reduce the duration of the throne speech debate from ten days to five. Surely all that needs to be said could be said in five days instead of the present ten.
I was surprised also to learn that my friend the Leader of the Opposition had visited Montreal over the weekend, during which time he had made a speech. According to the report I read in the Globe and Mail he made this statement:
It is obvious that something is going to blow.
He was not talking about a football team, and he was not talking about himself. He added:
The government is sitting on an inflationary time bomb.
I should like to ask the hon. gentleman, my former professor: which horse are you on, inflation or unemployment? Unlike the rider in the circus, the Leader of the Opposition cannot ride both horses at the same time because they go in opposite directions. I ask him, as the Prime Minister asked him at the opening of the debate, where does he stand in connection with the situation which confronts Canada today? In his opinion, which has priority,-unemployment or inflation?
We have heard a great deal from the members of the opposition-able speeches they were-on the subject of the deficit. All sorts of figures have been suggested, and some of them are fantastic figures. None of these figures has been more fantastic than the one which came from the newly incorporated Martin bureau of imaginative statistics, which set the deficit at over a billion dollars. This is a gross exaggeration, of course; but supposing the deficit is, as has been suggested, $700 million. Has the government no authority, has the government no support, has the government nothing outside of its own decision to support a deficit of that kind? I ask you that. The opposition members apparently think not.
May I remind them that the Leader of the Opposition himself has justified the position in which the government finds itself today in its deficit budgeting by a speech which he made on February 10 last, or which is reported in the Toronto Daily Star of February 10 last. At that time he was campaigning to become prime minister. The article states:
Hon. Lester Pearson today promised the Canadian people a program of major tax cuts and social changes if the Liberals were returned to power on March 31. He pledged tax reductions of $400 million to spur the lagging economy.
Then the article goes on:
The $400 million tax cut proposed by Mr. Pearson would add to the budget deficit for the coming fiscal
478	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Walker year which his colleague, Hon. George Marler, has estimated will come to around $380 million as a result of existing commitments.
On that basis, if Mr. Pearson's program was put into effect during the next session, the federal government would end the 1958-59 fiscal year with a deficit in the neighbourhood of $800 million-
Now, that is the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition himself, made when he was campaigning for election; yet now his supporters have castigated the government for having the deficit which it is expected they might have. I do not know that he has pressed such views with vigour, but his supporters have. Then according to this article he went even further:
If the situation deteriorated still further, Mr. Pearson stated that he was prepared to recommend even greater deficit financing.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker; here he is on record on February 10 last, and contrast that with the speeches we have heard in this house since that time. Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to boast about the Liberal party, and the article reads:
Mr. Pearson said the idea of creating a budget deficit was in keeping with principles of the Liberal party which had reduced the national debt by $2,500 million during the prosperous post-war years, while resorting to deficit financing in 1955 when that was necessary to stimulate the economy.
What we find is this, and I have figures here to prove it; that the Liberals talk about cyclical budgeting as if they had invented it, yet in the recession years of 1954 and 1957 they budgeted for a surplus. When we came into power in 1957 the Liberals had budgeted for a surplus in that year of recession, while in the boom years 1955 and 1956 they contrived to have deficits. The theory of cyclical budgeting is to reduce demand when it is excessive and inflation threatens, and to expand demand when it is deficient and unemployment is the major item. However, far from reducing the amplitude of the economic fluctuations during the last cycle between 1954 and 1957, the Liberals actually increased those fluctuations. On the basis of their figures they had surpluses when they should have had deficits and they had deficits when they should have had surpluses. The figures speak for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in Montreal may I say this. The facts would appear to indicate otherwise than the likelihood of this time bomb going off at the present time or in the near future; because it would appear that the inflationary tendency which has been in evidence in recent months is almost at an end and that the year 1959 will be a year of renewed expansion, with increased stability of prices. Such inflation as we have had since


assuming office is not "demand" inflation. It is not what we used to call classical inflation. It is not that at all; it could not possibly be so because there is no pressure upon our resources. No one knows better than does the Leader of the Opposition that the tremendous influx of capital investment in our country since the war has begun to assert itself in the great capacity of this country for production. This result is already instanced by the fact that the commodity price structure has at last become stabilized. As a matter of fact we have now more stability in commodity prices than we have had in years.
Therefore, with the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I ask whether it is not wrong that he should stress this "demand" inflation over the immediate and pressing problem of unemployment. It seems to be generally accepted by economists that in 1959 the level of prices possibly will rise a little, and that the only reason that prices will rise at all will be cost factors such as, for instance, increased freight rates, increased wages and matters of that kind. After all- and this is fundamental in answering the Leader of the Opposition-the theory of supply and demand is still extant, and there is no possibility of a runaway inflation such as that about which he has the people worried. Furthermore, and credit for this is due to our Minister of Finance, the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada have carefully kept a firm check on the supply of money, not permitting it to go up in recent months. This fact is extremely important.
I do not know what happened to the Leader of the Opposition last week end when he went to Montreal. It may be that he visited some of the boys on St. James street with his old friend Mr. Howe, who may have introduced him to some of his colleagues on the 40 or more directorates of which he is a distinguished member. I do not know what it was that happened, but in any event the Leader of the Opposition made this speech about the fear that something was going to blow imminently. May I say to him with the greatest respect-and he knows I have for him the greatest respect-that to quote the words of the late President Roosevelt, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
All we have to fear is fear which might lead to what is known as a psychological inflation. If these prophets of doom and gloom or, as the Prime Minister has called them, the gloomsters, led by the Leader of the Opposition, continue to pound away on the theme that inflation is inevitable, then in time by the very repetition of this thought, they may convince the consumer and the businessman himself that perhaps after all

there is no use in resisting increased prices, that perhaps after all inflation is inevitable. That is called psychological inflation; and that is possible in this country; but it is only possible if the gloomsters continue to pound away on the subject which I suggest, with great respect, does not have any merit at the present time.
How can we have a runaway inflation at the present time? The facts belie the statement. Here we have commodity futures at a low and world trade depressed. When the economy of our country is operating below capacity not only in Canada but in the United States, how can you have a runaway inflation? How can this bomb go off at the present time? But if the gloomsters continue to pound away, then it may happen.
That would be a catastrophe, Mr. Speaker, because if our costs and prices continue to go up our competitive position both in our domestic market and, what is more important, our export market will be undermined. If that event happens Canada will be exporting jobs to the United States and other countries, Mr. Speaker; and this is one export which we the people of Canada cannot afford.


Mr. Denis:: It is your job to deal with it.


David James Walker: And we are ' delighted to assume that burden. May I say to the hon. member that I enjoyed his speech yesterday when he himself tried to make a contribution to that end.


Azellus Denis: The sooner the better.


David James Walker: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I do not stop at flag stations. May I carry on with the vital part of my speech, if I may say so, with regard to a matter that is in the minds of all good Canadians, one which has been pointed up by the Prime Minister, namely the fact that the communist trade offensive poses the most serious threat to future employment and prosperity in Canada. In order to meet this threat-and my hon. friend who so kindly interrupted me realizes this fact-it will require not only responsible but far-sighted action on the part of every citizen, Liberal, Conservative and C.C.F., and every segment of our community. This is the only real solution we have for cost inflation. A policy of deflation, which the Leader of the Opposition appears to advocate at this time when the economy is already operating below capacity, would do nothing but cause further unemployment and further dislocation of industry without solving that extremely tricky and complex problem of cost inflation. The answer lies in the united effort by all the Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Walker
May my concluding and final point be this. This problem of the communist trade offensive and the vital importance of expanded world markets to the future prosperity of Canada and, as a matter of fact, the rest of the world, were the reason for the Prime Minister's world tour. The Prime Minister and Canadians generally wish to increase economic co-operation between the east and the west-as I am sure do all members of the house-between the developed countries and the undeveloped countries, between those which have and those which have not. If we are effectively to combat this communist trade offensive then we, one of the western countries, with all the other western countries must join with the uncommitted eastern countries and work together for world trade.
That is the message which the Prime Minister took with him around the world. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of Canada have any idea what a tremendously successful commonwealth tour the Prime Minister had. I have taken the liberty of going through the press of all the countries of the commonwealth at the time he happened to be there. I should have liked to take the time of the house to tell hon. members-but because there are many others who wish to speak I will not do so-of the tremendous impression made by "Mr. Canada" during that tour. It was fantastic. Wherever he went he brought fresh hope and a new vision of commonwealth solidarity. He has done much, and we all recognize this, to cement the bonds of commonwealth by stressing in particular, and this is very important, the ties of trade. I should like to have gone on with what has been said in the different countries but may I just quote from the newspaper in India known as the Hindu of Madras. That newspaper had this to say:
Mr. Diefenbaker has recently manifested a refreshing freedom from preconceived notions and prejudices. Mr. Diefenbaker reveals himself as a statesman who is interested in seeking remedies for the world's ills which will cure instead of worsening them.
In Australia's Sydney Morning Herald he was praised for "a vigorous and consistent Asian policy with firm aims imaginatively pursued, a condition of survival for this commonwealth." The London Observer summed it all up with these words:
His great success was that he persuaded all those with whom he came into contact that whatever they had thought to the contrary they were fully members of a great fraternity in which they were regarded as good as the next man.
How important it is to convey that message. Finally may I place on the records of the house the greatest tribute of all, delivered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the Albert hall meeting when our Prime Minister

The Address-Mr. Peters addressed an overflow audience. This is what the Prime Minister of Great Britain said:
From the first talks we had together X realized that we had here a great man, and great because he had the one vital thing that any great man must have,-faith. He has faith in his fellow countrymen, in the tasks which Canada has to undertake and the contribution she has to make to the whole world. He has faith in the continuing and, indeed, ever-increasing moral and political value of that unique combination of nations which we call the commonwealth; faith as he has told you today, in the economic progress and development of an ever-expanding commonwealth based upon the steady development of industrial power and financial strength and, above all, faith that in the great secular struggle between the principles of freedom and communism the commonwealth can play an immense and, perhaps under providence, a decisive part.
That was the tribute of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. In this connection may I say that in the 19 months since the Conservative government took office commonwealth relations and trade have been stimulated as never before, first by the very successful mission headed by our able Minister of Trade and Commerce to the United Kingdom; second, by the Montreal conference presided over by our distinguished Minister of Finance; and finally by the world tour of the Prime Minister.
In conclusion may I say that it is time we united to boost our country. We are all good Canadians. Everybody in every party on both sides of the house is a good Canadian and none is a better Canadian than the other. But is it not time that we started to talk ourselves up? At the risk of appearing to be sentimental, and I do not feel that way at all, may I paraphrase words of Tennyson:
To Canada, whom we love and prize
Whatever statesman holds the helm;
Hands all round
God the glooms|er's hopes confound;
To this great cause of Canada
Praise,-my friends,
And all her glorious provinces
Round and round.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect of a quotation attributed to me by the hon. gentleman. I am not complaining, because he quoted my Montreal speech correctly from the press, but it paraphrased what I said. I sent for the text of my speech and fortunately I now have it here. There was only one reference to an inflationary time bomb in the speech, and perhaps I might quote what I said:
The new borrowing requirements of the government exceed $1.5 billion and to the extent that they are met by increasing the money supply, that is planting an inflationary time bomb which might some day blow up.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, rather than make a speech concerning my riding, which has many problems,

I am going to discuss one of the several national problems facing the Canadian people which I think should be brought to their attention. Canada is faced today with two major problems. One is unemployment and the other is inflation. In this debate my colleagues have offered to the government some advice in solving the rising unemployment situation. I should like to do the same with respect to inflation. That this problem is important was illustrated by the words of James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, when he said:
We seem to have reached the economists' hell on earth; inflation and unemployment. The alternately "creeping" and "surging" inflation is apparently still the pattern in recovery as well as in recession. I believe that this chronic inflation is the greatest single threat to Canada's economic development. The disease must be studied, it must be understood, and it must be cured.
I was very pleased to hear that the previous speaker has considered this matter and has offered some suggestions to solve the problem. Economists in general are very concerned over the present economy of Canada which is seeing for the first time in history both inflation and unemployment. Previously it was felt that inflation would end unemployment, and many economists today are trying to find what, change has taken place that produces this phenomenon.
The question can legitimately be asked, what is inflation? One opinion was advanced by Mr. D. E. Kilgour, vice president and managing director of the Great West Life Assurance Company who, when speaking in Montreal, said:
Inflation is simply a technique of stealing money without the embarrassment of identifying the victim or too closely pointing out the benefactors. One thing is abundantly clear. It is that insurance policyholders are being victimized and also the holders of savings accounts, bonds and pensions. If this generation has not the fortitude or the wisdom or the restraint to control the grab-bag of inflation, we can destroy our democratic nations and our way of life.
Or, as was said on another occasion by Gladstone Murray:
An honest dollar is the noblest work of government; an inflated dollar is the vilest.
Canada today has reason to show concern about the problem of inflation. Inflation is considered to be an essential element in a capitalist economy. An increasing labour force, technological advance and automation make it necessary to increase industrial production continually. Otherwise rapidly developing unemployment cannot be avoided.
It is estimated that a 5 per cent annual increase in industrial expansion must have a monetary inflation of from 1 to 2 per cent per annum to maintain such expansion. Therefore a capitalist economy cannot have both

full employment and a stable currency. This was realized by the people of the country when the Bank of Canada was established, because in the preamble to the Bank of Canada Act we find these words:
Whereas it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of the dominion-
That is taken from the 1956 annual report by Mr. Coyne. He goes on to indicate that each country is responsible for its own inflationary pressures where they exist. He states on page 4 of the same book that although most countries in the western world experienced a measure of inflation this was chiefly due to causes within each country and manifested itself more in costs of production and distribution than in raw material prices.	After maintaining that
some of these inflationary factors should be controlled by the federal government, he points out on page 5 of the report that "the so-called federal credit controls do not exist". He goes on further to indicate the fields in which they do not exist, referring particularly to finance companies operating without the controls which governments can and do exercise with regard to questions of interest and related matters.
With a steady increase in industrial development during the past century, the value of our dollar has continued to fall. Today the value of the Canadian dollar is less than half its prewar value in terms of purchasing power. Let us review what has happened to the economy of Canada in the last 20 years.
For the first six years, 1939 to 1945, under a partly planned economy, by the use of price controls implemented during the war inflation was very moderate especially when one considers the huge expansion that took place during those six years. By 1945, the end of the war, the Canadian people had accumulated a fantastic volume of purchasing power. This had been accomplished by the purchasing of war bonds, service gratuities and other methods of compulsory savings. All types of consumer goods were in short supply. It was obvious that if the wartime price controls were removed this great power in the hands of consumers to buy goods which were in short supply would result in severe inflation. The Canadian Manufacturers Association and other organizations with similar interests persuaded three of the political parties in Canada to 66968-9-31
The Address-Mr. Peters press for the removal of these controls. The C.C.F. alone warned of the potential dangers to the stability of our currency and our economy.
However, the Canadian people who had at such great sacrifice saved their money now wished to purchase the consumer goods they had been unable to purchase for many years. The manufacturers, taking advantage of the short supply, boosted prices as high as the traffic would bear. We all know the disastrous results to the purchasing power of the dollar which occurred in the years immediately following the end of the war.
What is the situation today? The whole theory that the one and only cause of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, causing a rise in prices, is no longer true. This theory was based on the premise that our economy would allow prices to find their own level. This theory is no longer true in practice, because today we see prices continuing to rise in the face of unemployment and a scarcity of money among a large segment of our population.
We contend that our problem should no longer be called "inflation" but rather "rising prices". We no longer have a situation where prices are mainly determined by the cost of production or demand and controlled within limits by the element of competition. Prices today are determined to an alarming extent by corporations, monopolies and cartels which, though less in number, are growing rapidly in size. This is especially true in the fields of basic materials; for example, in the price of steel, automobiles and energy. The determining factor in the setting of a price now is what the traffic will bear.
We in the C.C.F. wholeheartedly agree with the recent request by the Canadian Labour Congress for an immediate public investigation into the automobile, steel, farm implement and other basic industries. The congress is also to be commended for its demands on the government to strengthen the effectiveness of the Combines Investigation Act.
The people of Canada have a right to know if the reputed benefits to the consumer from competition are still available. The people of Canada are desirous of having a real investigation made so that they can determine whether or not there is any relationship between labour costs and retail prices. Statistics are available by the score to prove to us that both wages and prices are rising independently of each other.
In Canada today a concerted effort is being made to make labour the scapegoat

The Address-Mr. Peters in an attempt to avoid discovering what are the real causes which produce rising prices. Let us examine, for example, the increase in wages compared with productivity for the years from 1947 to 1955. On page 397 of the publication "Output, Labour and Capital in the Canadian Economy" the author warns us that the productivity figures are at best to be regarded as rough estimates, but adds that these are the best figures available. The figures do not indicate that wages have increased over productivity, which, if it had been the case, might have been a cause of our postwar inflation. On the contrary, these figures suggest that wages have been slightly lower than the increase in productivity. This would tend to contradict completely the statements of the manufacturers association, newspapers and financial publications that increases in wages are responsible for the high cost of living. For this period, 1947 to 1955, productivity in manufacturing rose by 32.12 per cent and real wage rates by only 30.51 per cent.
It should be noted in fairness to labour that unions have sought increases which they were able to justify to conciliation boards and public opinion as only maintaining the standard of living that their employees had previously enjoyed. In many cases the demands of labour, based on the cost of living at the time of current negotiations are met many months and sometimes years after the cost of living has continued to rise, so that the worker finds after obtaining a wage increase that he has not been able to maintain his standard of living.
Mr. Graham Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, said the same thing a great deal more briefly on November 14, 1957, in a speech on inflation which he made at a joint meeting of the life underwriters' association of Toronto and the Toronto chapter of the institute of chartered life underwriters. This is what Mr. Towers said:
Current discussions of inflation often refer to it as the "cost-push" type; and as labour is a very important factor in costs, price-increases more often than not are attributed to the successful efforts of labour unions to secure wage increases greater than increases in output per man hour. Labour, quite properly, I think, resents being saddled with a large share of the blame for the lower value of money. They are certaintly not responsible to any greater degree than all the rest of the population for what occurred during and immediately after the two world wars. It is not worth while to argue about the extent to which increases in wages in excess of increases in the productivity of labour have contributed to the rise in the cost of living during the last year and a half.
Organized labour, operating in our modern society, has an obligation to its membership to try and maintain the standard of living enjoyed by its membership. The Prime

Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was, in my opinion, unfair when he addressed the Canadian Labour Congress convention in Winnipeg and asked them to hold the line on wages while at the same time making no effort to preach restraint to the other segments of our economy.
Mr. Towers pointed out that leaders of government have appealed for restraint on a number of occasions in the United States and the United Kingdom. Such appeals resulted in a growing awareness on the part of the public, but produced no tangible results.
The willingness of big business to cooperate with labour for the general economic good was clearly indicated in the United States when Walter Reuther, president of the united automobile workers, offered to maintain, or even lower, the wages enjoyed by his membership if the automobile industry would reduce the price of their cars to the consumer by $200. He was told to mind his own business, to run his union, and they would run their companies. The subsequent strike of 150,000 General Motors' employees obtained a sizeable increase based on maintaining the current standard of living which resulted in the wage increase plus interest being passed on to the consumer. In application, a wage increase is desirable to big business which operates, in the main, on the principle of cost of production plus a predetermined mark-up or profit. The higher the cost, the higher the profit. An example is Massey-Harris who in the ten-year period, according to the Financial Post, was able to increase its profits by 254 per cent.
Agriculture and agricultural leaders speak of the cost-price squeeze and it is an undesirable condition where the cost of the production rises while the selling price of the product remains the same or, in most cases, continues to fall.
Labour denies that wages are the deciding factor in our rising prices spiral. They contend that prices are rising because of other factors over which they have no control. The workers of Canada have no alternative but to join together with their fellow workers in order to protect themselves against the system under which we live. Many statistics are available to prove the returns to labour are only in line with increased production and are always lagging behind prices. Statistics are also available to prove that the non-labour part of retail prices has risen more rapidly than wage prices. The worst offender in the non-labour price rise has been the profit element. Just taking one example that appeared during the steelworkers' strike of local 1005, it was pointed out that the Steel Company of Canada had increased its net

profits alter taxes in the ten year period from 1946 to 1956 by 790 per cent while at the same time the average weekly wages had increased by only 60 per cent.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Who wrote that speech, Stanley Knowles?


William Arnold Peters: 
Mr. Ricard:: Would you prefer that they have no pension at all?


William Arnold Peters: Savings in banks have been hit, as I said. This is something to which the
484	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Peters government must give consideration. Certainly all the leaders of banking institutions are considering the implications of inflation and now it is time for the government of the country to do something about the matter. Because costs have risen in the matter of food, shelter and clothing, pensioners of all kinds are undergoing great difficulty. In these three basic commodities the rise in the cost of living has been greater than in any other field, and certainly this matter of inflation has taken its toll on the savings and the pensions of the Canadian people.
I have attempted, Mr. Speaker, to show that since the days of the industrial revolution, either inflation or unemployment has plagued our society. Today Canada is faced with both inflation and unemployment for the first time. Indeed, the only time we had a relatively stable currency and full employment was when we were at war and had a planned economy. The problem today, with the disappearance of free enterprise and competition, is really one of rising prices and not of inflation as we used to know the term. Today corporations, monopolies and cartels, with tremendous powers are determining prices on the principle of what the traffic will bear. The activities of these powerful forces need to be curtailed, in that they must be prepared to act primarily in the public interest. This control of those who exploit our human and natural resources must be supplemented by control of those who deal with currency and credit within our country. We feel that the measures we propose are essential for the health of our own economy and are also essential to the interests of the free world in general and the needs of mankind.
Unless these concepts are adopted, real confidence cannot be restored in the hearts of Canadians. Uncertainty, indecision and floundering can be disastrous and can lead us to chaos. Mere palliatives will, at least, lead only to brief periods of rapid expansion and flash-in-the-pan prosperity. Those responsible for government must analyze what has happened over the past century and also consider the vast changes which have taken place within the last generation. Such an analysis must then be followed up by long range policies. Only in this way can real confidence and prosperity be given to our people. There is a growing body of responsible, well-informed and thinking people which is rapidly coming to the conclusion that parliament and government, and especially this parliament and this government, must assume responsibility for the economic welfare of our nation and of our people.


Gordon Campbell Chown: What are you going to call the new party, the Liberal-Labour party or the Labour-Liberal party?


William Arnold Peters: That is as good a name as any.


Mr. J. W. Baskin (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on this ninth day of this debate and take part and follow some of the distinguished members who have already made their contributions. Before I begin I would like to join with other members in offering my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Provencher, who gave such a clear account of the problems of the prairie farmers and of agriculture in general and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet who made such a strong and sincere plea for the rights of the individual no matter to what race or religion he might belong. I think it is important for us to remember that our belief in one Canada is stronger than all the things which may have helped to divide us in the past.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how extremely pleased we all are to see your return to the chair. You have always discharged your duties with dignity and impartiality and you have thus gained the respect of each and every member in this house. The same remarks apply to the Deputy Speaker.
This is the second parliament which I have attended as the member for the constituency of Renfrew South. During this time I have had the opportunity to compare the throne speeches of this government with those of the previous regime and I am particularly impressed with the content of this throne speech. Outlined in this speech is the confidence which our Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and his cabinet and the supporters of this government have in the men and women of Canada. Put briefly, the throne speech is a vote of confidence in Canada and in the Canadian people. It was once sufficient for a government to make a few platitudinous statements about our canals and the state of our economy. Today we are concerned with our whole country, with the welfare of our fellow Canadians and with the broad aspects of human relations between our people everywhere, yes, and with Canada's role in a world where time and distance are being shrunk in ratio to the increased speed of communication.
Canada, as we know, borders the two most powerful nations in the world today, namely the United States of America and the Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics. This is a geographical fact, and if we ignore the responsibility our position as a middle power entails, then we shall be doing a great disservice both to ourselves and to the other peace-loving nations of the world. We as a nation have confidence in each other and in the other nations that with us are seeking a lasting peace in the world today. I believe that without that trust and confidence in each other none of us can live in freedom and security.
A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the state of the Canadian economy. I was struck with the substance of his remarks which showed a woeful lack of confidence in both his country and the men and women who live in it. For years the members of the former government, now in opposition, clung to the 49th parallel with a sort of ostrich-like blindness. When they did lift their eyes they always seemed to be facing south, seeking help from our neighbours. Their lack of faith held us all, or most of us, bound to the settled portions of our country.
This is now changing through the government's national development policy. The members of our government have told the people of this country that we have faith in the future of Canada. We have chosen to identify ourselves with the men and women who are showing the courage and the foresight to move north and to take their chances in the vast and challenging new areas which are being developed. We do not believe that it is the duty of our neighbours to the south of us to show us how to develop our own country. We believe that if we are to have sovereignty over the thousands of square miles of our northland, then we as Canadians must go there and live, and Canadians are doing just that. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) deserves special credit for the initiative and enterprise he and his department have shown in this regard.
I have mentioned these matters because our friends across the way are more accustomed to dealing in division than in the strength of unity. When they speak they still show that they lack confidence in the very people they represent, the men and women of Canada. They do not want to recognize the responsibility of leadership and the playing of their role of opposition; they are more concerned with the negative view of opposition than with the positive role of constructive criticism. They still suffer from the complex of defeat and they are still tempted to blame the Canadian people for that defeat rather than their own shortcomings.
The Address-Mr. Baskin
Many have been the achievements of this government since it took office. Of great concern to each and every member of this government has been employment-and I emphasize "employment"-dollars in the working man's pocket. The government cannot look after every field of employment but this government has been able actively to promote construction across Canada. I would like to put on the record at this time a few facts that were outlined at the Canadian construction convention held in Montreal last week. I quote H. J. Ball, the retiring president of the association. The headline in the paper reads:
Many healthy developments in 1958.
The article reads:
Construction tops $7 billion.
Mr. Ball goes on to say:
The trend towards larger construction programs should continue in 1959, with a total of perhaps $7.5 billion.
A total of $7.5 billion of construction means the employment of over 625,000 Canadians in construction operations and an even greater number manufacturing, transporting and merchandising construction materials and equipment or supplying services dependent upon construction activity. It will mean that over one out of every five dollars spent in Canada in end goods and services will be a construction dollar.
In 1958, while all this construction of new homes was taking place, there were over 150,000 units completed, the biggest homebuilding boom in Canada's history, and 1959 promises to be just as good. What impetus will this building boom have on our immediate future? Once again our factories are commencing to hum, our manufacturers are busy and will be much busier. Heavy industrial machinery, new stoves, refrigerators, washing machines and furniture will be required. My colleague, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) advises me that for the first time in many years the furniture factories in his riding are operating on an overtime basis.
I have just mentioned the 150,000 houses completed last year in Canada. We all know that this is a direct result of the action taken by this government in amending the National Housing Act to provide an additional amount of $350 million. My home county of Renfrew was able to obtain from this fund the sum of $1,615,922, and from our banks and loans companies an additional amount of $649,000. These sums provided 231 new housing units in our area. Over and above this, our Department of Public Works has awarded contracts in Renfrew county for approximately 500 units having a total value of $6,137,800. The Department of Defence Production is presently processing tenders for a new $1 million

The Address-Mr. Baskin project near Eganville in my riding. This project will be under way early in February, and it will involve a considerable labour force. A great deal of material will be required, material which is manufactured in the district. Our carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians and, in fact, all tradesmen can look forward to a more prosperous year.
In so far as hospital construction is concerned, we plan to spend in the coming year more than $2 million. This will include a new 32-bed hospital at Barrys Bay, to be named the St. Francis memorial and district hospital. It will serve the western area of Renfrew county, a portion of Nipissing and part of the adjoining ridings of Hastings and Hastings-Frontenac. The estimated cost is in the neighbourhood of $400,000. There will be a three-quarters of a million dollar addition to the Arnprior and district memorial hospital and a one million dollar addition to the Victoria hospital in Renfrew. This new hospital construction is a direct result of the action taken by this government when they doubled the hospital construction grants early in 1958. A great deal of credit is due to our Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) for the role he played in the introduction of this legislation.
The Canadian civil defence college at Arnprior, Ontario, comes within the jurisdiction of our Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are about 100 men and women employed at this college and during the past year 3,524 Canadian citizens received training at the college. Citizens from across Canada who have trained at this college, and the citizens of the town of Arnprior and district, are indeed grateful to our government for the rebuilding in 1958 of the road that leads to the college. All of this is a direct result of the boldness, the imagination and foresight of this government. We have not been able to cure everything in Canada since we took office, but we have swung the economic pendulum in an upward turn.
The hon. gentlemen in the opposition want to remember just how fast we were heading towards a serious depression in late 1956 and early 1957 when they were swept out of office. There are those of you who will not admit it, but the Canadian people knew what was going on, and that is why you were voted out of office. You had become all too powerful, and had long since forgotten that you were the servants of the people and not their masters.
Returning to my constituency, I should like to note that our manufacturing firms greatly appreciate the co-operation they have received


from the various departments in our government, especially the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Transport and the Post Office Department. These manufacturing plants are keenly interested in our government's aircraft and missile program. They are hopeful of participating in the manufacture of equipment which is to be installed on the proposed new guided missile sites in northern Quebec and northern Ontario.
My people were greatly concerned over the fact that Canadian National Railways made application last November to the board of transport commissioners for the discontinuance of the railway passenger service between Ottawa and Barrys Bay. The board met in Pembroke with all interested officials and citizens concerned. Following a two-day hearing, the application of the Canadian National was not approved. The discontinuance of this service would have completely shut off a section of the people in our county. I am pleased to say that the Canadian National Railways is now in the process of instituting a new and modern service. I wish to say to our Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) how very much our Renfrew county citizens appreciate the decision of the commissioners, and through him I wish to thank them.
Television reception is not satisfactory in many areas of the riding I represent. This is particularly true of the Eganville area and westward to Barrys Bay, Madawaska and Whitney which is on the borderline of Algonquin park. The government and the C.B.C. are very much aware of this situation because I have made numerous representations about it during the past year and a half. I have made these representations, not only to our Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) but also through him to the general manager of the C.B.C. Our people in Renfrew South, of course, realize that the same situation prevails in many other areas of Canada. I am pleased to say that this year a number of new low-power transmitters will be installed to correct this situation, and I have been advised that better reception will prevail in my constituency in the not too distant future.
There has been a need in all sections of Canada for new postal services and extensions to existing services. I wish to commend the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and his entire department for the vigorous action they have taken to improve the postal service generally across this country. Renfrew South, which I represent, covers a large rural area and at the time this government took office in June, 1957 many of my constituents were dissatisfied with the rural mail situation. At that time the density requirement throughout the rural areas of Canada was

four householders per mile. In a number of areas in my riding, as well as elsewhere in Canada, citizens were not receiving daily mail because the density of householders along many of the concessions was less than four per mile. The change in the density regulation has meant new rural routes and extensions to existing routes. Ninety-two new routes have been established and some 1,700 extensions authorized, serving approximately 40,000 additional patrons.
Householders served by rural routes and suburban services now total over 600,000. I know that the people deeply appreciate this improved service. We have not completely corrected the situation, and will not until the density requirement is reduced to two householders per mile. I have brought this to the attention of our Postmaster General. I believe that we have a Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) whose sympathies lie in this direction and that perhaps action will be forthcoming in this regard.
These are some of the things that are going on in my constituency and elsewhere in Canada. I have mentioned these construction projects, all of which have been made possible through the co-operation of the various cabinet ministers and the hardworking civil service in their respective departments. When you multiply this many times -and I know we have 208 members on this side of the house who are extremely active in this regard-you have some idea of the amount of effort that is being put into new development in this country under the leadership of a new and vigorous government.
For the future we are hopeful of increasing in my riding iron ore production in the townships of Bagot and Blythfleld, near Cala-bogie. The first few carloads of ore were mined there in December. It is hoped that full scale production will soon make this development an important part of our economy.
These accomplishments are not the work of any one individual. They represent the work and co-operation of many people. They also reflect the confidence of men and women in their government. Here I should like to say something about that confidence and the leadership that inspires it. When hon. members opposite or some of them were in office they were happy to think themselves supermen or at least they became known as such; but events have served to show them as something considerably less. The government which is now in office does not claim to be made up of supermen. But one great difference exists between it and the hon. members opposite. I refer to the leadership that these men and women are giving to this country. Particularly I should like to
The Address-Mr. Baskin speak of the Prime Minister who, I believe, has made his greatest contribution in the field to which I referred a little while ago, namely that of confidence in his fellow Canadians and in the future of this country.
On December 30 last he was interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor. I have the Christian Science Monitor and I wish to quote from it. When the Prime Minister was asked the question, what is Canada's most significant development today, he answered as follows:
Surely it is this dynamic new concept of Canadian-ism. It is a feeling of unity, and it is a sense of destiny, an awareness of what Canada can contribute in this churning world.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of positive, hopeful statement that the Prime Minister of Canada should be making to the world today. There is nothing boastful about this statement, nor is it one calculated to frighten other nations. Rather, I believe it is a statement made by a distinguished Canadian who, along with other members of his party, has an awareness of the important position his country must play as a bridge between nations.
In this respect I should like to refer to the commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal last September. The scope of their deliberations was as broad as the diversity in interests of those who gathered around the conference table. Yet while the delegates at Montreal represented countries at every stage of economic development, every colour, culture and creed, they met not as strangers but as members of the same family. It is noteworthy that the theme of the conference was "an expanding commonwealth in an expanding world economy". The opposition may try as they will to downgrade the importance of this conference, but their criticism and their attitude are seen for their true worth when contrasted with the evaluation of the success of the conference made unanimously by the representatives of the commonwealth countries who participated. At the conclusion of the conference Right Hon. Derick Heathcoat Amory, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had this to say:
In the opinion of us all, I ana sure the results of our work here have amply justified the bold initiative of your Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, in proposing this conference a year ago. Looking ahead, it was hard to visualize that we would be able to cover so much ground and to reach so many decisions of great importance to our commonwealth aim of expansion and prosperity.
Before leaving this subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the role of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). The success of the commonwealth trade and economic conference was in no small measure due to the

The Address-Mr. Baskin outstanding leadership given the deliberations at Montreal by the Minister of Finance.
On Wednesday, January 21, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), when he rose to take part in this debate, referred to the period of our history between the years 1867 and 1896. He reminded us of the spirit of confidence and optimism demonstrated by that great Conservative, Sir John A. Macdonald, the man who brought forth confederation and who was instrumental in the building of the C.P.R. which linked all Canada together. It is my belief that our party has never lost that spirit. I also feel that this same spirit was prevalent in the house last week when the Minister of Transport announced that Canadian Pacific Air Lines had been given the right to operate a daily service from Montreal to Vancouver. This announcement means that not only is Canada linked from coast to coast by two major air lines but that the passengers will be able to fly across this country and to other cities of the world without changing aircraft. This action, is significant of our optimism for the future and a further development by the government of Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker.
The Leader of the Opposition, a few days ago, spoke in terms of "ruin, confusion and doubt". It seems to me that his words, if they reflected anything, reflected the temper of his own party. I am certain that the majority of the Canadian people would not agree with him. Most of them are too busy earning a living, educating their children and carrying out their responsibilities as citizens to take this kind of wishful pessimism seriously.
To me, the future of this country appears to be extremely bright. The population by 1970 is quite likely to be at least 30 million. This means work and prosperity. It seems to me that opposition members should stop reading in Hansard old speeches of the years 1931, 1932 and 1933 and then getting up and repeating them as they have done during this debate. In my opinion this country is headed for no depression. Rather, it is headed in the opposite direction. We are on our way up.
For too long now the opposition have shown enthusiasm for only one subject, namely unemployment. Actually, Mr. Speaker, from the way in which they dwell upon it you would think that they had invented it. As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we are doing our best to get rid of it. Whether hon. members opposite like it or not, they are going to have to find a new theme to replace unemployment, because once again Canada is marching forward 

steadily and assuredly. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the members of this government, placed here by the people of Canada, are finding an answer to the recession and to the problems bequeathed to them by those members who sit in gloomy judgment upon themselves across the way.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker,
may I first of all express my congratulations to you upon the high position you occupy in this house. Although I have just had the pleasure of meeting you for the first time this session, I know that you have those fine qualities of tact, diplomacy, patience and good humour which fit you so admirably for the position you now hold.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their very creditable launching of this debate. Their contribution is recognized and appreciated. I hope also that my three hon. friends who were introduced at the opening of this session will find their work as challenging, interesting and rewarding as I have.
Third, Mr. Speaker, may I express through you to the electors of Trinity my gratitude for the honour they have given me. I received support from men and women of every race, colour and creed, people of varied backgrounds who all believe in the British parliamentary system and who felt it was imperative at this time that the people of metropolitan Toronto have a voice in the opposition. I appreciate their confidence and I assure them that I will do my utmost to prove worthy of the trust that has been shown. I regret the circumstances which made the byelection necessary and wish to join those who have paid tribute to the late Mr. Lockyer. He was a fine gentleman who received a great mandate last March. I join in the expressions of sympathy to Mrs. Lockyer.
There are many serious and urgent problems facing us at this time. I feel a bit sorry for the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his government but actually most of the problems are of their own making. Now they must face the difficult task of finding solutions. Among the most pressing of the problems are unemployment, inflation and defence. I intend to leave my remarks on the subject of defence until another time and to consider today the joint problems of unemployment and inflation and later, as it relates to them, the matter of trade.
I must, of course, talk about unemployment. It is something that affects tens of thousands of my fellow Torontonians. I have had the experience of learning about this problem in

terms of people rather than in terms of statistics. On the subject of statistics, however, I know that quite a number of people seeking work in Toronto are not registered with the national employment service and consequently the figures we get do not include all the people seeking work. One family I visited, a family of five, had no income, no money, a very sick boy in bed, three prescriptions from the doctor and no money to fill the prescriptions. Another man and his wife were living in one room without food and without adequate fuel for their stove. There are many other cases of equal hardship, and one cannot possibly come in direct contact with people living in these conditions without rebelling against a situation which permits such a thing.
This is not an underdeveloped country without sufficient resources to supply the basic needs of our people. It is a land of riches and it is not right that we should have so much poverty and distress in the shadow of plenty. It is not necessary to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment problem is twice as grievous now as it was under the former administration. This has been said many times and will be repeated until corrective action becomes effective. Not only do we have more people unemployed and for longer periods of time but these same people are being penalized through inflation. The prices of the things they need to keep body and soul together are rising and getting even farther beyond their reach. Unemployment insurance and relief payments buy even less of the necessities of life and prove quite inadequate for sustained periods. It is not good enough to say that we had inflation under the previous administration. The inflation of the immediate post-war period and the Korean era were caused by trying to do too much in too short a time, by overtaxing the physical capacity of the Canadian economy. The inflation of today is of an entirely different sort. We now have unused resources and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. Inflation under these circumstances cannot be condoned. It is a disease, an insidious, cancerous growth which eats at the very foundation of our economic system. It must be stopped before confidence in our currency is destroyed.
We were told that the reconversion loan of last year was designed to help control inflation. Until that contention is proven some of us may be forgiven for the notion that is was more inflationary than otherwise. At least the cost of borrowing is up, municipal taxes are up, federal taxes will have to go up or deficits increase, and the cost of 66968-9-32
The Address-Mr. Hellyer doing business is up, all as a result of one financial adventure by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Mr. Nesbitt:: Rubbish.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will wait with interest to see if he is now able, as he categorically stated, to keep inflation in check.


Mr. McGee:: How is the house building business?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Furthermore, the currency debasement which was necessary to finance the federal deficit did, is and will add greatly to the inflationary fires. In a year when the total output of physical goods and services did not increase we have had the greatest increase in the money supply in recent history. This is an old trick, practised by ancient kings. It is interesting to note that some of them subsequently had their heads rolled when the people became aware of their mischief.
But. say some people, there is no difference between the parties. What would the Liberals have done differently? The difference is that we would never have allowed this to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The best joke of the year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Conditions would never have been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that they have in the last 18 months. No Liberal government would ever have launched the great reconversion loan with its consequences for Canadians yet unborn. Nor, Mr. Speaker-


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


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -would we have had to increase the money supply by $1,750 million in the same 18 months to finance a huge deficit because we had adopted the attitude that we would only undertake such ordinary expenditures as we could afford to pay for. We know that the great expansion in government expenditures was not necessary. We have the word of a minister of the present government on that. As a matter of fact, he believed that they could have been cut. Listen to the hon. member of Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), as recorded on page 2464 of Hansard for March 19, 1957:
I am not going to weary you with a long dissertation on government spending. Everyone who is not a moron knows that it could be cut down. It is like the weather. Everybody talks about it but nobody does anything.
And, Mr. Speaker, under a Liberal administration the real output of the country would have continued to expand, albeit at a temporarily reduced rate, because we would

The Address-Mr. Hellyer have expanded trade rather than contracting it. The Liberals have been out of office and the situation has deteriorated. People will soon become tired of hearing why it has happened and will want to hear what should be done about it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Tell us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Be patient. The extent of the deterioration makes the problem all the more complex but none the less real.
The government has launched a program of public works as its solution. It is a well known fact that public works are no solution at all. The effect on employment is delayed and the number of persons employed is very small in relation to the vast expenditure. No, Mr. Speaker, public works, other than those of a self-liquidating nature which generate additional employment, are not an answer. The answer is trade, domestic and international. It is interesting to note the interrelation between domestic and international trade. When international trade declines, domestic activity seems to follow suit. Likewise when international trade increases, domestic output increases together with employment.
What has been the government's position on trade? The British made a proposal. It was an obvious attempt on the part of the British government to encourage trade and increase the volume of transactions between our two countries to the advantage of each. Was it given serious consideration? Apparently not. It seems to have been summarily dismissed by the Minister of Finance. Surely, we should give serious consideration to such a forward-looking and liberal proposal. If not, the British are likely to view with scepticism the pious pronouncements of the Prime Minister and his ministers during the election campaign.
According to the newspapers, the British West Indies Federation has suggested a customs union with Canada. Our products are complementary, and the immediate acceptance of their proposal would likely result in nothing but benefit to each. It is strange that there has not been a single word from the government on this proposal either.
In short, the government's reaction to trade has been the traditional Conservative one of running up trade barriers with the inevitable consequence of lower business activity and greater unemployment. In addition to urging the government to reconsider the British proposal and to consider seriously the one from the British West Indies, I wish to put forward a few broader suggestions about how it would be possible to increase international trade. I must make it clear that
(Mr. Hellyer.]
the proposals I intend to outline, although strictly liberal in nature, have not been considered by my colleagues and, consequently, are presented as my own views.
I am a convinced and unrepentant free trader. Oh, I fully appreciate the impossibility of achieving a world without tariff barriers overnight, but I believe it is a goal to be sought. The recent pronouncements of the soviet leaders that they intend to outstrip the west must be taken seriously. Undoubtedly in the world struggle in which we are engaged the soviet will bend every effort to equal and, if possible, to surpass us in the fields of military preparedness and domestic production and trade. Whether they are successful or not depends on ourselves. To keep our front, the western world must expand production and trade in each of its component parts. We must have something better than we now have. Surely a system which permits 10 per cent or more of the available labour force to sit in idleness needs to be streamlined. These conditions are not good enough to merit support at home or acceptance by the uncommitted nations abroad. We cannot casually accept the existence of poverty, misery and hardship in a society which claims to be affluent. One of the great mechanics available to us in the pursuit of expansion is increased trade.
The Liberal party should be complimented on its effort to expand trade since world war II. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has been a noble experiment and has undoubtedly encouraged a higher level of international trade than would have been possible without it. Canada has been a world leader in its efforts to make the agreement work and has always-at least until quite recently-tried to live up to the spirit and the letter of that agreement. The great weakness of GATT has been the fact that the intent and spirit could be frustrated and to a degree made ineffective by customs regulations and interpretation.
Let us consider, as an example, the trading relations between Canada and the United States. I have seldom heard a red-blooded Canadian manufacturer admit or infer that he could not meet United States competition on equal terms. All most manufacturers ask is the same access to United States markets that his United States competitor has to the Canadian market. Unfortunately for many products and industries such has not been the case. It has been because of this one-sided aspect of trade and the frustration of trying to do business with the United States within the terms of its customs regulations which have caused many people to appear to reject the principle of free trade and to fall back

upon the old cry for protectionism. This is a most unfortunate effect and tends to divert attention from the real principles involved.
On the subject of what trade really accomplishes, the Conservative and Liberal approaches are opposite. Let us consider for a moment the position of the people living on the Japanese islands. They have to trade to live. They literally cannot produce enough food domestically to keep themselves from starvation. They must exchange manufactured products for food. The moral answer to this problem is clear enough. If we believe in the brotherhood of man we must accept responsibility for our fellow mortals. We must not just allow, but actively help these people to earn a livelihood. Any other course would be inhuman and certainly unchristian. If we fail we drive them to the point of desperation where they have only two alternatives-starvation, or a war of aggression, or self-preservation, depending upon one's point of view.
The economic answer is not as clear, nor as universally agreed. The Conservative views the import of Japanese manufacturers as a direct threat. The goods imported and consumed in Canada cause the unemployment of those Canadians who would otherwise have produced an equal volume of the same merchandise. The Liberal does not look on the import as an isolated transaction. The Liberal knows that every dollar earned by the Japanese for their manufactures comes right back to Canada, most of it for wheat and barley. The farmer receiving the income from his grain decides to buy a new car or a new tractor. The automobile or implement manufacturer buys tires, accessories and other components for his product, and on it goes. Trade is a chain reaction. When trade is expanding, income and employment expand. When trade contracts, business slows down and bread lines grow.
I should not like to imply that there are not some specific industries that feel the pinch from specific imports. There are some, but actually, in most cases, it is not an entire industry but specific products of an industry which face stiff competition from abroad. The loudest objections come from industries where the management is inflexible and not aware of the possibility of new products and new markets.
Taking our great industrial complex as a whole, one concludes that it would benefit from expanded trade and this benefit would be reflected in higher profits and greater employment. How then can we achieve the goal of increased trade within our terms of reference, the real world in which we live? I think the present General Agreement on 66968-9-32J
The Address-Mr. Hellyer Tariffs and Trade which has served its purpose and been a useful experiment should not be renewed. Such a radical proposal could not be made, of course, without an alternative proposal which is more likely to accomplish the desired result.
I would beg to suggest, therefore, that instead of renewing the present agreement that a new one be negotiated along the following lines. Each signatory nation would agree to two schedules of tariffs, one for most favoured nations and one general list. The lower schedule for most favoured nations would then apply to imports from all signatory nations which had imported from the world on an average for the preceding three years an amount equal to 90 per cent or greater of its total exports, on current account, averaged over the same three years. Nonsignatory nations would be subject to the general list.
The effect of this mechanism would be to provide each nation with a real and tangible incentive to buy from the world approximately the same value of goods and services it hoped to sell to the world. It would also alleviate, if not eliminate, present problems related to the convertibility of currencies. Customs regulations and other devices would not be able to frustrate the workings of international trade because each nation would be able to freely choose whether it wished its exports to receive most favoured nation treatment or not, and there would be a natural and automatic corrective.
Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that some such arrangement could be agreed upon, and that it did encourage world trade on an unprecedented scale, we still have another grave and urgent problem which faces us. It is the disparity of living standards between the peoples of our several countries. Particularly the gap in standards between Canada and the United States on the one hand, and various countries of Africa and Asia on the other hand is most striking.
One does not need to be a historian to know that many wars have been caused by political decisions taken on the basis of economic facts. Without going into a dissertation on the relative merits of the ascetic as against the opulent or abundant life, it suffices to say that from the beginning of time there has been conflict between the "haves" and "have nots". Here again there is both a moral and a practical aspect. There is no question morally but that we should help the people of the less developed nations to bring their standard of life more closely in equilibrium with our own. From the practical aspect, we have to do it or as surely as night follows day someone will ultimately wrest from us
492	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hellyer our apparent material advantage. As so often is the case, the moral solution and the one which might be described as enlightened self-interest are identical. How then can we accomplish this goal in an orderly and acceptable manner?
Trade, not aid, is the cry. How often have we heard these words hollowly sung. And yet that simple idea states briefly and accurately the only workable solution. The less developed countries do not want largesse. It is suspect. It is also humiliating and takes away their self-respect. Proof of this lies in the fact that after our most generous neighbours, the people of the United States, have given tens of billions in aid to countries all over the globe that they are not really liked, collectively, in most of these nations. Aid smacks too much of the rich aunt or uncle patronizingly doling out various amounts in accordance with the likeability of the nephew or the relative merit of the project.
Please do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I do not mean that financial aid, technical assistance, etc., should be withdrawn. The point I am trying to make is simply that aid with or without strings attached is no solution. Trade, not aid, is the acceptable long term solution to equate the relative standards around the world. As I said earlier, it would be quite unrealistic and impractical for even the most fanatic free trader to suggest the removal of all trade barriers at this time. How then can we pay the idea more than lip service, without bringing about a chaotic result?
The answer, might be tied in directly with my earlier proposal for a new general agreement. Once the nations and peoples of the world accept the necessity of such a course of action, and are willing to go the second mile and make the proposal work, the action can be complementary and continuous.
I would suggest, therefore, that when the schedules of tariffs had been agreed upon by the signatory nations that they would then agree to reduce the most favoured nation schedule of tariffs by a minimum of one-fiftieth per annum and the general list by one-hundredth per annum. That means that at the end of 50 years all tariff barriers would be removed between trading nations. The general list reduced by half would still apply to nations which chose to restrict imports below the required level.
What a prospect, Mr. Speaker. The whole world as one market. The possibilities are staggering and unlimited. Only by some such positive approach can we hope to achieve a lasting peace in the world and good will between men; alleviate the unemployment at
IMr. Hellyer.]

home and raise the standard of life everywhere. The time has come when we must take our stand!
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Bruchesi (Beauharnois-Sala-berry):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without some diffidence that the youngest member from Quebec is venturing upon his maiden speech in the House of Commons. To me, and to a great many of us, the first session was a period of adaptation after the result of the recent election.
Once we are more familiar with customs of parliamentary life, we find it easier to join the great family forming this house, and to bring our contribution, however small it might be.
It is with great pleasure that I associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the members for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), for Springfield (Mr. Slogan), for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), for Trinity (Hon. Paul Hellyer), who, at the beginning of this new session, joined the parliamentary fraternity.
I congratulate the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet who, as mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, brilliantly outlined various problems, the one about our greatest national asset, agriculture, and the other on national unity, a purpose that all here should strive to achieve.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the constituency of Beau-harnois-Salaberry, which I have the honour to represent in this parliament. On March 31, 1958, the people in my constituency celebrated a fiftieth anniversary. It had been 50 years since a Conservative member had represented that constituency in the parliament of Canada. To find the last Conservative member, defeated in 1908, we have to go away back to the time of Mr. J. H. G. Bergeron, nicknamed the "Beauharnois boy", who might be remembered by several of the senior members of this house.
The constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry which extends from Chateauguay to the U.S. border, and through the cities of Beauharnois, Salaberry and Valleyfield, is comprised in a triangular area which, according to economists, is the Quebec area where the greatest development will occur in the next 20 years.
This year will be an historic one for Canada; it will mark the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, and the beginning of a new era. The constituency of Beauharnois-

Salaberry right by the new seaway, should be the scene of a new development in various industrial fields, since on both sides of the canal which crosses my constituency for a distance of about 15 miles, there are vast parcels of land that would be ideal locations for new industries. We must not forget that today Beauharnois is synonymous with hydroelectric power. In fact, within the next few months, that plant will be able to supply over
2.200.000	horse-power. This power is bound to attract many industrialists looking for suitable locations for new plants to supplement the many others already established in the constituency.
I think it would be advisable to consider expanding the port facilities at Beauharnois, so as to relieve the congestion at Montreal harbour and to reduce shipping costs of plants already located in the area, such as the Aluminum Company of Canada, the Electro Metallurgical Company and the Standard Chemical Company, all of which are expanding their plants this year, which shows their confidence in the Canadian economy.
The constituency of Beauharnois, like the others, is faced with many more or less serious problems.
All levels of government should, therefore, try to have answers ready for future problems.
In my constituency as elsewhere, there is unemployment although, incidentally, it is now 15 to 20 per cent less than it was last year. I think it is high time our friends opposite stopped juggling with the figures, for they are distorting the picture and destroying people's confidence.
One of the main problems facing the citizens of Salaberry-de-Valley field, the largest city in my constituency, has to do with textile products.
The plant operated by Montreal Cottons Limited, largest plant of its type in the area, also the oldest since it dates back to 1873, has run into many problems in the past few years.
About eight years ago, this firm had some
3.000	people on its pay roll; right now it has about half that number, or just above 1,500.
A couple of years ago the firm spent some $5 million on plant modernization and expansion, and to iron out difficulties it had been experiencing for some years.
The Address-Mr. Bruchesi
Surely this should set a fine example for Canadian manufacturers and show them that even in a recession they should not be afraid to invest more capital, not only to increase production but especially to improve the quality of their products.
We have become accustomed to seeing delegations come to Ottawa for assistance from the central government. Personally, I feel that the government should give consideration to those who are trying to help themselves. The present plight of the textile industry is part of the legacy left to us by the Liberal party, a legacy we could have well done without but which the Conservative party accepts, to prove to the growing Canadian nation that the Liberal party is unworthy of the overrated reputation it has claimed credit for over the past 22 years.
The textile industry is the economic foundation of many communities in Canada. It is a noteworthy fact that textile imports account for 55 per cent of our total consumption. If only from 65 to 70 per cent of textiles consumed in Canada were of domestic manufacture, that industry could provide jobs for the 2,500 people, more or less, who are looking for work in the district of Valleyfield, and who would be very delighted to be able to work and to live normally, as it is their right, and consequently, to contribute to the economic growth of this nation.
The amounts made available to builders, by the government, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, have enabled some 800 new families of the Chateau-guay area to move into a house of their own in 1958. Incidentally, this is hardly an indication of distress, as hon. members opposite would have us believe. Those developments are creating many problems in the various growing municipalities. It might therefore be advisable to renew the winter works offer, so that more municipalities can take advantage of this program next winter. This would also help in a tangible way to lessen the seasonal winter slump and consequently, to eliminate many of our governments' worries.
Being of the younger generation, and aware of the many problems facing the young people of Canada, I suggest that the government ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), to launch a campaign to advertise the benefits of greater specialization. A campaign such as I suggest would reduce the

The Address-Mr. G. R. Muir available labour force, would encourage more young men to learn a trade, would increase their productive capacity, would lower the production costs and, as a consequence, would enable manufacturers to get a larger share of world markets and to face the growing competition of many countries which, until now, had kept out of international trade.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has won the esteem of the people of Canada, will do much to help us realize our dearest ambition, the happiness of all Canadians.
(Text):


Mr. G. R. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to make my contribution to this debate I first want to express my personal pleasure at your still occupying the very important position to which you were elected in 1957. In that position you have gained the respect and high regard of all hon. members. The gentleman to whom I am referring is not in his accustomed place at the moment but I hope he will receive this message.
At the same time, I would like to tell the Deputy Speaker and the deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole house that these expressions apply to them as well. At this time I should like also to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As has been indicated by previous speakers, it is the general opinion of this house that these two gentlemen made an excellent contribution to this debate.
Although I have had the privilege of speaking in this house on other occasions, this is the first time the opportunity has presented itself for me to take part in the debate on the throne speech. As a member from Manitoba representing the federal riding of Lisgar, I consider it my duty to endeavour to interpret the views of those whom I represent, and to place those views on the records of this house. This is particularly important since it is a well known axiom that as Manitoba goes, so goes the nation. The truth of this statement was borne out, I think, in the last general election.
At the outset, however, I should like to tell hon. members, with some pardonable pride, something about the people and the economy of my riding, the fertility of its soil, the well kept farms and the progressive
[Mr. Bruchesi.l

towns and villages within the area whose names are widely known throughout this country. One of the reasons for this, of course, is that the blood lines of our people stretch into every ethnic group and into almost every locality. The area was settled by the people from the counties of Ontario and Quebec in the 1870's. They were joined by members of different ethnic groups who, at that time, were helping to colonize our nation. I think the population of this riding today represents a real cross-section of the Canadian people. These descendants of the French, English, German, Irish, Icelandic, Scots, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Dutch and Flemish settlers have learned to live and work together in a spirit of true Canadianism.
In my remarks about the riding, I should first mention that the eastern end of the riding is in the famous Red River valley, that flat, fertile bottom of a prehistoric lake called lake Agassiz. This particular area is one of the few remaining in Canada that has a soil and climate suitable for growing small fruits and vegetables, as well as various other crops, on a commercial basis. I would suggest that when the time has come when you have completely paved that fertile area in Ontario called the Niagara peninsula, you will have to depend on this particular area in Manitoba for your supply of fruits and vegetables. At the present time, the area is short of a water supply which would enable us to make full use of our potential production, and for processing and manufacturing purposes. I would commend to the government that serious consideration be given to joining with the government of Manitoba, under the terms of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, to provide the necessary funds for the construction of the capital works needed to provide water for the area.
The western end of the constituency encompasses one of the finest areas in western Canada for the production of livestock and grain, and is served by the excellent towns and villages located on the three provincial trunk highways running parallel throughout the length of the area. Within the constituency, stretching from the United States boundary north to the Assiniboine river, there has been developed a unique diversified type of agriculture. The production of alfalfa, registered seed, canning crops, poultry, livestock, and mink-ranching has helped stabilize the economy of the district. As a consequence related industries have also been developed. Canneries, creameries, hatcheries, plant nurseries, poultry and feed processing and seed cleaning plants are strategically placed amongst the progressive towns in the district.

We are fortunate also in having an outstanding experimental farm located near the town of Morden. This farm has helped immeasurably in the development of the area and has demonstrated the possibilities of varied production. With an assured water supply for our town and for agriculture this area could well become one of the most productive in the nation.
During this debate we have listened day after day to the purveyors of gloom on the other side of this house. I would suggest to those gentlemen that they should not confuse self-pity with concern for their fellow citizens. If they really want to be of service to the people of Canada, they should forget the last election and raise their eyes to the future. It has been said on many occasions by the leaders of both political parties that the last half of the twentieth century belongs to Canada. This, I believe, could come true, provided we grasp the opportunities afforded us in this bountiful land. However, the last half of the twentieth century is not going to be handed to us on a silver platter. In order to make sure it is going to be ours, we must do everything possible to earn it.
This fact imposes on us, as citizens and groups of citizens, certain obligations. We must be prepared to subvert selfish personal and regional interests to the national interest. The various groups within our economy, including labour and industry, must heed the advice of our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to hold the line on wages and profits in order that we do not price ourselves out of world markets and out of our home markets as well. There is also an obligation to produce at reasonable prices, to assist our primary producers who are doing their share to hold the price line in this country.
I was interested in hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) give figures in his recent address showing that the cost-price squeeze on agriculture had lessened by some nine percentage points in 1958. I hope this trend continues until our farmers are on an equal footing with the other segments of our economy. As a farmer, I am concerned about any reversal of this trend which would result in a further reduction of farm income with its consequent adverse effects on the whole economy.
As a representative of an agricultural constituency I find that our farmers are appreciative of the fact that we now have a government which recognizes that our producers have been faced with problems beyond their own control. This government, recognizing those problems, took certain steps to correct the situation. No responsible person
The Address-Mr. G. R. Muir would suggest that the solution of these problems is easy or that they will be solved immediately. However, the government has charted a program aimed at providing for agriculture an economic climate in which our farmers will be able to better their own positions. It is a continuing process this session. Amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act should assist our farmers to improve their operations. The crop insurance program, carried out in co-operation with interested provincial governments-and the government of Manitoba is one of those-will be a real help in stabilizing farm income.
I believe the majority of western farmers have accepted the principle of the acreage payment as made by the government last year as the most equitable basis upon which supplementary payments can be made, since it recognizes each farmer and his family as being of equal importance to the nation. It compensates the small farmer for his higher costs of production and recognizes the need of the farmer who, through no fault of his own, either harvested a small crop or no crop at all. As a further example of the determination of this government to protect our farmers, the Prime Minister has stated that the Crowsnest pass rates on grain are regarded as a farmer's Magna Carta and as such must not be changed.
It is actions such as this that reassure our farmers with respect to the agricultural policies of this government and give us hope that those policies will attain for agriculture that measure of security and stability for which they are intended.
The prairie region usually has its quota of seasonal unemployed, particularly at this time of year, but figures released on January 16 of this year indicate that in that region applications for employment are down from the figure of a year ago. In Winnipeg, the largest centre of employment in Manitoba, the situation is particularly encouraging, with employment applications down by over 2,600 from the figure for the same date last year.
The fact that the home owner applicant is now able to apply directly to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for his loan should further encourage the home building program. This applies particularly to the smaller centres. With further funds to be made available by parliament this session-it was announced this morning that it would be an extra $250 million-this should prove to be a decisive factor in the employment situation for 1959.
I have some interesting figures on the total money spent in Manitoba on housing under the national housing scheme last year. The total amount of money spent on direct
496	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gour loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and guaranteed loans under the National Housing Act amounted to $38,023,449. The number of loans was 2,887 and the number of units constructed was 3,800, which would make a sizable city. There is every reason to believe that this high level of construction will continue this year in view of the encouragement being received from this government.
As a Manitoban I was pleased with the announcement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that Winnipeg would be one of the stop-overs in the connecting link between the Atlantic and Pacific flights of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines. That city is destined to become a major airport in the future of air travel, lying as it does in the path of the transpolar flights. Anything that is done to speed that process is a source of satisfaction, of course, to all Manitoba members who have become more than ever convinced, as we face the future, that Manitoba is indeed the keystone province of our nation. If the axiom "as Manitoba goes, so goes the nation" applies economically as well as politically, the housing development and building program contemplated for that province this year, with its beneficial effect on its economy, should be reflected across this country; and we as Canadians can have every confidence in the continued development within our nation throughout 1959.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure indeed that I second the non-confidence motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in which he clearly states that he has no confidence in the present government; and he is right. Poor Conservatives! Many of them are nice chaps, but they cannot make a go of running the affairs of this country! The situation today is no different from what it was between 1911 and 1921, and between 1930 and 1935. It has happened again in 1957 and will last until the people vote against the government at the next election.
Many of the Conservatives are clever, but they have no management ability, although, as regards their personal affairs, they are pretty good. I know that some of them are millionaires-and it is always among the Conservatives that we find the millionaires- but when it comes to managing the country's business, it seems they just can't do it. They manage to enact legislation that favours the rich and, needless to say, such legislation is hardly ever of benefit to the poor. I was very much amused this morning, listening to


the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) making his little political speech. However, it does not befit the head of so important a department to waste the few moments it took him to blame the official opposition, because the opposition has been telling the government some home truths, it has proved that the present administration is no good, and has said that the way the country is being run now will lead to the same situation as we have known under the Conservative regime during the terrible and dark years of 1930-35, as I explained when I addressed the house last Monday.
The Minister of Transport is a nice chap, very personable, tall and handsome, and flashes a pleasant smile; but he spent part of his time running down the official opposition, saying time and again that we, the Liberals, lacked confidence in our country. Now this is quite false. Under the Liberal administration we have proven beyond any doubt that we had faith in Canada and we still have that faith to-day. Instead of this the minister should have told the house, and Canadians, what he has in mind to improve the management of this country. He merely ranted at the official opposition, going over what the Liberals had done. And yet, we are telling our friends on the other side what they should be doing for the proper management of this country's affairs and keep it away from bankruptcy.
They have no right to tell us, Liberals, that we have no faith in our country. Instead of this they should change their behaviour here in the house. I don't mean they are doing it on purpose, but it seems to have grown into a habit with them, and they don't realize they are doing it.
We have faith in Canada. We have faith in the ability of all Canadians and in the future of Canada. This is something we have repeated time and time again and no one should be accusing us of the contrary. Canadians are not the only ones to have faith in their country; all nations in the world have faith in it too, and besides they had faith in the Liberal party and that is why thousands of individuals from every part of the world would have liked to emigrate to Canada. What is true, however, is that the people have no faith in the present government. Why? Because they remember what happened in the thirties. Besides at the time the Liberals were in office, thousands of people would have emigrated to Canada and settled here, if we had been able to let them in. But today these people no longer want to come because they have no confidence in the present government. We have proof of

this in the last two by-elections which took place in the riding of Trinity (Ontario) and in Springfield (Manitoba) where the Conservatives were reported to have done all they could to win those seats. They spared no effort to get those two seats; and yet, they were defeated in Trinity, and, had it not been for bad weather, even though they fought like mad, they would also have taken a licking in Springfield.


An hon. Member:: That is not the way it turned out in Montmagny-L'Islet.


Joseph-Omer Gour: You will see that next time it will be the same in Montmagny-L'Islet.
No, if we lack faith it is not a lack of faith in Canada, even though the minister kept repeating this throughout his speech, but a lack of faith or confidence in the Conservative government and in the way it is being managed.
Oh, you will say: "The people voted for us." Yes, they did for a time, because they accepted your promises, and I don't blame them. They thought you were sincere. But they have had their lesson and they realized what could happen. There are people in my constituency who shed tears every day because they believed in your promises. But make no mistake, the great majority of people in Canada are keenly disappointed, as evidenced by what I have just said. No, Mr. Speaker, no one will give credit to the statements of the Minister of Transport who, as I just pointed out, looks bright, seems fully qualified for the position he holds, but is, after all, only a plain small politician.
What the people of Canada want to know from the ministers and from the Conservative government, is what they intend to do to bring an end to unemployment, inflation and the present economic recession. That is what the people of Canada want to know from this government. Government members have been asking us to tell them how to run the country and when we do tell them how to go about it, they shoot back that we do nothing but criticize. After all, what else can we do but criticize them, and give them advice; we are not the ones who are running the country; if we were we would be running it the right way. Right now the Conservatives are entrusted with the affairs of Canada and it is not up to us to suggest this or that legislation, and every time there is a vote, they are extremely submissive. In fact, they listen to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) even more than a two-year old baby would listen to his mother. And because they are such obedient followers of the ministers, whenever there is a vote, we know ahead of time that we are defeated.
The Address-Mr. Gour
I shall be glad when the parliamentary secretaries are finally appointed, because then many Conservative members will be in a better position to quit their party when they realize that they were not among the elect. Then they will say: "I think I had better move in with the Grits and vote against the Tories", and by that time they will have good reasons to have confidence in the prosperity of their country.
As I said last Monday, under the Conservatives, from 1930 to 1935, the government was paying workers at Rockcliffe airport 2 cents an hour. As soon as the Liberals came back into power in 1935, wages immediately went up to 45 cents an hour, and these men were putting in an eight hour day. When we got out of office in 1957, tradesmen's wages in Canada averaged $1.25 to $3.00 an hour. That is what workers were being paid, according to the trade they practiced. We had brought back prosperity to the country. Yet, we had taken over a bankrupt government, and the war, which started in 1939, entailed tremendous expenditures. Our war effort which lasted almost 6 years, compared favourably with that of any other country which we went over to defend. In fact, if the population of Canada is compared with that of those other countries, it will be seen that we took better care of our servicemen than did any of those countries, and that better than any of them we helped our veterans and not only those of World War II but those of World War I, for the latter had a raw deal at the hands of the Conservative government, which had given them nothing on their return. In fact, with what they were getting, they had barely enough to buy a suit of clothes which at the time cost $75. Having only $10 left the returned men could not buy themselves shoes, socks or gloves. And that was all they got.
Furthermore, we helped them settle on farms and find jobs in industry. We also paid part of the tuition fees of those who sought higher education or wanted to take up a profession. We also helped those who wished to build themselves a house or start a small business, even a printing shop.
All this was making the country prosperous. Nearly all Canadian veterans were able to get jobs to provide their families with a decent living. In fact, between 1945 and 1957, there was prosperity in Canada such as no other country has ever enjoyed, a degree of prosperity unprecedented in the history of this country. And yet our hon. friends opposite dare ask: "What did you do in the 22 years you were in power?" My answer to this is: the Liberal party did

The Address-Mr. Gour so much for Canada that if a person went out to certain parts of the country which he had not visited for 5, 10 or 15 years, he would hardly know how to find his way in any village or small town and, of course, still less so in the larger cities. He would not be able to find his way, because of the changes wrought from one end of the country to the other.
The Liberal party can claim credit for the construction of over a million homes, and for the establishment of thousands of plants throughout the country. It looked after the development of our national resources, and provided Canadian citizens with the opportunity of proving their ability. Citizens rose to the challenge and made of Canada one of the most prosperous countries in the world, considering its limited population.
We started building the trans-Canada highway so that Canadians could travel from one end to the other of this beautiful country. We Liberals also drew up the plans of the St. Lawrence seaway, and almost completed this project to improve shipping conditions. We also built the pipeline which now enables us to carry to all other provinces, oil buried in the soil of Alberta, thereby providing jobs for thousands of Canadians.
We made huge sums available for the building of hospitals and universities. We introduced social legislation such as family allowances, veterans' assistance, old age assistance and unemployment insurance. We can also claim credit for drawing up all plans regarding health insurance.
Furthermore, we appointed a Canadian as Governor General. We abolished appeals to the privy council, making our supreme court the highest court in the country.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, we built a very substantial part of the trans-Canada highway, but we did not stop there. We introduced television and contributed to the progress of the National Research Council. We set up the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which, according to claims of our friends opposite, was set up only recently. Furthermore, we established fourteen crown companies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party's achievements are so numerous that I shall not take up more of the time of the house in enumerating them.
Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the Liberal party had appointed a Canadian to the high position of Governor General. I take this opportunity of suggesting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)-I see
that he has just gone out, but I am making the suggestion just the same-that it would be fitting, when the time comes to appoint a successor to the Governor General, when his term of office has expired, to follow a tradition that has been established in the House of Commons and in the Senate with regard to the choice of the Speaker, that is, that a French-speaking representative replaces an English-speaking representative and vice versa.
I hope that the new Governor General will again be a Canadian, for there are many Canadians who could very creditably fill this position. I do not see why one should oppose the selection of qualified men just because in the past they may have participated in the nation's political life. In support of my suggestion, I could mention the case of our judges who are always appointed by the party in power. Whether they have been in politics in the past or not, whether they are appointed by the provinces or by the federal government, these people cease to be in politics as soon as they are appointed, and I do not think I am mistaken in saying that we have the reputation of having judges who are as competent and, if I may say so, even much more competent, than those of any other country. We know that judges are very often selected among men of a recognized standing and who have played an active role in the political life of our country. Therefore, I do not see why our Governor General could not be a Canadian citizen; I would even prefer that he be selected among the Conservatives, if necessary, rather than have a representative from abroad.


Azellus Denis: I don't know about that!


Joseph-Omer Gour: We established markets in nearly all countries of the world, except those behind the iron curtain, and even there we brought certain business transactions to a successful conclusion. We provided Canadians with the opportunity of participating in the development of Canada, and to the citizens of other countries of coming here to help us promote the development of our natural resources. We also recognized that, because of their talents, their money and their intelligence, those new Canadians would become good citizens, for the greater benefit of our country.
And you Conservative members, what have you done? In the space of 19 months you would have wrecked the financial stability of the country had it not been for the social legislation introduced by the Liberal party-legislation including family allowances, veterans' assistance and old age security-the present economic depression would be even more terrible than that of the thirties.

And when we confront you with those facts, you want us to tell you what should be done. Small wonder you are unable to manage the country. We will tell you what to do, and if you can't bring yourselves to listen to us, in two or three years you will be back where you were in 1935.


An hon. Member:: You are going to get out.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Several Liberal members have made suggestions; now it is my turn.
Cut out the petty politics as you have been doing since 1957-


An hon. Member:: Yours is high politics!


Joseph-Omer Gour: -and try to give us practical government.
The winter works program you submitted to the provinces and to the municipalities should have included certain subsidies on building materials. Moreover, it should have come forward in August, not at the end of October. You should have called a conference of the provinces and the municipalities no later than June, July or August, and should have decided then and there what you had to offer. You should have guaranteed financial assistance to municipalities at an interest rate no higher than 5 per cent.
It is not the Mont Tremblant conference, after which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) did indeed tremble for a month-


An hon. Member:: Very funny!


Joseph-Omer Gour: According to radio, television and newspaper reports, the minister shook for five weeks. Calling such conferences, or travelling all over the world, is no way to solve the unemployment situation. I have nothing against the trips you made, in so far as you were looking after the interests of Canada first. We have offered to help in the development of other countries; that is fine, I go along with that. However, the first thing is to develop Canada, in order to give some encouragement to the new Canadians, so that they will become good citizens in the future.
Since you are asking for suggestions, I shall give you a few. Why not immediately call a conference with the provinces and the municipalities?


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Montmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will kindly let me finish my speech, he will have ample time for his question.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, since the
hon. member has reached the stage of sug-
The Address-Mr. Gour gestions, why does he not suggest that the Conservative government start paying old age pensions by age 35?


Mr. Habel:: Would you be in favour of that?


Joseph-Omer Gour: 
An hon. Member:: Surely, you are not going to claim credit for all that!


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It was the Liberal party's doing.


Joseph-Omer Gour: It was certainly not the Conservative party's. Therefore the population of my constituency increased by 68,000, which means that since my friend's awakening, some 25,000 homes have been built in Russell constituency. Before my hon. friend's awakening, over 1 million new homes were built in Canada. He didn't know that, so I am telling him. And, at the time, it was much more difficult to build houses. When my good friend was sitting on this side of the house, he used to say: "Shortage of manpower"; you can't get either materials or labour. True, building materials were hard to get. And there was no unemployment. Today, 750,000 unemployed are looking for work and you can get all the materials you need, one hour after placing the order.
You should be in a position to build this year at least 200,000 new houses. The population of Canada is increasing at the rate of 400,000 each year. All you have to do is to get ready accordingly, and figure on the basis of three people per house. Therefore we will need over 135,000 to 140,000 houses a year. Besides there are many old houses that need to be repaired. With all this unemployment, and because of your lack of ability, the least you can do is to build houses.
You should build 200,000 houses this year. It is better to build houses, to do something worthwhile that will be an asset to the country. And it would be much more useful than to pay some $500,000,000 in unemployment insurance benefits, because it is better to give workers wages than to pay them $25 or $30 a week for doing nothing. If you pay them $50-$100 a week in wages for work done, at least we will have something left of this.
I want to make a suggestion that would promote construction. Indeed, many of you will say that it is incorrect, but I suggest that the interest rate on housing loans should not exceed 5 per cent.
Furthermore, the sale of building lots should be supervised. There is too much unfair advantage taken of the people in the


sale of land. The government should intervene. There is no reason why building lots should sell for $4,000, $5,000 and even $6,000. In fact, a man has to pay $25 a month for 25 years to pay principal and interest on the lot. The government, with the co-operation of the provinces, should contribute to the cost of sewer and water systems in new districts. This would reduce the cost of housing and would further encourage Canadians to become house owners.
Mr. Speaker, our good friends opposite should manage the business of the country in the proper way. At the time of the Liberals, we used to sell aircraft to our good neighbours, and to other countries. According to newspaper reports, the government is disorganizing our aircraft factories. Yet this industry is very important for the defence of our country and for our civil aviation.
Our engineers and specialists are going to the United States. Consequently, our workers stay here without work.
During the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, it was said that we were buying too much from our good friends to the south, that we should divert 15 per cent of our purchases to commonwealth countries. Naturally, this was intended to win the election. But today, when we are buying Bomarcs, aircraft, etc., from the United States, we are making Canada dependent on the United States for our defence.
That is the way the Conservatives understand politics. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the good job that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has done for the country. I didn't say that you are all bad boys, because many of you are good boys; the only trouble with you is that you are Conservatives, and that, as such, you do not know how to run the country.
I think I know my way in the field of agriculture. The market price of butter was 64 cents; you lowered it to 63 cents. Powdered milk was 17 cents, I believe, and you cut down the price by 3 cents, so that it would not look too bad. But things are bad, and could be even worse. Do you know why they are not worse? It is no fault of yours, nor is it the Liberals' fault! It is because the Americans are buying our cattle. However, I want to tell you now that if the Americans are buying our cattle, it is because of an agreement entered into by the Liberals with the U.S.A. If Americans should stop buying our cattle, I do not think that the Conservative government could come to a new agreement with them. Therefore, don't try to make us believe that you have done something about that.


I recognize, however, that you have provided a substantial aid to western farmers; it is an average of $200 for each farmer, whether or not he was a millionaire. But that is not the way to run this country!
Mr. Speaker, my remarks are sincere and I hope that they will be received as constructive criticism, for the welfare of Canada. I cannot get used to the idea that after four years of bad Conservative administration, and in spite of my age, I will not see another era of prosperity.


Mr. Fortin:: You will not see it.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I hope that I will never see the time when we will have to be content with only one meal a day.
I repeat that there are some very good boys among the Conservatives. The minister says that the advice that we give them is bad advice and that, in fact, it amounts only to criticism of the Conservatives. You certainly know that things are not going well in your family; you could not make me believe the contrary. If ever you have to go to hospital, you will be glad to accept our advice and to follow it. We can give you some and we will continue to do so as long as we have a chance to do it.
(Text):


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my first wish as I rise to take part in this debate is to join with the hon. members of this house who have preceded me in offering congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), and the seconder, the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the member for Montmagny-L'Islet because when he spoke on national unity it made me as an English speaking member appreciate the tremendous opportunity we have to widen our horizons as a result of the new simultaneous translation system. I would also suggest that we owe a debt of gratitude to the government for having made possible the installation of this system because without it some hon. members would have been unable to fully appreciate the profound and soulsearching remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet made a speech in this house, which I think was a tremendous contribution to this debate,
The Address-Mr. McGrath when he spoke on a subject which we in eastern Canada-and I mean eastern Canada-are so deeply interested in, namely national unity. I would compliment the hon. member, but at the same time ask him and other hon. members to bear in mind, in developing this theme of national unity, that we in Canada should develop a national unity without uniformity. Canada is developing into a great nation comprised of many races, people of many ethnic origins, and to my mind each has something to contribute more fully to a greater Canada by retaining those traditions, those colourful traditions of his national origin, traditions, which I suggest are contributing to make a new and more distinctive kind of Canadian.
This year will mark the tenth anniversary of the entry of my province into this family of Canadian provinces. I like to think- and perhaps this thought is shared by other hon. members-that perhaps one of the greatest contributions my province made to the Canadian family was to contribute to the Canadian scene a culture and a tradition which are rooted in folklore, a folklore in the traditions of Devon, of the west country, of Scotland and of Ireland, folklore and traditions which have been carefully retained and protected down through the years.
As a member from the most easterly constituency in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I was interested to notice in the speech from the throne a reference to freight rates. The quotation reads:
My ministers will recommend to you action to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the recent horizontal increase in freight rates.
I cannot tell you how keenly we look forward to this measure being introduced because we are at the extreme eastern end of the line. We are at the mercy of the railways and the future of what secondary industry we have in my city and my constituency solely depends on such a measure.
While on the subject of transportation, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record a statement of the president of the Canadian National Railways, which he made in Halifax on November 20 or 21, 1958. It is taken from the St. John's News and is a Canadian Press dispatch. Mr. Gordon said:
Sensational reports about the Canadian National Railways ferry, William Carson, having trouble docking at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, are doing a disservice to the maritimes and alarming the tourist trade.

The Address-Mr. McGrath
The statement goes on:
I am surprised that the newspapers of this area make so much of the fact that wind blows in this part of the world and interferes with shipping.
In addition to that statement for the record, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give you briefly the record of the service of the William Carson and which I might add bears the name of a distinguished Newfoundlander, Dr. William Carson, who carried on the fight for responsible government in Newfoundland more than a hundred years ago. The figures that I have cover the period from October 6, 1958 to December 31, 1958. During 13 trips of the William Carson, which is our main link with the Canadian mainland, from North Sydney to Port aux Basques this ship which has been surrounded with so much misfortune was delayed for a total period of 237 hours and 20 minutes; 237 hours and 20 minutes lost in 13 trips. I have more comprehensive figures, but I will not detain the house with them at this time. However, I do propose to go into this more fully during the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). The point I would like to make is this:	I respectfully suggest that the Department of Transport take steps to place the William Carson in a service where she can do the most good. The Newfoundland board of trade has offered the suggestion that the William Carson should operate from North Sydney to Argentia, of which I am sure the minister is most familiar. I would like to state for the record that I feel such a service is the only justification we have for, and it is the only way that we can fully take advantage of such a modern and beautiful ship.
Not only that but I would like to bring home the fact that in my province, with which I realize perhaps most Canadians are not too familiar, we are two separate regions. We have no transinsular highway; hence we have only the Canadian National Railways which operate a single narrow gauge antiquated railway which was taken over from the Newfoundland government in 1949. Consequently the people of the west coast of Newfoundland and of the east coast have little or no communication with each other. It is with this point in mind that I would support the claims of the Newfoundland board of trade and respectfully suggest that the passenger ferry, William Carson, which carries the name of such a noted Newfound-

lander, in this tenth year of confederation be used to link the vast population of this country who are living on the east coast of Newfoundland with the mainland.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
James Aloysius McGrath: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was making reference to the record of the Canadian National Railways' ferry William Carson, which operates from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, the western terminus of the Newfoundland service of Canadian National Railways. Time will not permit me to delve further into this contentious subject. For the time being, I shall let the record speak for itself.
During this debate we have heard continuous remarks from hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that this government has done nothing to relieve the unemployment situation in Canada. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite must have read and listened to the speech from the throne, as I have. I noticed several references in there. For example, there is a suggestion of the introduction of a measure to increase the funds under the National Housing Act from the consolidated revenue fund, boosting that fund to a billion dollars. Surely, this will have the effect of stimulating house construction in Canada, and it will have the related effect of providing jobs for Canadians from coast to coast. I do not believe it is necessary to go into the chain reaction that results from the building of a home.
There is a suggestion also in the speech from the throne concerning an increase in the total funds that may be expended under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. There is a reference to certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In my own province of Newfoundland, the government has embarked on a program to relieve distress in the fisheries of Newfoundland by means of a program for the building of community stages. This initial program will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 and there is some suggestion that the program will be carried out during the coming year. For the benefit of hon. gentlemen who perhaps do not know what a

community stage is, I would say that a community stage may be described as a central fish landing and processing building where the fishermen can prepare their fish for salting; salt, store and process the article under efficient, sanitary conditions. The stages will be managed and operated by a local authority or a fisherman's co-operative. The fishermen may continue to operate as individuals or pool their operations, as I mentioned, in a community enterprise.
This program is a joint undertaking by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean). I would suggest it is a step in the right direction. It is, perhaps, somewhat unfortunate that that program is not on schedule because of the severe winter conditions being experienced in my province of Newfoundland. The program will have the effect of providing direct employment for the hard-pressed fishermen of my province, another step in the right direction towards relieving the unemployment problem.
I would suggest that hon. gentlemen opposite should be constructive in their criticism instead of trying to propagate their fallacious doctrine of gloom and doom. In the limited time at any disposal, I should like to close by commenting on a suggestion which is, to me as a young Canadian an exciting one, and which will have an appeal, I feel, to all Canadians. This is a project national in scope and national in its significance.
I am sure all hon. members of this house have heard references to the establishment of a free port or a transshipment port on Canada's eastern seaboard, or more specifically on the island of Newfoundland. Such a port, located on our east coast would, in effect, receive the grain from the port of Churchill on Hudson bay and from the lakehead down to the St. Lawrence seaway, and there await transshipment in the grain elevators of this port to the markets of the world. This would, of necessity, have to be a deep water harbour, an ice-free harbour; it would, of necessity, have to be strategically located near what is known as the great circle shipping routes. In other words, it would have to be accessible to the trade routes of the world. We have two such harbours in the province of Newfoundland and, I might add, they are both located in the constituency of my friend the hon.
The Address-Mr. McGrath member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). One is a great natural fiord on the southeast coast of Newfoundland called Head Bay d'Espoir. The other one, which is most often mentioned, is a beautiful natural inlet, the water-way of Mortier bay on the Burin peninsula.
In order to give you an idea of the strategic location of this great natural harbour I am sure you will be interested to learn that it is 700 miles closer to Gibraltar than is the port of New York. It is closer to the main ports of South America, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires, than any single port in North America. These are interesting statistics. Furthermore, all the important trade routes originating from the English channel and the main industrial ports of Europe and which terminate in the western hemisphere pass within less than 100 miles of this great natural harbour on the east coast of Newfoundland. Such a transshipment port would be of immense value to the grain growers of Canada for it would result in reduced transportation costs. The advantages of such a development to my province cannot really be over-emphasized at this time. It would, in effect, mean the creation of a virtually new industry, a thriving industry, which would have a great effect on the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
There is now being shipped from the port of Churchill on Hudson bay something like 16 million bushels of wheat each year in a relatively short shipping season. The transportation of this grain requires somewhere in the vicinity of 50 ships. However, this is a somewhat costly means of transportation because these bottoms must arrive at the port of Churchill empty, with the resultant high cost of transportation. However, in spite of this fact, the use of this route results in substantial savings per bushel on the grain. If such a transshipment port were to be established, and if grain elevators were to be built on Canada's eastern seaboard, it is suggested that it would be possible to make a saving of four cents per bushel. I understand this would be a substantial saving indeed. This project can be projected as the ultimate expansion or the ultimate completion of the St. Lawrence seaway because in reality they virtually complement each other. Reference has been made to such a port by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo on another occasion and I would presume that it would receive the full support of the hon. gentleman.

The Address-Mr. Garland
The shores of Mortier bay, as most hon. gentlemen from my province will readily tell you, lend themselves by virtue of their terrain to the building of wharves, shipping docks, grain elevators, immense warehouses, factories and even a great new city. This might sound like an ambitious scheme, but all great schemes are founded on ambition. As I stated before, the economic advantages of such a national development to the economy of the Atlantic provinces and of Canada as a whole cannot at this time be fully appreciated. I would urge the members of the government and all hon. members of this house to acquaint themselves fully with the advantages, the possibilities and the potential of such a great national development.
May I close on the theme with which I started. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) eloquently expressed his theme of national unity. I would suggest that this would be a step in the direction of that greater national unity because it would have the effect of making the eastern seaboard, the Atlantic region of Canada, a more integral part of the economy of this nation. I feel it will warrant the serious consideration of this government, a government that has done more to develop this theme of national unity than has any other government since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As usual, this task was carried out in a most commendable manner, bringing credit to both the mover and the seconder and to the ridings which they represent.
I should like to explain, Mr. Speaker, that I had not intended taking part in this throne speech debate because it semed to me that our leader made a brilliant, comprehensive review of the present situation, pointing out the many shortcomings of the government especially in respect of the lack of a clear-cut government policy. However, the contributions of the cabinet ministers in this debate have been so partisan and so void of policy that perhaps a word is necesary to remind them again that they are no longer in the opposition but that, as members of the government, they are expected to be providing leadership. Instead, they seem to be following a policy of opposition to the opposition.

The best example to illustrate my point was the political speech made in this debate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) who devoted one part of his remarks to apologizing for his somewhat less than brilliant showing on "Press Conference" and the balance of his speech to criticism and belittling of Liberals, past and present. It was hardly the kind of speech expected in these critical times from one aspiring to be Minister of Trade and Commerce and hardly the kind of speech that would inspire much confidence throughout this country. I would ask businessmen looking for economic guidance with respect to the future to read that speech and judge for themselves.
This morning we had another rather strange utterance, this time from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who should be in possession of the facts and who was again attacking the opposition concerning the use of statistics. I should like to refer to some figures the minister used. Pie made the extraordinary statement this morning that the Canadian merchant marine at the end of world war II consisted of 500 ocean-going ships. I am not going to pursue this point and I want to be fair to the minister. I know that he realizes that the statement he made was a grossly exaggerated one. The figure was not 500 but, to the best of my knowledge, was 173, practically all of which were built during the war for wartime use and were disposed of after the war.
Mr. Speaker, we have been listening for nearly ten days for something constructive from the government but what have we heard? We have heard from the government only criticism and further attempts to belittle our leader and to drag him down from the high place he so rightly occupies in the minds of people at home and abroad. Then there is this further and unfounded accusation by the government that we lack confidence in the economy. The only thing in this regard that the Liberal opposition lacks confidence in is the ability of the government to do its job. After all, it has been Liberal administrations that helped create the kind of economic climates in which Canada made its greatest progress over the years.
Then there is this further untrue accusation by the Conservatives, and they do it at every opportunity, that the Liberals did nothing for the commonwealth. This afternoon the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. JANUARY 29, 1959
Walker) read and referred to some newspaper clippings having to do with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker's) recent commonwealth tour. But he apparently did not go far enough with his reading of those press clippings or he would have found some others. This came out at the time our present Prime Minister was visiting India; the story came out at that time, I believe. At the commonwealth conference of prime ministers in 1949 a Canadian formula was put forward by the Canadian government which made it possible for India to remain as a republic within the commonwealth.
Rarely, except in wartime, I suggest, has Canada's parliament met in a more difficult period. As has been pointed out, the two most difficult and most urgent problems are unemployment and inflation or, if you prefer, jobs and rising prices. However, there are many other serious problems confronting the Conservative administration as this new session gets under way. Canadians are facing the prospect of a billion dollar deficit as compared with regular reductions in our national debt from surpluses under Liberal administration. After many years of steady growth under Liberal administration, Canadians are witnessing our second year of slowdown in our national production. Indecision and uncertainty are dimming the 1959 prospects for the Canadian oil and natural gas industry. Canadians are concerned about the muddle in our defence policies and the lack of decision about building the Arrow fighter plane. Canadians are also concerned about our role in continental defence. I do not think anyone but the most partisan Tory would argue that Canada's role in international affairs has taken on added vigour under Conservative administration. I think it is fair to say that Canada's influence at the United Nations and at NATO has not been increased under the present government. Shrinking immigration with 125,000 immigrants last year as compared with 282,000 in 1957, with our economy under Conservative administration unable apparently to absorb more, according to government spokesmen, is a matter of real concern.
Another serious problem is the apparent lack of confidence resulting in the weakening of prices of Canadian bonds. This poses another real problem in the government's future financing.
Some of us have wondered why, in view of the importance of Canada-United States re-
The Address-Mr. Garland lations, the important position of ambassador to the United States was left unfilled for such a long period. However, we are all pleased to see that the matter has been corrected and we would hope not at the expense of the civil service commission.
In view of the ministers' partisan speeches I am tempted to bring up several shortcomings of the present government but I realize I must be careful lest we be named as one of Khrushchev's helpers. This seems to be the attitude of the present government toward any criticism. I suppose the pattern for this was set on the opening day of the debate by the Prime Minister in replying to my leader and is understandably repeated by aspiring government supporters. It seems rather strange that this new government, in power for such a relatively short time and so flush with criticism when in opposition, should be so sensitive about any criticism of their lack of policy.
Having due regard for the many factors contributing to our economic slow-down, I believe that a major factor was the shock of realizing on June 11, 1957 that Canada had lost its experienced government. This lack of confidence that became apparent so soon was not because it was a Conservative government but rather because it was an inexperienced government. Never since June, 1957 has it been so apparent that this new, inexperienced government is incapable of dealing with the problems of the day. I believe this lack of confidence has contributed substantially to the decline in capital investment by business, which has been one of the major contributing factors in our economic slowdown. This lack of confidence in the government is, I believe, more than justified. When we look around us today and see the mounting list of problems piling up over the last 18 months, it is little wonder that businessmen, both at home and abroad, are temporarily at least delaying many of their expansion plans and taking a second look.
What a difference a year makes! What a difference between Canada under Liberal administration in 1956 and under Conservative administration in 1958. During the 10 years previous to the Conservatives coming into office the Liberal administration was able to reduce taxes by substantial amounts every year except in the year of the Korean incident. In addition to these substantial tax reductions, the Liberal administration was able to effect substantial reductions in our national debt. These reductions in our national debt during the last 10 years have

The Address-Mr. Garland been wiped out in the last 18 months by Conservative patchwork policies.
Yes, indeed, what a difference a year makes! Canadians were shocked to find that between Harris in 1957 and Fleming in 1958 there was a difference of $1,200 million. That is what it cost the Canadian people to change their administration from Liberal to Conservative. This new Conservative government may well go down in history as the most expensive luxury Canadians ever had. It is little wonder that investors are concerned about the new government.
I should like to say a word about the problem of steadily rising unemployment. The only words of encouragement that the government seems to have offered over the past few months are utterances from time to time that the unemployment situation is worsening at a slower rate than before. This is not much comfort to the person who is without a job. The most recent figures show that one worker in every fifteen is without work, with every indication that the situation will be worse. I say it is a disgrace that in this young, vigorous and rich country we must accept the proposition from our government that two millions of our men, women and children must suffer as a result of unemployment this winter. The average Canadian is understandably shocked by the situation. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions have been poured into our economy, with a maximum of publicity by the government, we find more people seeking jobs since the Conservatives took over than at any time since the depression of the thirties when they were last in office.
The government cannot shirk its responsibility. Surely the government's failure to deal adequately with unemployment is well recognized. Even today they apparently are not ready with any legislation to ease unemployment this winter or they would have taken advantage of our proposal to terminate the throne speech debate. Surely it is the responsibility of the federal government to maintain a high level of employment. Surely they must now realize that relief measures, though helpful, are not a cure for unemployment.
In addition, we have the Prime Minister's own words that no person would be permitted to suffer from unemployment. Despite the fact that the number of unemployed is steadily rising, the government is almost daily taking credit for relieving the situation. They take special credit for their winter works program which provides for paying 50 per cent of the labour costs on projects that would not normally have been undertaken this winter. On the surface this looks like a sound proposal.


However, its soundness will be established only if it proves to be effective. To date, in the municipalities I have checked personally, I find it has been of little or no value.
After all, the labour costs on many municipal projects represent only a small portion of the over-all costs. This means that the municipalities in most cases, in order to take advantage of this offer, would have to assume substantial financial obligations to cover these capital outlays. These additional financial obligations have been made more costly by the government's actions in raising interest rates. The government's ill-fated conversion scheme, referred to by some as "Fleming's folly", which had the effect of increasing interest rates by 50 per cent on a substantial portion of government borrowing, has naturally had the effect of making provincial and municipal borrowing more expensive. In this field of government endeavour alone I think the government should be severely criticized. By increasing the cost of borrowing at the provincial and municipal levels the federal government has retarded, rather than encouraged, badly needed projects, projects that would have yielded much needed jobs not only on the projects themselves but in the production and transportation of the materials used.
As I indicated at the beginning, I do not intend to belabour the shortcomings of the government. These are well known. I simply wish to point out in a friendly way that the brave new world promised by the Conservatives prior to June, 1957 has failed to materialize.
It would seem that Conservative government policy falls into two broad categories: first, an attempt to outbid the Liberals with the people's own money and, second, that political expediency replace prudent planning. How often do we hear the expression that members of the government are acting like kids in toyland for the first time, trying out all the gadgets and free rides. I suggest that their journey into fairyland is over. Canadians expect them to stop acting and to settle down and grapple with these serious Canadian problems. Much valuable time has been lost already. This year Canadians will be expecting more on budget night than a blue message read from a blue lectern by a blue minister with a blue flower in his blue lapel.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: A very good political colour.


George James McIlraith: Depression blue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It made the Liberals blue.


John Richard Garland: I should like to turn now to problems directly affecting the district of Nipissing. Some few weeks ago Premier Frost

announced his government's intention to establish a port at Moosonee which would provide safe, all-year-round anchorage for ocean-going ships. At that time the premier said that the ocean port would be established with or without federal assistance. I realize that this is an election year in the province of Ontario and critics of the government may well be suspicious that this is an election promise. However, it seems that the Ontario government has approved $5 million to start the project and it is reported that engineers and drillers are currently on the site.
I know this matter has been discussed with the federal government and hope has been expressed that they will be sufficiently interested in the Moosonee project to build suitable docks there. It is also to be expected that private mining companies and others will be building their own docks. In addition, it is hoped that an all-weather landing strip will be constructed with the materials dredged from the bottom of the river. I should like to urge the cabinet to give this project its wholehearted support.
The establishment of this deep water port at Moosonee will make our whole northland readily accessible to the industrial centres of Canada. Here, it seems to me, is a readymade project which the federal government could readily endorse. This is a project that could be proceeded with now, not at some future imaginary date. I suggest this government, which has, by its statements, indicated such profound interest in northern development, do everything within its power to encourage its friends in Ontario to get on with this development. In this way they can silence the critics who would say that Ontario is only dragging this out because it is an election year. I urge the government to recognize that here is an opportunity to do one important but not costly thing for the 18 million Canadians we have today, rather than sit around dreaming about the 100 million of which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) spoke on Monday.
I should also like to make a request of a regional nature concerning work on this Moosonee project. If the federal government does enter into an agreement with Ontario I would hope that since this is a northern Ontario project northern Ontario firms might be given every opportunity to participate in this development. I understand that contracts being carried out at the present time in connection with the preliminary surveys were awarded without asking northern Ontario firms to bid. On a local basis I can think of at least three or four drilling firms in my own city which are highly competent to undertake
The Address-Mr. Garland this work and which would have been most anxious to tender had they been given an opportunity.
In this connection I should like to suggest that when defence installations are made- I am referring now to the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile base-northern Ontario firms should be given every opportunity to participate. I recognize that these projects are of a national character and that discrimination cannot be shown against any firm, regardless of its location in Canada. However, I do urge that wherever possible local northern Ontario firms be given every opportunity to provide their services, having regard to their technical capabilities.
May I turn now to a matter of local and national interest, namely the plight of a basic Canadian industry, the manufacture of Canadian plywood. The plywood industry in Canada is divided into two main sections; softwood, which is for the most part Douglas fir produced in British Columbia and hardwood, produced in eastern Canada, the prairie provinces and British Columbia.
May I go a step further and explain that I am concerned primarily with one division of the hardwood plywood section which has to do with decorative hardwood plywood. The production of decorative hardwood plywood is centred in eastern Canada. It involves approximately 30 companies located in small communities in Ontario and Quebec. This industry employs about 4,600 persons, with an annual payroll of approximately $12 million and a production value of approximately $43 million. This industry is experiencing considerable difficulty and is currently operating at a depressed level. I am advised that in 1957 eight companies had a consolidated loss of approximately $575,000 as compared with an average profit of $1,316,000 during the four previous years.
The reason for this depressed state of the industry is well known to the government and especially to the members of parliament on both sides of the house who represent the constituencies where these plywood mills are located. It is reported that Japanese imports have actually captured more than 50 per cent of the hardwood plywood consumer market in Canada. This problem has resulted from the fact that Japanese plywood can be retailed in Canada for less money than it costs a Canadian manufacturer to produce. In January, a year ago, representatives of the industry discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and presented the problem squarely to him.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? It is a very interesting problem which he has raised: what would he do about it himself?

The Address-Mr. Garland


John Richard Garland: I have great respect tor the Minister of Public Works who is a very experienced and very astute politician, but I do not intend to illuminate him. I will probably think of a smart rejoinder on the way home. Suffice it to say that if I was sitting on the other side of the house and in the minister's position I would know the answer.


Howard Charles Green: You were here for a long time and you did not know the answer.


John Richard Garland: I am not talking about a long time ago. This is a problem which must be dealt with now.
Before I was invited to advise the government I was saying that in January, a year ago, representatives of the industry made representations to the Minister of Finance and placed the matter squarely before him. At that time the minister seemed interested in the problem and agreed to discuss the difficulty with the Japanese ambassador to see if some solution could not be worked out.
It is reported the minister found the Japanese government willing to apply voluntary controls on their plywood exports. A quota was to be placed on Japanese exports of plywood from April 1 to December 31 of last year. The Japanese plywood industry agreed to reduce its exports by 10 per cent from the 1957 levels. Figures for 1958, however, show that Japanese plywood exports to this continent are on the increase. Another highly important aspect of this situation is that shipment of veneers ready to be glued into plywood is in a category which falls outside the quota system. I recognize at once that there is no easy solution to this problem. However, the government must take action in the very near future if our Canadian hardwood plywood industry is to continue to exist.
Let me relate this problem to the local level. I have in mind the Guelph Plywood Company Limited with mills located at Mat-tawa, in the east end of the district of Nip-issing, and in Scotstown, Quebec-I hope the hon. member for that district will not object to my referring to his area. After 50 years of operation the plywood mill at Scotstown had to be closed, which removed from that community, I am told, virtually its sole means of support.
At Mattawa, a town of 3,500 people, the Guelph Plywood Company Limited is also the main source of employment. Since Japanese manufacturers have taken over 50 per cent of the North American plywood market the industry at Mattawa is considered to be in a dangerous position. Representations have been made to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) with regard to this danger and,

as I have mentioned, additional representations have been made to the government through the Minister of Finance.
The Guelph Plywood Company Limited have made every effort to sustain activity at Mattawa and have succeeded by the questionable means of exporting veneer to the United States instead of finished plywood. This is a retrograde step so far as Canada is concerned, inasmuch as it is using our nat-tural resources to our minimum advantage.
It should also be pointed out that while endeavouring to maintain activity at Mattawa the company has responsibilities to the provincial department of lands and forests for the upkeep of their licences in respect of the crown lands they hold. This company accepts and discharges these responsibilities at considerable cost. Means of recovering the outlays and promoting better forestry are greatly curtailed by the loss of markets. The Guelph Plywood Company's over-all employment payroll has fallen from approximately 300 people to less than half that figure. Their woods operations have been greatly curtailed with a production of logs of possibly half what it was previously.
This firm, as well as many others in the decorative hardwood plywood industry, are anxious to take their place as a sound Canadian industry, paying adequate wages, pursuing the best forestry practices, producing a volume of exports for the national benefit, and maintaining research facilities which will keep their industry to the forefront. This they cannot do under the circumstances in which they find themselves today.


Howard Charles Green: May I, in all seriousness, ask the hon. member another question? Has he no suggestion to offer as to how this situation could be remedied?


John Richard Garland: I should be very delighted to make suggestions if I were on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I might answer the hon. gentleman?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leon David Crestohl: This government has no
answers.


Mr. Nixon:: The government does not want an answer.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Richard Garland: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there are plenty of provisions for dealing with

this matter. One of my parliamentary assistants, if I may use that sensitive term, has suggested that I remind the government that there are provisions in the Japanese trade treaty.
The industry to which I have referred has no wish to see the dangerous trend I have outlined continue. Those in the industry believe that the responsibility they bear is one that must be shared in part at least by the government.
The industry will seek action by making further representations to the government and I would hope that this problem in a basic Canadian industry will receive the most serious consideration by the cabinet. I recognize the difficulties involved. Trade is a twoway street. It is understandable that our Japanese friends, at the diplomatic level, are careful to point out that their purchases from Canada are many times larger than Canadian purchases from Japan. But it should also be remembered in dealing with this matter in a friendly way with the Japanese that this is not a basic industry in Japan. In this case all wood is picked up in the Philippines, transported to Japan, processed there, and then thrown on the Canadian markets at prices substantially lower than those for which we can produce locally. I repeat that the government must face up to this problem in one of our basic Canadian industries.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question now that he has resumed his seat?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You made your speech.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate there have been many flattering remarks made about the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address and I believe these remarks were very well earned. However, I am always worried that flattery may ruin a young member of parliament and in fact I have seen that happen in several instances. I am perfectly certain that these two young and very promising members will accept the flattery in the right way and realize that there are many obstacles to be overcome before most of us get within shooting distance of the top in public life. It so happens that there are many promising young men in this house, practically all on the government side fortunately-


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are "promising" all right.


Howard Charles Green: -although there are all too few on the other side.
The Address-Mr. Green


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there are too few on
this side.


George Ewart Nixon: Truer words were never spoken.


Howard Charles Green: In view of the fact there is such a wealth of talent I am sure that not one of these young hon. members is going to be spoiled during the present parliament and we expect they will all turn out to be leading statesmen of Canada.
The debate at the moment is on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) which is in the following words:
We respectfully affirm that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of contradictory and confused policies; as well as lamentable indecision in dealing with grave national problems such, for example, as those concerned with mounting unemployment, no longer merit the confidence of this house.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rather strong amendment, although exaggerated it is true, and losing a great deal of its effect because of the broad grin on the face of the Leader of the Opposition when he read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at all; I was very serious.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: His grin was not as broad as the one on your face right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why is the minister laughing?


Howard Charles Green: The amendment was weakened not only because of the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to read it with conviction but because of his failure and that of the other three horsemen of the Apocalypse and the lesser lights behind them to follow through with this fighting amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have heard that before.


Howard Charles Green: I thought that we on this side of the house were going to be torn to pieces in this debate. But what happened? The C.C.F. moved a subamendment, one of their usual amendments with a big bait of socialism tacked on it. We on this side know all about those baits because we had to deal with them for many years when we were on the other side. To my amazement the Leader of the Opposition swallowed this socialist bait hook, line and sinker and tagged along behind the small group of eight C.C.F. members in this house.
May I point out to the hon. gentleman in all kindness that he is never going to build up this hulk across the floor of this house in that way. He will have to find a better system than that. Not only did the hon. gentleman try to climb aboard the C.C.F. boat but just before the vote was taken on the C.C.F. subamendment and then again through the words of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier), who is the house leader for the official
510	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green opposition, alter the vote the Liberal party made a great gesture. "We want the government to get on with the business of solving the problem of unemployment and we will forget all about our amendment", they said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: "Let us get this vote over with right away," they cried.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And get to work.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, they said "let us get down to work". This was the story. They had not a thing to back up their strong amendment nor do they have a thing tonight to back it up.
You know, Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago I was really frightened at the prospect of facing the official opposition in this house in view of press reports I read such as the one I hold in my hand which appeared in the Vancouver Province of January 19, under the caption, "Rough, Tough Ottawa Session Predicted As Pearson Leads New Fighting Liberals". And tonight we have before us the official opposition. The maneating tiger that was going to maul and devour the government turns out to be the same old tabby cat we faced across the floor of this house during the last session.


An hon. Member:: You are too tough to eat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Tell us about the public works program.


Howard Charles Green: When we ask the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) and other hon. members in the Liberal party, these men who were sent here to represent a large number of the Canadian people, to offer suggestions as to meeting some of the problems which confront the Canadian people today they are unable to do so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You asked us how to do your job. You do not know what to do.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what is the policy of his government with respect to unemployment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are a minister now; you tell us.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition had this to say about the responsibilities of hon. members of parliament who happen to be sitting in one of the opposition parties-


George James McIlraith: What about your responsibilities as a minister?


Howard Charles Green: He said on Saturday:
We are tired of being asked by the government side what we would do.


I know there is a school of thought which thinks that all anyone in opposition has to do is just to criticize but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not being efficient public servants. These men across the way were sent here to make suggestions as to ways in which Canada can be strengthened.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question? I do not want to interrupt his very interesting speech on government policy but I would ask him, now that he has reached this point, will he not take advantage of this opportunity to deal with the seven proposals for government policy which I made in my original speech?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member's proposals were not suggestions; they were just trick questions. I know you don't like this but you deserve it and you are going to get it. If the Leader of the Opposition and the other Liberal members in this house think they are going to render much service to the Canadian people in the next four years by sitting across there and just being critical without making any constructive suggestions they are badly mistaken.


Mr. Godin:: What is the minister doing
now?


Howard Charles Green: So much for this strong, powerful amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition; I do not think it merits any further consideration.
One of the basic beliefs of the Progressive Conservative party, and a belief which has been held by the followers of that party from the days of Sir John A. Macdonald-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was not Progressive in
those days.


Howard Charles Green: -has been a national development policy. When we were in opposition we put forward this policy on many different occasions and I am going to read it to the house tonight because this has been and is basic in our approach to the problems facing the Canadian people.


Osias.-J. Godin: Is this a new policy?


Howard Charles Green: This was moved by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on February 11, 1957, and had been moved before that and it was moved on other subsequent occasions:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider

financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
Summed up, this means nation building, and tonight I propose to point out how we have been following this course since taking over the government of the country in 1957. I cannot deal with all of the questions which could be classified under this proposal but I shall deal with some. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, behind this policy is the belief that our nation, with its resources, not only raw materials but also lavish energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, hydroelectric power and uranium, and above all, with the courage, common sense and character of the Canadian people, can become one of the great nations of the world.
Let me tell the story briefly of our experience with housing, which is one way of building a nation and a very good way at that. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province of February 1, 1957. This was about four months before the defeat of the last government. The heading is:
Builders Go Bankrupt as Money Gets Tight
The article continues:
Many contractors now under the gun.
Withdrawal of mortgage money for home building has hit contractors here and resulted in bankruptcy of several firms.
Nothing was done by the former government to meet that situation. We had not been in power very long until we began to get complaints from the men in the building industry in various parts of Canada, and also from young Canadians who were unable to get a home. I think at that time, in the late summer of 1957, the Canadian industry which was closest to getting into a state of depression was the house-building industry. As you know, Mr. Speaker, although we were very green in office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lester Bowles Pearson: Green is right.


Howard Charles Green: Green is a favourite colour of mine. I always fight my elections in green and with the slogan, "Keep Quadra Green."
We moved to meet the situation by making available for the construction of small houses the $150 million which then remained under the terms of the National Housing Act. Twice after that we increased the amount, first by $150 million and then by $350 million, and hon. members will have noticed that we now propose to increase the amount by a further $250 million. This was done primarily for two reasons or may I say three reasons: one, to maintain the house-building industry, which I believe is the most important industry
The Address-Mr. Green in Canada; two, to provide employment; three, to give young Canadians a chance to own their own homes; also to provide more lower rental accommodation and to provide for more slum clearance schemes such as, for example, the new project I announced earlier this week which is to be undertaken shortly in the city of Windsor.
The results, Mr. Speaker, as everyone will admit have been spectacular. In the last calendar year there were over 163,000 housing starts. We do not have the exact figures yet; it will be some days before we can give it exactly but this is about 25,000 units higher than the record in 1955 and it is over 40,000 higher than the number of starts in the calendar year 1957.
In so far as completions in 1958 are concerned, they have set a record of about 146,000 units. The previous record was 135,700 in the year 1956. The carry-over of houses under construction in Canada in midwinter is higher than it has ever been, about 88,000 units. Even more remarkable is the fact that there continues to be an excellent market for these homes. We have always watched very carefully for any indication that there were too many of these small homes being built. However, as of the end of December, there were only 3,239 which had been completed and were unoccupied, and that included single units and duplexes, whereas in December, 1957, there were 2,765. When you realize the greatly increased number of completions in 1958, you will see that there is, as yet, no indication that the market is breaking.
The officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have recently interviewed the heads of all the banks and lending institutions, and have been told that there will be about the same amount of money put up by these companies for mortgage lending in 1959. All indications are that this present year, 1959, will be another splendid year for house-building in Canada.
We believe that in our housing policy we are really building Canada. I have here a letter from the secretary-manager of the national retail lumbermen's council of Canada, dated November 26, in which he says:
I have been asked by the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada to write to you and to express the sincere appreciation of the 2,000 lumber retail firms which make up its membership, for the forward thinking which has been exhibited by the federal government in making available the very large sums of money to assist in the housing program.
The members of the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada are well aware of the very material benefits which have resulted from this action and feel that it has been most timely and beneficial to all segments of the Canadian economy as well as to their own businesses.

The Address-Mr. Green
We have had similar word from many other responsible organizations across the country. I do not believe anybody, even on the other side of the house, questions the accuracy of the statements contained in that letter.
So much for housing; then, I should like to tell briefly the story of the activities of the Department of Public Works in building Canada during the last year and in 1959. It should be realized that this is only one of the building departments. Transport, we think, gets more money than we do. Defence production and other departments also do building; in public works there has been a tremendous program under way from coast to coast. My officials tell me that there have been 292 different projects, all of them over $15,000, which would not ordinarily have been proceeded with in the fiscal year 1958-59. In addition to that, there have been many, many projects under $15,000.
I must admit it is a bit discouraging to a minister of public works to have lock-outs and strikes such as there were in Vancouver for the whole of this last summer when there were many millions of dollars worth of construction under contract and waiting to be done. This is one of the discouraging aspects, and I think it is an aspect which everyone, no matter what his political belief, should face.
Then, during the present winter, in addition to these programs I have mentioned we have had the winter work program in co-operation with the municipalities. The idea for this came from a very worth-while, informal conference between the members of the cabinet and the representatives of the various municipalities of Canada. Most of the outstanding mayors of the country came here last fall and gave us excellent ideas. One of them was this winter works program.
This program is so designed that it is available to every municipality. In fact, the first municipality in British Columbia to pay money under it was one of the very smallest, the municipality of Kent. This program is available to all the municipalities in Canada who wish to take advantage of it. There has been co-operation as well by the provincial governments. This has been a truly national co-operative effort, and I believe it is one which might very well be carried on every winter.
Then we have had a program of building small post offices across Canada. There have been between 65 and 70 small post offices rushed on in order to provide employment. There have been the community stages described this evening by the hon. member for

St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). These have all been worth-while projects, and certainly they have all helped. We do not have to offer any apologies for any of these programs. It is significant that general construction, including housing of course, was at a record level during the year 1958. The president of the Canadian construction association predicts that 1959 will see an even higher record.
Then I should like to go on for a few minutes to the broader aspects of national development policy. Here, too, we have a good story to tell. Let us consider the dam on the South Saskatchewan river. This project is actually under way. Contracts have been let. My, how long we would have had to wait for a Liberal government to get around to doing that particular one. This is a great nation-building project.
Then, there is the Columbia river. Here is another huge nation-building project. This afternoon you heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) read an announcement to the effect that the United States has now agreed that the question of downstream benefits should be worked out between the two sections of the international joint commission. This is the first time they have admitted that Canada is entitled to any downstream benefits. Here is a self-liquidating development which we believe can now go ahead with great benefit to both Canada and the United States and, above all, of great benefit to the people of my native province of British Columbia. If this project can be undertaken, it will mean great industrial development in the southeastern interior of British Columbia, in the Kootenay valley and in the Okanagan valley. It will mean cheap electric power in the lower mainland. It will give that province the greatest impetus it has ever had since its establishment over 100 years ago.
It is true that this project will depend upon the co-operation of the government of the province of British Columbia. They have been giving some indication that they would prefer to have a pet scheme of their own up on the Peace river developed by the Wenner-Gren interests. I can only say this. If this Columbia river project is killed by failure of the government of British Columbia to co-operate they will be doing a great disservice to the people of our province and to the people of Canada.
I wish to refer also to these famous old cities of Fort William and Port Arthur at the Canadian lakehead. They are greatly worried at this time. They see the St. Lawrence seaway being developed and they read in the Duluth News-Tribune of January 11

that a group of Canadians, if you please from Winnipeg are proposing to build a big port development at Duluth, Minnesota, for this purpose, and I quote from this article:
Freeman-
Mr. Freeman is the Winnipeg promoter of this scheme.
-is reported to have in mind making Duluth the port for the rapidly developing western Canadian provinces as well as the mid western and western parts of the United States.
This government has been greatly interested in the lakehead. For over a year we have had our engineers considering where best harbour terminal facilities could be installed. Then we engaged engineering consultants, Sir Alexander Gibb and Associates. They have just finished their preliminary report. There is some controversy as to which of two sites should be chosen. One of them is right at the boundary between the two cities. The other is over on the west side of Fort William. They have recommended that the site at the boundary should be used for these terminal facilities. The government intends to accept this recommendation and to get ahead with the construction of these harbour terminal facilities just as quickly as possible. The new harbour terminal will include the facilities for handling ocean-going ships and will assist the lakehead ports in meeting the changes in transportation patterns resulting from the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. The first tenders are expected to be called in the next two or three months. The preliminary estimate of the total cost of the development is approximately $5 million.
Then the lakehead has also been worried because of the threat of the closure of the Canadian car company's plant there. A few weeks ago members of the cabinet met a delegation from the lakehead, including the members; the mayors of the two cities; the provincial minister, Hon. George Wardrope; the provincial member for Fort William, Hon. C. E. Mapledoram; and the representatives of various groups in the cities. They told us their story. We had a very helpful discussion. Subsequently we have had discussions with officers of the company. Today the Canadian car company has been instructed to proceed immediately with further development of the amphibious tracked personnel carrier known as the Bobcat. This vehicle has been designed by the army and Canadian car company engineers and has attracted military interest in both hemispheres.
This announcement underlines the role the Bobcat may play in future defence plans. Recent tests of three prototype vehicles have established the tactical effectiveness of the
The Address-Mr. Green Bobcat as a defence weapon of the future. This further development will be closely followed by army engineers and defence requirements are being studied.
I point out that this weapon is still in the development stage, but this move is something which has been taken in the hope that it will be of help to the citizens of the lakehead. I have no doubt there will be a statement being made by the officers of the company within the next few hours.
Then I might go on to mention the causeway to Prince Edward Island. There again we expect to have a report in within the next few months, by the end of March.


George James McIlraith: Who initiated that report?


Howard Charles Green: We did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Hon. members opposite talked about it. We did it. Another one is the new postal terminal at the city of Quebec. Here again there had been talk for years. These Liberals holding all the seats in Quebec city and in the surrounding country did not get anywhere on the construction of the postal terminal in Quebec. We now believe that we shall have the "go ahead" from the city within the next six weeks. Then the postal terminal will be commenced. I might go on to mention the St. John's harbour. That is another case where we rescued a derelict idea of the former Liberal government and put it into actual being.
I also might mention the reference in the speech from the throne to the establishment of a national energy board. The paragraph reads as follows:
At the earliest opportunity you will be invited to authorize the establishment of a national energy board to ensure, so far as it lies within the jurisdiction of parliament, that Canada's energy resources are used effectively and prudently to the best advantage of Canadians.
Here is another step toward implementing our national development plans. Various departments have had to do with different aspects of energy up to the present time. We believe that order can be brought out of this confusion by the setting up of a national energy board.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question on that matter?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would this board cover all the sources of energy about which he has been talking?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to forecast the terms of the legislation. That is something that will be seen within the next few weeks.

The Address-Mr. Mcllraith We are also greatly concerned about and are studying ways and means of bringing about more processing of Canadian metals in Canada. I refer to such minerals as iron and many others. We believe that they should be processed to the maximum within our own country. To listen to these members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, you would think that everything had stopped in Canada just to let them do a lot of whining. May I say that the development of the nation has been going right ahead ever since we took office on June 21, 1957 and it is going to continue to go ahead no matter how loudly these calamity howlers cry during the whole of this parliament.
I have a very good authority to whom my Liberal friends perhaps will listen-Bruce Hutchison. You have heard of Bruce. He is a well known Liberal. He writes books about the late William Lyon Mackenzie King.
I do not know that they are entirely flattering but he does write these books. He does not make any pretence to be anything but a red hot Liberal. In fact, he is a lot hotter Liberal than members of parliament across the way. Toward the end of the last session of parliament he had this to say as found in the Financial Post of August 23, 1958:
We have managed, in all the confusion of the last year, to erect a vigorous, adventurous, flexible government-
We are members of a great team. Conservatives in this House of Commons are members of a great team led by a leader we admire and for whom we have the utmost affection. We realize the trust that has been placed in us by the Canadian people and we do not intend to let them down.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, no matter what sort of act may be put on across the floor that everybody in this house expects Canada to make great progress in 1959. Furthermore, I suggest that every member across the way right down in his heart of hearts thinks that the government is not doing too badly. I am sure that in this session, working together, and after all we can work together if we want to, we can give real leadership to the Canadian people, but the responsibility for doing that rests not only with the members who happen to be supporters of the government but also with every member in both the opposition parties.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, my time is somewhat more limited than I would wish before the vote is taken.


Some hon. Members:: Good.


George James McIlraith: After what we have had to sit and listen to for the last forty minutes it is apparent why backbenchers on the government side would applaud. I want to point


out that the minister who has just taken his seat has in his speech been the best example we have had of the -


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George James McIlraith: -indecision and uncertainty of the present government and the fact that it is not dealing responsibly with the great problems that confront us. Lest anyone believe that the views of Bruce Hutchison which he just quoted represent the whole of Mr. Hutchison's views, let me quote from Mr. Bruce Hutchison's article in Maclean's of January 31, 1959 -


Some hon. Members:: January 31?


An hon. Member:: How confused can you get?


George James McIlraith: He refers to the present crisis and the incompetence of the government in dealing with it in this way:
Economics and politics thus combine to make what I believe to be the gravest crisis, (apart, of course, from international affairs) since the great depression.
That was a pretty serious indictment and perhaps the minister might well have taken some of his time to deal with some of the problems that have arisen in the great economic crisis facing the country instead of taking virtually all of his time except for a bit about housing, which is a responsibility of his own department, to make personal remarks about the opposition. I trust that when hon. members read Hansard tomorrow and examine the use of the word "tabby-cat" tonight by the minister in the context in which it was used by him they will see what I mean.
Starting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and followed by all the ministers who have spoken in the debate so far we have had an example of abuse of the traditional practice of ministers in the throne speech, the like of which we have not had in the past forty or fifty years. I refer to them refusing to deal with matters of policy by putting them forward, explaining them, exposing their policies or criticizing the policies put forward by us. Instead, they spent their time on personal attacks. If they wish to do that it is all very well, but may I respectfully suggest to them that they forget their campaining for a while and give some little part of their time to the business of the country. Let them give consideration to the actions they are now taking and have been taking in the last year which are bringing about inflation and the actions they are taking in the trade field and the financial and fiscal field which are contributing so directly to the unemployment we have today.

We have higher unemployment today than we have had since the previous Conservative government was in office in the thirties.


An hon. Member:: What about 1955?


George James McIlraith: Instead, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) gets up and tells us how we are building Canada, "we" meaning the government. If they are permitted to continue their policies for many years they will build Canada into a nation of unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
518	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is about five minutes to ten o'clock and we have all had a long day I wonder whether I could-


Some hon. Members:: Keep on.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I take it the necessary consent is not to be given to adjourn at this time.


Mr. Caron:: Keep on or vote.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I will commence my remarks and I will continue tomorrow.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder

(Mr. Fortin) of the motion now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members insist on hearing the member for Oxford they should at least give him an opportunity to speak.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the mover-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock the house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


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

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

Mr. Boulanger: Statistical
Class No.	Description
2260	Turkeys, dead or alive n.o.p	
2259	Chickens and fowl, dead or alive
n.o.p	
2254* *	Poultry, n.o.p., and game; quails,
partridges, and squabs, dead or
alive, n.o.p	
2264*	Canned meats, including poultry
or game, n.o.p	
2013** Baby chicks and turkey poults ....
2015** Fowls, domestic, pure bred	
2021** Animals, for improvement of stock, n.o.p	
*Separate figures are not available for poultry included in these two statistical classes.
**Quantity not available in pounds. The figure for class 2015 covers the period April 1, 1957 to Dec. 31, 1957 only, as effective January 1, 1958 this class was discontinued and included in class 2021.


IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Boulanger: What was the value of imports from Great Britain for the period from June 1, 1957 to May 31, 1958, of boots and shoes, textiles, automobiles, machinery and parts thereof?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics of imports of boots and shoes, textiles, automobiles and machinery and parts from the United Kingdom to Canada are as follows:-
June 1, 1957 to May 31, 1958
Value
Boots and shoes	 $ 4,099,926
Textiles	 43,194,886
Automobiles	 41,154,263
Machinery and parts ....	52,455,029


SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTS, NATIONAL FILM BOARD GROUNDS
Mr. Rouleau: 1.	What firms were awarded the contract for snow removal from the grounds, streets and sidewalks of the national film board at St. Laurent (a) for 1957-58; (b) for 1958-59, and at what price each year?
Questions
How many pounds of turkey and other poultry has Canada imported from the United States between April 1, 1957 and March 31, 1958, and between April 1, 1958 and December 31, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics of imports of turkey and other poultry from the United States to Canada, are as follows:
Unit of Qty.	April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958	April 1, 1958 to (latest) Oct. 31, 1958 (avail.)Lb.	5,900,635	203,451Lb.	4,613,843	2,299,301Lb.	1,247,192	915,545Lb. No. No.	2,896,795 2,623,773 7,828	1,693,439 4,998,731No.	741	1,496
2. Were the said contracts awarded after public tenders?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	(a) 1957-58-Western Sod Supply Reg'd., Montreal, P.Q. $3,900; (b) 1958-59-Western Sod Supply Reg'd., Montreal, P.Q. $3,700. Due to delay in getting started on this contract for 1958-59, it was reduced by the contractor, after negotiation, by $700, making the actual amount $3,000.
2.	The contracts were awarded as the result of a local public tender call.


CAUSEWAY SURVEY, P.E.I.-N.B.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What firm or firms have been engaged in the survey of the feasibility of building a causeway between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
2.	Has the research determined whether or not there is available in the area rock which would be suitable for the construction of a causeway?
3.	What other aspects of the projects feasibility have been studied?
4.	When is the survey expected to be completed?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	C. B. Joint Venture, of which C. B. A. Engineering Limited and Canadian-British Engineering Consultants are the two member firms.
2.	This has not been definitely established yet.
3.	(i) Tides and currents, (ii) Shoreline condition and land use. (iii) Ice conditions, (iv) Alternate site investigations, borings, and soundings.


S18 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions
4.	The consultants' report covering alternate feasible designs is scheduled for completion by March 31, 1959, but on receipt of this an assessment will have to be made of the remedial works along the strait which would be required as a result of construction of the project to the design selected.

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has the city of Sherbrooke asked for grants in connection with the building of one or more collector sewers in Sherbrooke, Quebec?
2.	If so. to what department?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
1 and 2. The Department of Labour has not received an application from the city of Sherbrooke for federal assistance under the municipal winter works incentive program in
connection with the cost of building one or more collector sewers in the city of Sherbrooke.


WINTER WORK AGREEMENTS, GATINEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Leduc: What towns or rural municipalities in the county of Gatineau have signed agreements with the federal government in order to benefit by the grants offered by the government for winter work carried out in such municipalities or towns for the relief of unemployment?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):
The Department of Labour has not received any applications covering winter works projects from towns or rural municipalities in the county of Gatineau, under the municipal winter works incentive program.

Friday, January 30, 1959



CANADIAN PACIFIC STEAMSHIPS


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement that I am sure will be of interest to every member of this house. The best way in which I can do it is by reading a telegram that I received approximately half an hour ago. It reads as follows:
I am pleased to report that due to the willingness of all parties to make concessions the disputes between Canadian Pacific Railway Company, B.C. Coastal Steamship Service and seafarers international union, national association of marine engineers and Canadian merchant service guild have been settled. In my presence representatives of the parties have accepted and signed terms of settlement involving collective agreements which will continue in effect until August 31, 1961. Accordingly the provision for arbitration contained in the British Columbia coast steamship service act need not be implemented.
Eric G. Taylor
Industrial Inquiry Commission



COLUMBIA RIVER-ANNOUNCEMENT OF REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make an announcement the text of which has been agreed to by the governments of Canada and the United States for simultaneous release today. This announcement reads as follows:
The governments of the United States and Canada have been engaging in discussions relating to the mutually advantageous development of the waters of the Columbia river basin which cross the boundary.
In the course of these discussions it has seemed desirable to pursue as rapidly as possible the exploration of the various technical problems which bear on the formulation of comprehensive principles. For that purpose and to implement such discussions the governments of Canada and the United States have announced that identical letters were sent today by each government to the two sections of the international joint commission requesting the commission to report specially to governments at an early date its recommendations concerning the principles to be applied in determining:
(a) the benefits which will result from the cooperative use of storage of waters and electrical interconnection within the Columbia river system; and
(b) the apportionment between the two countries of such benefits more particularly in regard to electrical generation and flood control.
This request was made in furtherance of the reference of 1944 to the commission on the Columbia river in order to emphasize the need for an early report from the commission on the specific problem of the allocation of benefits to be derived from the co-operative development of the Columbia river system.
The report of the international Columbia river engineering board will be received by the international joint commission early in March of this year and will be considered at a meeting which will be held in camera in Chicago beginning March 16.
In the meantime, various related matters will continue to be discussed through diplomatic channels.
The letters were delivered by hand this morning to the respective sections of the international joint commission in both capitals, and I think we may rest assured that the commission will report to governments as soon as possible.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from seven hundred and fifty million dollars to one billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act, and to remove the limitation on the amount thereof that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the said act, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if the report is accurate that new dumping duties have been or will shortly be applied on second-hand or defective goods and remnants. If the report is accurate, what section of the Customs Tariff Act will be used for
458

Inquiries of the Ministry this purpose, and will these duties be applied to imports from the United Kingdom as well as from other countries?


George Clyde Nowlan: I have not the act in front of me. I saw the report a moment ago. It was in the press this morning and someone drew it to my attention. It is true that I signed orders some weeks ago applying dumping duties to seconds, odd lots and second-class goods. I have not the act here but I will check today and will give a specific answer as to the section.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I thank the minister for his reply. May I ask him whether he would be willing to table the documents concerned?


George Clyde Nowlan: The only documents were a confidential memorandum from my deputy minister to myself and the order I signed, which has appeared in the Canada Gazette.



URANIUM-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENTS FOR SALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question which he perhaps would take as notice if he does not have the information at hand.
In view of the fact that present regulations limit Canadian producers to a maximum sale of 2,500 pounds of uranium to any country not having a bilateral agreement with Canada, what efforts are being made to conclude agreements with other countries in the form in which we now have agreements, and what countries are involved in these negotiations?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, there is a widespread interest with regard to this subject, and I will accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to take this question as notice and make a complete statement in the course of a day or two.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether the governor in council has under consideration a petition on humanitarian grounds for the staying of the deportation order affecting Mr. and Mrs. Raoul Arthur Rolling and their two children, formerly of the Duchy of
[Mr. Pearson.)
Luxembourg, who have been living in this country since 1949? I might add that Mr. Justice Rand recommended that this step be taken some time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am not the minister of that department and, in the second place, I have no personal knowledge regarding this matter but will take the question as notice.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Russell Taylor: wonder whether I might direct a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to the federal government's winter work projects and assistance program. Will the minister give by provinces the number of projects approved under the program and the estimated cost of the projects?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that question might more properly be placed on the order paper. Is there a supplementary question?


John Russell Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker. I have another question for the Minister of Transport.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF FEDERAL WINTER WORK PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could the minister say whether the government has considered an extension of the winter work program as suggested by Mr. George S. Mooney, executive director of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, arising out of his statement that municipalities are caught in a squeeze between the mounting costs of direct relief and high interest rates on their capital borrowing?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mooney has not forwarded that suggestion to us and it has not been brought to our attention. At the moment we are not contemplating any changes in the municipal incentive program.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

National Revenue. As the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia, will the minister advise the house if any action is contemplated by the government between now and the week end to forestall the lay-off of 4,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia to take place after tomorrow's shifts, as was announced this morning?


George Clyde Nowlan: No action is contemplated by the government at the moment. The premier of Nova Scotia was in touch with me this morning by telephone, following the conference yesterday to which the hon. member referred in his question yesterday. The premier, as the hon. gentleman knows and as has appeared in the press, has agreed to come to Ottawa with a delegation in the relatively near future. He was discussing with me a suitable time in the future when he could come and be able to see the members of the government. I will be in touch with him later today after consultation with some of my colleagues, and we will arrange a convenient time within the next few days when the conference can be held.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the house as to when we may expect the Borden commission report?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information on that at the moment. I will make inquiries and ascertain.


George James McIlraith: Is it anticipated that the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne with respect to the setting up of a national energy commission will be proceeded with before the report is tabled, or are the two linked together?


John George Diefenbaker: There was a preliminary report which made certain recommendations, and among them was the one in question. I think it can be taken for granted that it is the intention to proceed with the bill without regard to the final report on other matters not connected therewith.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, for the enlightenment of the house and the country I wish to address a question
66968-9-30J
Inquiries of the Ministry to that nimble batter on a sticky wicket, the Minister of Transport.
My question refers to the announcement by the minister on August 12 last of the sale of eight ships by the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited to foreign interests for $2,800,000. In view of the minister's reply on the same day to a question asked by the hon. member for Laurier to the effect that the minister had "simply made an announcement of a transaction which had been successfully and well completed by Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships," can the minister inform the house if this sale of ships-which many consider to be a saturnine sale-has been successfully and well completed?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise me that the security is sound and that they have no cause to be concerned. The payments are secured by letter of credit issued by the Banco Cubano del Commercio Exterior, and confirmed by the Bank of America International.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	[DOT]
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the discussions which have taken place in the last few days, is the minister now willing to intervene in the dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its producers in Montreal either personally or by appointing a commission of inquiry, as section 56 of the act enables him to do?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, my position with regard to this dispute has not changed from what it was the other day when I met the representatives of the producers.

(Translation):


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, after the answer that the Minister of Labour gave me a few minutes ago, I should like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. Since the beginning of negotiations between the C.B.C. and the Montreal producers a few days ago, has the Solicitor General proposed the appointment of an industrial inquiry commission as allowed under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?

Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is a basic principle that questions should relate to matters under the jurisdiction of the minister concerned, and its seems to me that the question the hon. member has just asked relates to a matter which is not the responsibility of the Solicitor General.



TAKING OF OATH OF OFFICE BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARB

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister now in a position to answer the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier, which the minister took as notice? The question was as follows:
Could the minister tell us whether anyone has attended the meetings of the board of directors of the C.B.C., as a director, and the meetings of the executive committee, as a member of that committee, without having taken the oath of office in accordance with article 22, paragraph 6 of the Broadcasting Act?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the corporation that all the directors took the oath of office.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
.	DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS
On the orders of the day:
John Russell Taylor: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do feel that there is a degree of urgency with regard to this question which I address to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the proposed industrial development near the site of the Boundary Bay airport, and in view of the proposal of the Department of Transport to the city of Vancouver regarding the reactivation, administration and operation of this airport, would the minister be prepared to meet in Ottawa the appropriate aldermen of the city of Vancouver to discuss with them the many problems arising from the proposal and the proposed industrial development?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to discuss the matter with those gentlemen.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Limburg Houck: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact, as reported in this

morning's Gazette, that government spokesmen gave assurances to the representatives of the railway employees that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would meet in the main the demands of labour, would the minister now also take this house into his confidence and confirm the statement which the government's spokesmen made outside the house?


Michael Starr: The article to which the hon. member refers has not been brought to my notice, but yesterday representations were made by this group to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet. Among these were a number of recommendations with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and at that time I made the remark that some of these recommendations were now being considered as possible amendments to the act.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will there be any changes in the present regulations to ensure that a greater portion of the additional funds being made available through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be channelled into lower priced homes?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question can best be answered when the resolution with respect to the National Housing Act is under consideration next week.



CIVIC DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare relating to the Graham report. Has the government considered or is it considering making available to hon. members of this house a partial or abridged version of this report?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No consideration is being given to that at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

The Address-Mr. Boivin SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or in his absence to his "might be" parliamentary assistant, or to the acting minister. Is the Minister of Agriculture attending meetings of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presently taking place in Saskatoon?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I shall take that question as notice.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether consideration has been given to the possibility of the Minister of Justice, when he is in Washington, in addition to meeting his counterpart, United States Attorney General Rogers, meeting with representatives of the House of Representatives and the Senate on appropriate committees dealing with legislation respecting which the Minister of Justice is making representations? I feel that since the law in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that ordinarily those particular bodies would not welcome the intrusion of anyone without their invitation, but the Minister of Justice will make such representations as are necessary in the proper quarters.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be just as proper for the Minister of Justice to meet with these people as it was for a parliamentary delegation to do so, which I thought was a very good move?


John George Diefenbaker: It no doubt was a very good move, but it was on the invitation of these people that the meeting took place.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought it was at the Prime
Minister's suggestion.


CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 28, 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.
(Translation):
Marcel Boivin: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose yesterday evening, I was about to say that, so long as the government persists in procrastinating, the opposition will play its role in this debate; however, we are prepared to vote on the motion right away, and to go on with the business of the nation.
Mr. Speaker, there are many subjects about which I would have liked to deal in the course of my speech, but since my time is about to expire, I shall deal with a subject very much in the news these days: that of our national emblem, which, incidentally, I first advocated in this house, on July 11, 1946. Personally, I am still in favour of a purely Canadian flag, and I hasten to give my reasons for claiming a distinctive flag. Due account must be taken of certain factors which have not yet been pointed out. First, we should remember that a flag should represent, above all, the sovereignty of a country; second, that the sovereignty of a country resides in its parliament which is composed of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. Another point to note is that the place of honour on a flag is in the upper part, near the staff. Thus, the Union Jack represents the sovereignty of the British government, and this is, in any case, what is wanted by some people, in particular the premier of Ontario.
May I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter of a national flag is not a responsibility of the province of Ontario or of any other province, but a direct responsibility of the federal government and of the federal parliament.
If, as on the red ensign, the Union Jack on a red background were to remain in the inner upper corner of the flag-therefore, in the place of honour-we would thereby admit the sovereignty of the English parliament over ours, which, to any well-informed person, would seem a formidable mistake, especially since the adoption of the statute of Westminster in 1931, when recognition was given to the sovereignty of Canada and of other commonwealth countries which then had dominion status.

The Address-Mr. Boivin
We should also avoid committing the error of reproducing on this flag, such symbols as the fleur-de-lys, the maple leaf, the beaver, the sheep, or other symbol of any kind.
A flag has nothing to do with a coat of arms: no symbol should be attached to it, because it is, in fact, a recognition of sovereignty.
Generally, the best flags merely consist of three or four bands of colour to which no particular meaning is attached.
I noted during my recent trip to France that the French display with pride and respect the red, white and blue flag of the French republic. Why, for instance, can't we have a simple flag with three or four stripes of colours other than those used by other nations, naturally, and if, in spite of everything, we want to add certain symbols, we could include a white stripe to symbolize the snow which covers our country during half the year, a blue stripe to symbolize the three oceans which surround our continent, a yellow stripe for the golden wheat of the prairies and a red stripe which would symbolize the colour of the uniforms of Wolfe's soldiers, on the Plains of Abraham.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, that would be much better than the thousands of designs suggested to the committee that looked into this matter a few years ago, designs which included all the animals of creation, all the stars in heaven, and as many maple leaves as are found in all the sugar bushes of my province, not to mention lines running from the northwest to the southwest, counter to all concepts of an honourable symbol of a country that glories in the legitimacy of its sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank all Canadians who submitted to the committee a design of their preferred flag. The contributions were numerous and sincere, which means that, in addition to those people, every true Canadian expects parliament to choose a distinctive flag that will enjoy the place of honour in Canada, the most beautiful country of the world.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the minister takes the floor, may I say that while I have not considered it out of order to discuss the flag question in this debate, as several members have done, I think I should say that if and when the same subject is reached on the order paper I would not take kindly to a repetition of these speeches at that time.


George Harris Hees: Before I commence my remarks on my main theme, Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the many other members of this house in offering my congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) upon the excellent speeches they gave in moving and seconding the address in reply. These speeches were positive, constructive and well delivered. The people of their constituencies have every reason to feel proud of the young men they have sent to Ottawa as members of parliament, and who are conducting themselves in such an admirable fashion. Like so many other speeches that have been delivered in this house during this and past sessions by men and women who support the government, these two speeches are indicative of the reason that the Conservative party is today the party of youth as well as the party of the people.
As I said, these speeches were positive and constructive. I only wish I could say the same thing for the next speech we heard in this house, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). This speech was filled with criticism, and it contained nothing as an alternative to the methods and the measures which the Leader of the Opposition criticized so strongly. Since the Leader of the Opposition had had four months in which to prepare his speech we had been looking forward to a speech which would let us know the Liberal approach to the problems that are facing the country today. We had been expecting, in addition to the normal criticism which one always expects from the Leader of the Opposition and which it is his duty to make, to hear some positive suggestions concerning how the Liberals would run the country if they were the government today. However, the opposition today appears to be just as devoid of positive suggestions as it has been during the past two sessions.
In our democratic form of government, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has two responsibilities. The first responsibility is to oppose, and point out, if it can, the shortcomings of the government and the government's program. The present opposition is trying desperately hard to do this, but they just do not seem to be able to get the proper facts and figures assembled at the one time to enable them to do so. These figures they get from the Martin statistical service continually seem to let them down.
The second duty of an opposition is to demonstrate it can be an alternative government. This the opposition has completely failed to do. They have failed to do it because an alternative government must have a policy,

and this opposition has no policy. We are still waiting to hear how this opposition would improve on the measures which they criticize. They refuse to tell us, simply because they do not know. If they have a policy, let us hear at least some suggestions concerning it. We have heard no suggestions in any of the debates so far.
In his speech on leaders' day the Leader of the Opposition painted a very gloomy picture of our economy, and he tried to depict a state of blue ruin. Of course the Prime Minister in a very kindly way set him straight by pointing out, as recorded on page 58 of Hansard for January 19, 1959, that, in the past year, Canadians worked more, earned more, spent more, and saved more, than in any comparable year in the history of this country. He pointed out also that during the past year, disposable personal income increased by 6.3 per cent; net farm income increased by 22.4 per cent; interest and dividends, and net real income, rose by 6.5 per cent; other disposable income rose by 4.5 per cent; and personal and direct tax declined by 7.8 per cent.
This is the kind of blue ruin the Leader of the Opposition tries so desperately to convince the people of Canada they are suffering from today. That kind of misrepresentation is, I believe, an insult to the people of Canada. The people of Canada today are not accepting it any more than they did last March. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when referring to last March I am reminded of the fact that one senior Liberal the other day made what I considered a very sensible suggestion. He suggested that perhaps we could make our humane slaughter legislation retroactive to March 31 last. I think that might be a good suggestion.
If these prophets of doom and gloom would get out of their offices, get away from the crepe they keep hanging around their shoulders and around their speeches, and get out across the country where they could talk to the businessmen, farmers, fishermen and lumbermen, the people who really make this country go, then they would learn something. What they would learn would be that the people of this country have a great deal of confidence in this country's economy, in this government, and particularly in our Prime Minister. The people of this country are confident that our economy is going to continue to move steadily forward. They are confident of that because they know this economy is soundly based. They are planning, they are building, and they are expanding. They have confidence and faith in the future of this country even if the members of the opposition have not.
The Address-Mr. Hees
I think the kind of criticism and condemnation of the economy of the country that we have been hearing so often in this house from members of the opposition is serving no good purpose. It is simply inconsistent with the facts. They would do a great deal better if they started boosting instead of knocking and started helping the people of this country do the excellent job they are doing in moving this country's economy forward.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would do a great deal of good for these men of little faith if they would speak, for instance, to the people who are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the iron ore development in the Ungava bay region. Those people do not lack confidence in Canada's future. It would do them good to talk to the private investors who propose to spend $10 million this year in investigating and developing oil and gas prospects in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. Those people do not lack confidence in the economy of this country. They have plenty of it. It would do them good to talk, as I did a few nights ago, to the executives of a Canadian steel company which is going to spend $28 million on an expansion program in the next ten months. They have no lack of confidence in the economy of this country; they have tremendous confidence in it. Their facts and figures show that the economy of this country is going ahead, and that is why they are building to keep pace with its expansion.
That is the spirit of confidence, Mr. Speaker, that is pervading our whole economy. It is pervading everybody, with the exception of the members of the official opposition. They are too busy waiting around day after day, hoping that some larger unemployment figures are going to be produced so they can gloat over them. If they would start getting positive and stop being negative they would be doing a great deal better job as members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, who are supposed to be working for the betterment of the whole of Canada.
Let us now turn, Mr. Speaker, from the negative and destructive side, as depicted by what the opposition is saying, to the positive and constructive side, as represented by what the government is doing. I should like to give three examples of what a department of this government is doing, as all departments of this government are doing, to further our national development program. As we all know national development, particularly in a country the size of Canada, requires tremendous transportation facilities, to assist free enterprise in developing and expanding the economy. In developing the country we need three most important things
464	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hees in the way of transportation facilities, namely airfields, harbours and ships, including both icebreakers and supply ships. In the last election, the Leader of the Opposition scoffed at and made great fun of our development program. As you will well recall, Mr. Speaker, he described it as simply a program of building roads from igloo to igloo. He said that we were doing no more than had the former Liberal administration.
I should like to give comparative figures for the three categories of national development I have mentioned, namely shipbuilding, airfields and the building of harbours. I am going to compare what is being done today by this government with what was done by the former Liberal government in the last year in which they were in office, namely the fiscal year 1956-57. First of all, in the development of airfields and air terminals, in the year 1956-57 the Liberal government spent $22 million. It built four terminals and completed 26 runways. In this present year we are spending $56 million and will complete six terminals and 37 runways. In other words we are doing approximately two and a half times what the former government did in a comparable period when they were in office.
Then let us turn to the question of developing harbours.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether I might be allowed to ask the minister a question at this particular point.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister give the house an indication of how many of these projects about which he has talked as being undertaken in the last year were initiated by the previous government?


George Harris Hees: Offhand, Mr. Speaker, I would say very few if any.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Do not say "offhand".


George Harris Hees: I would say very few if any.
Then, Mr. Speaker, let us turn to the developing of harbours. During the year 1956-1957 the former Liberal government spent $13 million. During the present year we are spending $28 million, or more than double the program carried out at that time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister tell us how much of that $28 million is going to be funnelled into the Canadian lakehead as an answer to the Duluth development?


George Harris Hees: We have a program of development at the lakehead which the hon. member knows about very well indeed, and which I think he will agree is a farsighted, comprehensive, and adequate program, and one which will do a first class job for the lake-head. If he has any contrary opinions may I say that it is the first time he has expressed to me anything except complete approval of the plans the government has for the developing of harbour facilities at the lakehead.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we find this with regard to the building of ships, icebreakers, landing craft and supply ships which are necessary for our convoys that move into the Arctic in the summer time, and to move ships of commerce in the lower gulf and the maritime provinces. Whenever icebreakers are needed, they are called into action and do a first class job, and are most essential for any commercial development program. In 1956-57 the Liberal government built three ships and six landing craft, at a total cost of $6 million. This year we are building ten ships and 52 landing craft, for a total of $22 million, or nearly four times as big a program as the Liberal government carried out in that important field during the last year they were in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about our merchant marine?


George Harris Hees: Does the Leader of the Opposition mean the merchant marine which the Liberal government let go down from about 500 to 18? Is that the merchant marine to which the Leader of the Opposition is referring?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now that the minister is on this question of ships, perhaps he would give us comparative figures with regard to the tonnage of the merchant marine when the government came into office and the figures as of today.


George Harris Hees: When we came into office, as I remember it, the merchant marine had been let drop from approximately 500 ships which were under Canadian registry-


Lester Bowles Pearson: In war time.


George Harris Hees: -right after the war; and it dropped down to 18 under the government of which my hon. friend was a member. When we took over the number was about 18. We have sold eight, as the hon. member knows only too well, and for the reason that he knows only too well, of the vessels of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship. I believe the rest are on Canadian registry. That would leave something about 10. I am not sure of the exact figure but it is something

like that. Does that answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a good answer.


George Harris Hees: I just want to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition has all the information he desires.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Under the government of my hon. friend the number dropped from 18 to 10.


George Harris Hees: And under the government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a member, the number dropped from 500 to 18. That gives you an idea of the mathematics which led to the development of the Martin statistical service. It is catching on. That is the kind of figuring they do. Even the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to be a sensible, reasonable man, able to add two and two together, has caught that same plague that seems to be pervading the whole Liberal party today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister another question, because I want to get this matter straight. Does he contend that our merchant marine had dropped from a post-war figure of 500 ships?


George Harris Hees: It dropped from a large figure; I do not know how many. It seems to me it was about 500.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will get the figure.


George Harris Hees: It was several hundred and it dropped down to 18. The programs I have spoken about, Mr. Speaker, which are so much larger in these very important fields than what the Liberal government in its last year in office carried out, even though the need for development was just as great then, even though they had the same opportunity to carry out the same kind of programs as we are. These projects are providing, not only much needed transportation facilities to make it possible to develop the country, something in which this government is interested, and in which the former government showed a considerable lack of interest, but are also providing a great deal of much needed work.
We have estimated that the projects being carried out this year for the Department of Transport; the agencies which report to the department; and the crown companies for which the Minister of Transport reports to parliament, will provide work for about 25,000 more men than was provided in the same categories during the last year the Liberal government was in office. The program I have outlined is typical of the Conservative government's attitude toward national development, a program which the Leader of the Opposition scoffed at in the last election campaign and described as building roads
The Address-Mr. Crestohl from igloo to igloo, and said we were not doing any more than they had done.
I think I have clearly demonstrated what we are doing, and why we are doing it. We do things constructively, instead of just talking destructively; the only thing the opposition seems able to do. We believe in providing the necessary transportation facilities to assist free enterprise in doing the job it has done for the past 100 years, and which has developed the economy of the country. We believe in providing these facilities to the greatest possible degree that we can. We are providing these transportation facilities, not only to help the economy in the southern regions of the country, but to develop the vast wealth in our northern regions as well.
This program is consistent with what has always been the policy of this party as far as developing the country is concerned. Nearly 100 years ago our first great Conservative prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, saw very clearly the need for providing transportation facilities in the form of a great transcontinental railway to make it possible for free enterprise to develop the country from east to west. Today, we are fortunate in having another great Conservative prime minister who sees with equal clearness the need for providing transportation facilities of a modern character to enable free enterprise to complete the job, and develop the country from south to north.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who has just taken his seat, I too wish to join our colleagues in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Hut I am in good company with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) when I say that if my remarks must of necessity be brief they are none the less very sincere.
I should like to address myself very briefly to three matters, one of which was included in the speech from the throne, one of which was not included in the speech from the throne and which I respectfully submit should have been dealt with, and the third a matter that has evolved during this debate. The first matter I should like to refer to is the bill of rights and human freedoms of the Prime Minister. I consider that this measure will be welcomed and is welcomed by the entire country. It can become a Canadian Magna Carta; and because it can become that I should like to point out that in being reduced to writing there is a danger that it might tend to circumscribe or limit the freedoms and the human rights which are now enjoyed.
For that reason I say that the government should exercise the greatest caution possible

The Address-Mr. Crestohl and do everything in its power to make certain that all viewpoints are heard and all ideas are expressed and included in a document that will in truth be a charter of human rights. There might be some danger if we do not take these precautions.
Canada has been described as a mosaic of minorities, and that is true. There are different points of view, different cultures, different backgrounds, all of which must be very carefully considered to make sure that the mosaic will be fully represented in our Canadian charter. Therefore I want to support as ardently as I can the suggestion of my leader that a parliamentary committee composed of members of both houses of parliament be appointed in order to study all the angles, all the problems, all the points of view before we finally circumscribe and enclose within a framework the fundamental freedoms and human rights which Canadians now and in the future may enjoy. Let us make certain that everything is included, because once the charter is reduced to writing it can become quite a dangerous document.
I suggest that first of all the government should invite legal experts, professors of law at the universities, sociologists, church and religious leaders and labour leaders, and certainly they should invite the provinces. It is my suggestion that perhaps the provincial attorneys general should be summoned by the government to a conference, because there are conflicts of opinion with respect to whether or not the constitutional phase will be adequately covered. At the present time there is a growing fear, a growing anxiety in the country, that perhaps all the constitutional difficulties will not be overcome and that some of the rights which the Canadian parliament may suggest may come into conflict with provincial rights. A meeting with the provinces may perhaps produce some agreement that will result in the constitutional difficulties between the federal and provincial authorities being solved.
Therefore I urge the Prime Minister as strongly as I can that such a conference be convened. We are at the present time and have been deluged by recommendations from various representative Canadian organizations. We should not ignore the representations they make. We now read in the newspapers, or hear over the radio and television, articles and announcements by authorities on constitutional law which seriously question whether such a bill of rights would do the good it is intended to do or whether it would do harm, and I therefore suggest that it would be a great mistake for the Prime Minister not to exercise every possible precaution to make sure that his bill will be what it is intended to be.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Are you for it or against it?


Leon David Crestohl: Everybody, I think, is for
it, but we are anxious to make sure that the Prime Minister will not have relied entirely on the advice he is now getting from his cabinet or from hon. members opposite but that he should seek advice from the entire country; from men who are students of sociology and men who are students of constitutional law; people who are as deeply concerned about the future of Canadians as the hon. member is and as I am.
My suggestion is a purely constructive one, and I will carry it further. This proposed measure will in all probability be adorned with the royal assent given by Her Majesty the Queen in person, and because it is a measure which will be sanctioned by Her Majesty herself I plead with the Prime Minister that he convene such a committee as I have suggested. After all, we have convened all sorts of committees in the past. Quite recently a committee was set up by parliament to study humane methods of slaughtering animals. I think hon. members opposite would agree with me that it would be ironic and incongruous if we were to appoint a committee to study how animals should die and not appoint a committee to study how humans should live.
The second topic on which I should like to touch is the question of immigration. I think the whole country accepts the fact that the people of Canada are the most valuable natural resource we have, and consequently I was disappointed that no reference was made in the speech from the throne to the question of immigration. The importance of immigration has been continually stressed by leading Canadians and quite recently by three authorities who will, I know, be acceptable to hon. members opposite. I refer to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Immigration herself. I should like, for the information of the house, to read what the Prime Minister himself said on April 27, 1957 about immigrants and immigration while he was making one of his tours. I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail:
At his first stop of the day-a conference with the ethnic press association in Toronto-Mr. Diefenbaker filled in the detail of one aspect of that program. Development, he told the editors of foreign language publications, demands manpower. The only way to meet the needs for skill and talents is through accelerated immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I underscore the words "accelerated immigration". The Prime Minister said further:
A government formed by the Conservatives, he added, will undertake an intensive immigration policy that will make available to all sections of the country those talents and skills.

And here I underscore the word "intensive". He said the party would undertake an intensive immigration policy, not, I would point out, a retarded immigration policy.
Now I turn to my second authority who, as I said, will also no doubt be acceptable to hon. members opposite, namely the Minister of Finance, who on Tuesday, June 17, 1958 is reported at page 1231 of Hansard to have said:
Population growth of itself does not ensure progress, but in a country such as ours it has a special significance. It provides a greater market for our agricultural produce and for the products of our factories and reduces our vulnerability to changes in external demand. It brings us a greater diversity of talent and the means of employing it to better advantage. It reduces the per capita cost of supplying essential services in this great land. There can be no doubt-
And I underscore the words "no doubt"-
-that the population growth of the post-war period has had these effects.
And now I turn to my third authority, no less a person than the minister of immigration herself, who is reported as follows in the Montreal Star of January 14, 1959:
Immigration minister Ellen Fairclough said today that immigrants have helped to bolster the Canadian economy by their consumer buying, by establishing new businesses and industry and by bringing money into the country.
Mrs. Fairclough denied that immigrants were taking jobs away from native-born workers.
These are very significant words, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to underline them. Then the report continues:
Mrs. Fairclough also noted that during the eight-year period 1950-58 immigrants purchased 3,879 farms and rented 849 others.
"The purchasing power of the immigrants is reflected in such purchases during the 1951-58 period as 173,000 electric or gas stoves, more than 150,000 refrigerators and more than 128,000 washing machines," she said.
"In the last 12 years immigrants have brought into this country more than $800 million in cash and securities and some $300 million in effects. In 1957 alone, they paid an estimated $190 million in direct taxes," she continued.
These are clear statements of policy by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Finance and by the minister of immigration herself.
My leader earlier in this debate spoke of contradictions, confusion and instability in many phases of government. Let me point out some very poignant cases of confusion, contradiction and instability which have occurred with regard to the government's immigration policy. I would draw to the attention of the house that the Prime Minister's glorious recommendation of an accelerated immigration policy was made in April, 1957, just prior to the election of that year.
A little over a month after that election press reports stated the following as a matter
The Address-Mr. Crestohl of government policy, and I now quote from the Ottawa Citizen of July 27, 1957. This is the quotation:
The Progressive Conservative government in a major policy announcement has placed restrictions on immigration into Canada for the balance of 1957.
For the rest of the year immigrants arriving for open placement on the labour market-those with no prearranged work contracts-have a July 31 deadline for arrival.
That was the first announcement made immediately after the election. Another press release on the same subject which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of July 27, 1957 reads:
Confronted by rising unemployment and scarcity of winter housing, the Diefenbaker government last night placed heavy restrictions on immigration for the rest of this year.
Hon. E. Davie Fulton, acting immigration minister, announced that after July 31 only persons with guaranteed jobs or financially-responsible relatives already here, will be admitted.
That was corroborated and confirmed by another responsible minister of the government, the Minister of Labour, some three months later when he said on October 16, 1957, as reported at page 29 of Hansard of that date:
I might say also, on behalf of the government, that we have curtailed for the balance of the year the influx of immigrants which swelled our total labour population.
What a contradiction of what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had said. One minister said that immigrants do not interfere with employment or take jobs from native Canadians, and the other minister in direct contradiction said the opposite.
I should like to trace for a moment the results of the immigration policy of this government. Two or three months before the election the Prime Minister made an appeal for open door immigration, and I believe he was sincere in what he said which was designed to win the vote of the ethnic group. I know he favours large immigration into Canada. No one, not even I who both in and out of season have pleaded for an open door policy for immigration, could have improved upon the statements to this effect made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Finance before the 1957 election. No one could have made more eloquent speeches. Yet the moment the election was over we heard from the acting minister of immigration a statement which like that made by the Minister of Labour almost categorically denied what had been said by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance with respect to an open door policy for immigration. Is this not a clear cut illustration of

The Address-Mr. Crestohl confusion and contradiction? Where is the policy of this government with respect to immigration?


Gordon Campbell Chown: They were just carrying out the Liberal policy.


Leon David Crestohl: Let me tell you how they were carrying out the Liberal policy. The Liberal policy brought into Canada hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration herself has outlined what these immigrants have done for Canada. How can the hon. member who interrupted say that his government carried out the Liberal immigration policy, when the figures tell a different story? If the hon. member does not know what he is talking about let him refer to the facts and figures.
I am always pleased at interruptions, Mr. Speaker. When I first came to this house I was told that if no one interrupted you when you were making a speech it indicated that no one was interested in what you were saying and you were making no impression. To that extent interruptions are symbols of interest; and if you were interrupted by hon. members opposite it indicated that you were saying things that hurt them. I am grateful to the hon. member who has just interrupted for indicating in this way that the deficiencies in the immigration policies of his government which I am pointing out and the horrible series of contradictions are a source of concern to him. What I am saying has hit home and hurts.
Let me read another interesting statement which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 5, 1959. In addressing the Oshawa Rotary club the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration released some figures of interest. The report reads in part:
The year's immigration total was less than half 1957's 282,164 and less than the 1946-56 10-year average of 126,000.
Here we have a statement by a minister of the government disclosing the fact that total immigration in 1958 was less than half that of 1957. It seems almost to have been said with a sense of pride in contradiction to former statements made by the hon. lady.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Who signed the directive reducing immigration into Canada in June of that year before the Conservative government took office?


Leon David Crestohl: There was no cut in immigration other than that announced by the present Minister of Justice, who was then acting minister of immigration. He explained that the government reduced the flow of immigration into Canada as a first step to meet the problem of unemployment. I do not know

to what extent he exposed or embarrassed the Prime Minister, who had spoken in favour of an open door policy for immigration before the election, particularly when he was pleading for the support of the ethnic groups in this country.
As I said, the article from which I read is a clear indication that immigration was reduced by one half in the period of a year. Because the Minister of Labour had said that the government stopped the flow of immigration in order not to interfere with the employment of Canadians one might assume that there would have been a corresponding reduction in unemployment in the last year, but the facts do not bear this out. Unemployment increased despite the reduction in immigration. I therefore go along with the statement made by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who said clearly that in her judgment and in the judgment of many eminent sociologists and economists immigration into Canada in no way interfered with employment.
Let me read some comments by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as reported in the Regina Leader Post of January 17, 1959:
Justice Minister Davie Fulton was the first to express his views . . . Mr. Fulton said one of the first decisions, an unpleasant one, the Conservative administration had to take was to curb the flow of immigration which had been going on at the rate of 300,000 a year.


Gordon Campbell Chown: That was a Liberal decision.


Leon David Crestohl: You are perfectly right. Under the Liberal administration 300,000 immigrants a year were coming to Canada, but that was too much for the present government. The Minister of Justice made a further statement, reported in the same article as follows:
If the flow had not been curbed, he said, the majority would have come seeking jobs and finding none. They would be "competing with Canadians for a shrinking labour opportunity".
In the same article the stand taken by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is commented on as follows:
Mrs. Fairclough took a slightly different tack. She said that year by year immigration brings to Canada a steady flow of producers as well as consumers of Canadian products. In a very real sense, she said, a new and important domestic market is being created by immigrants.
Now Mrs. Fairclough introduced her seemingly contradictory thoughts to what Mr. Fulton had been saying. ... In good times little criticism of immigration is heard. But when economic expansion slows down, there is a tendency on the part of some to question the value of immigration. Occasionally we hear that immigrants take work from native-born Canadians and aggravate unemployment; this notwithstanding the oft-expressed view of reputable economists that there is little or no connection between immigration and unemployment.

Here you have it, Mr. Speaker. Three responsible ministers of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, take one tack on immigration; speak very eloquently in favour of large immigration, accelerated immigration to Canada; point out and emphasize the value of immigrants to Canada, what they have contributed in the past to Canada; and within a matter of weeks three other responsible ministers take an entirely different tack. They say, curb immigration, stop immigration, and they contradict the statement of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that immigrants do not interfere with employment. What clearer example could one possibly give of contradiction, confusion and instability in government policy? I refer only to its immigration policy.
I would suggest the Minister of Labour has his problems to worry about, and therefore he announces on behalf of the government a reduction in the number of immigrants. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has her problems to worry about. She favours immigration. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is a case of the right hand in the cabinet not knowing what its left hand is doing, and that confirms the clear-cut statement of the Leader of the Opposition that there is confusion and contradiction in the government; particularly, as I have just pointed out, with respect to immigration.
I should like to make some observations on the feature of this debate, Mr. Speaker, which was emphasized over and over again by government speakers who are constantly nudging the opposition with the question, "What do you suggest; what would you do about it?" We can understand, of course, from the contradictions which are so apparent and so obvious that there could be cause for great concern among the members of the government. This is obvious, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly the result of^ inexperience. If government spokesmen would rise in their places in the house and simply say with all candor and all sincerity, "We have just taken charge of the government; we are new in this; we believe we have policies which we shall develop, but we have not had the experience, and therefore at the beginning of our administration there may be some apparent confusion, some apparent contradiction, but it will straighten itself out", I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that would be a becoming statement; it would be in line with the facts.
I suggest they should do this rather than try with great difficulty to defend all this confusion. We would have great respect for a government which would say to the country, "We have a program, we have a
The Address-Mr. Crestohl policy which we will implement, but give us an opportunity. We have not had the vast experience the former government had after 22 years of power. They were tried and experienced. We will perform just as well in time." To have failed to make that statement is in my judgment a gross oversight.
Then they say to the opposition, "What would you suggest?" "What should we do?" Well, Mr. Speaker, to nudge the opposition with these questions is a little bit ludicrous. Let us look at it. Politics being politics, will anyone say that a government will do those things which an opposition suggests? Oh, it is just so much beautiful language, so much challenging language. It is another way of saying, "We don't know what to do; what would you suggest?" When our leader makes a suggestion to the government-and he made it again recently-that a drastic cut in income tax be made so there would be more take-home pay in every employee's envelope, there would be more money thrown into circulation and more buying power and this buying power would create more production and more production would create more labour opportunities and unemployment would be reduced, what is the result? It was a practical suggestion, but it was completely ignored. It was not argued against; it was not set aside; it was just completely ignored. But they persist in asking the opposition, "What would you suggest?"
Then, Mr. Speaker, in my humble way I myself had the temerity to suggest to the government a 30-day or a 60-day sales tax holiday. That, too, would throw more money into circulation. People would be inclined to purchase; people would have more funds and would buy within this 30- or 60-day period because they would know that within that period they could purchase without having to pay sales tax. There would be an impetus to buying; buying power would be increased; production again would be increased and unemployment would be reduced. But that, too, was completely ignored even though it did have editorial support.
I would dare answer that question which is constantly put to the opposition, "What would you do?" by taking a page from history, indeed from Canadian history. What did other governments do? What did another government do at a time when the country found itself in a difficult economic condition. In fact, Mr. Speaker, our economic position is so serious today that I in any event and all hon. members should shudder at the thought that now for the second time within my memory Canadians are humbled to such an extent that they must seek food in bread lines and from free soup kitchens.

The Address-Mr. Crestohl
Immediately after the first world war, in the years 1919, 1920 and 1921, as a young man I had the sad and heartbreaking experience of seeing bread lines and soup kitchens in Montreal. And now, as I said, for the second time within my memory we learn from the press that bread lines and soup kitchens have been established in Toronto and Vancouver. This is a sad thing for us as members of parliament, representing the people, to contemplate; and I have reason to fear that this state of affairs may even spread to other cities. I urge that it is the solemn duty of members of parliament, the spokesmen of the people of Canada, regardless of political party or affiliation, to give this matter the serious consideration it deserves.
I say, Mr. Speaker, the government has the power to arrest this spreading calamity. All it needs is the courage, and courage means not to seek to do only those things which are popular or popular vote-catchers. All it needs is the courage to do those things which are necessary and urgent regardless of whether they are popular and will catch votes. It is the duty of the government to place the re-sponsibilty, the urgency and the needs of our people above political party politics. This has been done by another government.
Before I even touch on that matter I should point out that both in the 1919 and 1920 eras, when we had soup kitchens and bread lines, just as they are developing now in our country, peculiarly the governments were Conservative governments. I do not make that as an accusation but as a statement of fact. It may be sheer coincidence or perhaps, as someone has said, the Conservative party is just a hard-luck party. It is a horrible picture to contemplate, Mr. Speaker.
I say to hon. members that it may be unpopular to do certain things, but they must be done. It may be quite true, I quite understand and sympathize, that hon. gentlemen opposite even feel politically pained by this sad picture; their humane sensibilities may also be pained. However, they should stop playing painful politics, because that is what is happening. Every measure, everything that is said by the government has only one objective: Is it popular? Will it get us votes? They should not be concerned with these things so early in the administration of the government.
The Prime Minister sees visions and I too, Mr. Speaker, see visions. When I think of these bread lines, the playing of politics, the doing of only those things which are popular, then the vision I see is that of Nero and Rome.
As I said a moment ago, at another time when this country was facing a serious

economic situation another political party did things which were not very popular. If we go back to 1939, 1940 and 1941, when rigid controls were set up in this country, we find that they were not popular with anyone. They were good for the country. They may have been bad for a political party but they were necessary for the good of the country. We all recall the so-called dollar a year brigade which was pressed into service by the then government. Irrespective of the political party to which these gentlemen belonged they were summoned to the service of Canada. Canada needed their help at the time. It is quite clear that they came forward, and the government of the day did not hesitate to introduce those rigid controls, those unpopular measures. There were price controls, salary controls, rent controls and so on.
I am not suggesting these as measures the government should adopt today. I am simply pointing them out and saying they were unpopular measures that were adopted by a government which did not think of its political future but thought of its country's future. All these controls were set up, as I said, and men were summoned from all parts of Canada, irrespective of their political allegiance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Leon David Crestohl: But a note was just given to me stating that I had five minutes more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member's time expired at 12.36.


Egan Chambers: I should like to start my contribution to this debate, Mr. Speaker, by saying how glad we all are to see Mr. Speaker back in his chair, in good health and in his usual good humour after his travels during the recess. I should like also to join with other hon.*members who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) of the address in reply. He delivered one of the best speeches I have ever heard on the subject of agriculture. He laid out, for the members of this house and for the people of the country, the program and the accomplishments of the government in that field.
(Translation):
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), for the excellent speech he made. I am sure his father and his grandfather, both former members of this house, would be proud of him and we can be sure that his career in this house will be that of a distinguished parliamentarian.

(Text):
I had not intended this morning, Mr. Speaker, to touch on the subject of immigration. However, having listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) I cannot help but point out to him that what he has been criticizing at considerable length in the way of immigration policy was, in fact, the policy of his own government. The policy of the previous Liberal government on immigration-and in my view it was not a bad policy though not always well carried out-was to regulate the flow of immigrants so that it was in keeping with the economic situation in this country. We do not want to bring in people for whom there is no housing or for whom there is no work. I will take second place to no one as an advocate of an active and full immigration policy for Canada.
However, as the hon. member pointed out in the latter part of his speech, we have had economic difficulties. It is known that many immigrants, in their first years in this country, have difficulties because their knowledge of the languages of Canada is sometimes not good enough to get them the best type of employment. Very often they are the ones upon whom economic difficulties fall most heavily. The hon. member for Cartier was suggesting, it seemed to me, that we should have brought in large numbers of people to walk the streets of this country and be a charge upon the communities in which they live, and to start out in this country in a very unhappy frame of mind. The policy of cutting back on immigration, as was pointed out by someone on this side of the house, was inaugurated by a Liberal government before the election in 1957, when they sent notices to the immigration offices throughout the world to be prepared to cut down on immigration as the economic outlook was not good.
This government, as has been shown by the speeches of the Prime Minister and other ministers, is a believer in immigration, but a believer in sound immigration. We believe in bringing people to this country when we are able to give them jobs, give them housing and give them a good start toward becoming Canadians. That is the policy of the government, and that is the policy that has been carried out. The hon. member mentioned that last year immigration was considerably lower than the previous year. What he did not mention was that immigration the previous year was the greatest since before the first war. Immigration last year compares very favourably with many of the years since the war when the policy was administered by the former Liberal government.
I come, Mr. Speaker, from the riding of St. Lawrence-St. George. It is the very centre
The Address-Mr. Chambers of the metropolis of Canada. Many of our citizens work in other ridings, and many of the people who work in our riding live in other ridings. It is therefore difficult for me to speak specifically of St. Lawrence-St. George. We are part of a larger community, and we are affected by the problems of that larger community. Apart from that, having listened to and read in Hansard the speeches of the various hon. members who have preceded me, I have noted that they have taken unto their own ridings all the compliments that can be bestowed upon a riding in Canada-I should say, all but one. I will merely say that in St. Lawrence-St. George, of all of the ridings in the country, we have the best looking women.


An hon. Member:: I thought the hon. member said all except one.


Egan Chambers: I make no exception. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, we are involved in the problems of a larger community. One of the problems facing the city of Montreal today is transportation across the St. Lawrence river. We in Montreal are grateful to the government and to the Minister of Transport for the efforts that are being made to alleviate that problem. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has been greatly interested in the problem of the Victoria bridge which is to be partially closed for alterations by the Canadian National Railways. Since we on this side of the house have been asking for constructive suggestions I thought I might ask the hon. member for Laurier whether he could not make a constructive suggestion in this regard. As everyone knows he was closely concerned with the seaway and with transportation generally in the past. In the Montreal Star of November 1, 1954 we find the following statement:
The chairman of the seaway authority, Mr. Chevrier, has announced that a formula has been found to avoid delays on Victoria bridge once the Montreal end of the seaway project has been completed. He will not say now what it is.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, this his silence has gone on long enough, and that if he knows how to keep the bridge open and still do the necessary alterations, now is the time when he should let us all in on the secret rather than simply ask the Minister of Transport questions in that regard.
In this debate the charge of the opposition seems to be that the government is confused. But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no more confusion than that which is indicted in the speeches that have come from the opposition benches. I do not want to go over all the ground, but I should like to take just one speech I heard. It was not made in this house but was made on the national radio

The Address-Mr. Chambers network by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). I was interested the other day to hear him rise to make a correction in Hansard, at which time he said that he did not jive but that he jibed, and went on to clear up the point by explaining how he was using the term. When he first mentioned the term I, of course, thought that as he was an old nautical man it had to do with the well known phrase in sailing, namely to jibe, which is to go about before the wind. May I say that there is no one who spends more time before the wind than the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
He began his remarks by very kindly saying that he and his party did not hold the Conservative government responsible for unemployment but that what they held the government responsible for was the fact that the government had done absolutely nothing about it; and then he jibed. He started to talk about inflation. He said that inflation was a very serious problem and that everything the government had done served to increase inflation. A moment or two previously he had said that the government had done nothing. Then he said that everything they had done was inflationary.
It is possible, in fact probable, that some of the actions of the government to alleviate the unemployment situation were inflationary. But what the hon. member failed to tell us was which of those measures he would have preferred the government had not put into effect. Was it the extension of unemployment insurance that he did not want because it was inflationary? Was it the housing program that has given work to thousands and thousands of Canadians during a difficult period? Was that what he did not want put into effect because it was inflationary? Was it the public works program, the building of roads to the north or the improvement of our harbours? Were those the things that he felt should not have been done because they were inflationary? He did not say, Mr. Speaker. However, I can suggest some things the government may have been considering which no doubt would be inflationary and which perhaps now should be dropped.
During the last session the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate took us on a magnificent tour through that riding of his, in the course of which he stopped at every harbour and community, every pile of logs and every place where there was a pile of logs ten years ago. In each and every one of those corners he found that some public work was necessary. Here it was a new dock, there a cold storage plant or some place to tie up his ship. If those works were now undertaken I suggest that they would be extremely

inflationary, and probably would cause damage not only to the country but particularly to Bonavista-Twillingate.
Yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur had something to say comparing our economy with that of communist countries. I want to make it clear right away that I am not suggesting that I think he was favouring that type of economy. However, he pointed out, and with some truth, that in those countries there is disciplined society, and that because of the disciplined society and because the efforts of every citizen can be directed, there is there an efficiency that we perhaps do not possess. This may be one of the reasons that they get their rockets closer to the moon than do the western countries.
I do not think there is anyone in this house who wants a disciplined society in exchange for our free society, and I think there are few in this country who do. Nevertheless we are in competition with the communist countries, and we must find-and I think we have done so-a substitute for this iron discipline. We must find some method of mobilizing the efforts of our people while maintaining their freedom.
To you, Mr. Speaker, and to all other hon. members I suggest that in the sense of national purpose that has been instilled into the great majority of our people by the Prime Minister we have the substitute for discipline. Today we have a country that is united as it has seldom been in its history. It is united because the people of this country believe in the program of the government. They believe in the qualities of leadership that exist in those who occupy the front benches of the Conservative party.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out, in our society there are some activities which he described as not being vital parts of production, and he named one or two. I think you could define those people who use the resources of this country solely for their own profit and without any consideration for the national purpose as doing something which is contrary to the long-term aspirations of our people. As I say, he named a couple; I could name a couple more, including those persons who take up time and newsprint to do such things as to print obscene publications and persons who use time, effort and capital to do what I would call useless things such as printing the social register.
Then we come to those whose profit is not in money but in political capital, people such as some who have spoken in this debate who will use anything they can put their finger on to turn a political profit without any consideration of the effect their words will have on the people of the country. This has been pointed out before in this debate, but when we

have members opposite stand up and say that the country is going to the dogs, that there is no direction, no future, they may make a short term political profit but what in effect they are doing is damaging the confidence of the people of the country.
People who are considering investment in employment-producing industries, people who are considering setting up new firms to develop our natural resources may feel, because these respected gentlemen say the future is dark that they should not do so at this time. So it seems to me that these people, together with those whose only consideration is monetary profit, are what you might call the negative part of our society at this time.
We on this side of the house have been criticized because occasionally we say that we support the Conservative Prime Minister. I do not know why this should be. If we say anything in favour of our Prime Minister it is suggested that we are looking for advancement only, but I make no apology. If I did not support the Prime Minister I would not be sitting on this side of the house. We follow his leadership because it is the best leadership in Canada today. It has been ably demonstrated in this debate, in the speech from the throne and by the accomplishments of the government since it came into office the year before last that we have in the Prime Minister a leader in whom the vast majority of the people of the country have confidence. It is he who has pointed out to the people of the country the national purpose of which I spoke. He has pictured to them the destiny of the country, and he is leading them along the path of progress toward that destiny.
I only want to say one other thing, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with parliament. A year or two ago we used to hear speeches on the rights of parliament and the rights of members of parliament. One of the main planks of the Conservative platform was to restore the rights of parliament, and today we no longer hear such speeches. We no longer hear complaints from the opposition that their rights are being withheld. In fact if there are any breaches of the rights of the house they still come from the opposition. I feel sorry for them. I know they are reduced in number, but I suggest to them that the way to increase their number is not by bringing their friends into the house without having them first elected.
Let them do as the Prime Minister and other members of the government have suggested. Let them bring forward constructive policies. Let them say to the people of Canada something that will lead the people to believe that they have come back from the bankruptcy of policy which put them out of office. Let them
The Address-Mr. Michaud look over the constructive, forward-looking, far-reaching program of the government and learn their lesson from it.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hervé J. Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join at this time with those hon. members who have preceded me in this debate by extending my sincere congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson) on the able manner in which he discharged his duty.
(Translation):
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) who, in seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne, did very well. He was a credit to his electors and his constituency.
I should like also to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my satisfaction of the fact that, this session again, you are Speaker of this house.
It had not been my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the subject of immigration at this time. But after hearing cabinet ministers, and particularly the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), who complained this morning about the former Liberal government's immigration policy, I could not resist the temptation to remind the house of a few facts and incidents relating to that matter.
Allow me to quote from a few newspaper articles I have on my desk. Here is, for example, what one could read on February 15, 1955, in the paper La Presse under the title:
Conservatives want to boost immigration-Mr. Davie Fulton introduced a non confidence motion and advocated more active recruiting in Great Britain.
Note, Mr. Speaker, that if the non confidence motion had carried, it would have caused the fall of the Liberal government.
And the article adds:
The government's immigration policy is neither clear, nor consistent nor integrated. It does not meet the needs of Canada. It does not live up to the responsibilities of Canada. Its implementation involves discrimination against Canadians and non-Canadians.
474	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michaud
Some time later, on August 8, 1956, the Timmins Daily Press said:
Opposition-
The people who now form the government.
-urges more immigrants.
Again, on January 26, 1957, the Timmins Daily Press reported as follows:
Fulton says Canada slow with refugees.
And, finally, as recently as April 2, 1957, a headline in the Action Catholique read:
We must increase our population or we shall perish, says Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Speaker, may those few headlines be remembered henceforth by those who, on the government side of the house, would be tempted to criticize the policy of the former Liberal government. I hope those headlines will give them food for sober second thoughts. The inspiration they get from them might prod them into changing their attitude in the future. As the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said the other day: Other times, other ways.
(Text):
I think it is appropriate to state at this time that the debate now engaging the retention of the house has clearly indicated the seriousness of the many problems now confronting the Canadian nation. It also has shown the confusion, embarrassment and indecision which the government is displaying in dealing with these many problems. But what else could be expected? It has been said that the government promised its way to power. Now it is indicted for its dismal failure to implement its election promises.
Perhaps it would be proper to recall to the government that never before was the old French adage so true: "Qui seme le vent, recolte la tempete." How well I remember the fantastic promises made in my own riding by the supporters of the present government in the course of the last two election campaigns-jobs of their own choosing for all those who would support the present government's candidate; pensions to all within the age limit of the Old Age Assistance Act; more generous unemployment insurance benefits to the unemployed with or without the required number of insurance stamps. Public works projects were promised on every corner, even invading the field of private enterprise. Factories were promised for every village, and the provincial field was also brought into the picture during the campaign. New roads, paved if need be, were promised in every section of the county of Kent. Then came the chorus of "being on the winning side" with all its overtones 

of accompanying skull duggery regardless of how incompatible it was with all the concepts of democratic principles, the suggestion that unless you are on the winning side you cannot expect the same benefits and the same privileges.
If one recognizes that the pattern followed in my own riding was much the same as that followed throughout the whole country by Conservative spokesmen, it is little wonder that the chickens are now coming home to roost in such large numbers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the main causes of the government's present embarrassment are of its own making and the direct result of this unbridled flow of irresponsible promises which overwhelmed all media of publicity in the last two political campaigns. It is therefore the responsibility of the government and not the responsibility of the opposition, as has been so often suggested by government speakers in this debate, to meet all the expectancies aroused by its own supporters, let alone its own candidates.
Much has been said about unemployment during the course of this debate. I have no intention at this time of going into details concerning this matter. Numerous statistics have been quoted and many arguments have been advanced as to who should bear the responsibility for the present unemployment situation. However, my duty compels me at this time to say to this house that unemployment with all it comprises in terms of moral and physical suffering is far too prevalent in my own constituency.
Before leaving for Ottawa for the present session I saw cases of want and poverty that would wring your heart, cases of children without food or clothing, homes without fuel, situations that are a challenge to our democratic and Christian institutions. Statistics will never reveal the true picture of the economic conditions existing in the constituency I represent. There are an untold number of workers who are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits due to their inability last year, through no fault of their own, to earn the minimum number of stamps required, 15.
Numerous excerpts have been read from the statement of His Eminence Cardinal Leger on the subject of unemployment during recent days. I wish to cite one more extract from that timely and most important appeal:
The wealth of a country is measured by the distribution of material goods rather than by the abundance of these goods. A people which does not enjoy a just distribution of material riches-no matter how abundant these riches are-must be considered a poor people in a rich country.
One of the main causes of unemployment in my part of the country is the present

slump which affects the lumber industry. Thousands of men formerly employed in the manufacture of our pulp and lumber are now sitting idle due to lack of demand. Where pulpwood used to sell at from $15 to $17 a cord at roadside it is now sold at $8 to $10 a cord if indeed you are lucky enough to sell a few cords. The price is hardly more than the stumpage costs.
A further drawback to the pulp industry was the recent freight rate increase. Shippers have told me that this increase means an additional cost, depending upon the delivery point, of $3 to $3.40 a cord. We are told by the government that equalizing measures will be adopted to relieve producers' goods from the eastern and western parts of the country from the paralysing effects of the new freight rate increase. Efforts should be made to make these measures applicable to wood shipments along with other goods.
Mention should also be made of the recent action of the New Brunswick government with regard to woods operations by lumber companies of that province. Through arbitrary measures imposed upon these companies they are now obliged to cut on their leased lands larger quantities of wood than they would normally cut, thus curtailing the production of the small private supplier such as the farmer and settler.
These are all matters which should receive careful study from all parties concerned with a view to promoting renewed activity in the woods industry, which represents a segment of prime importance in the general economy in the province of New Brunswick.
There is one other aspect of the over-all labour field in the maritimes which is different from the situation which existed during past years. As a matter of fact, during the last five or six years two projects of major proportions absorbed the surplus available labour force which was not otherwise locally employed. I refer to the construction of Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick and the construction of air bases in Labrador. But it now seems that these two projects are nearing completion and therefore will not provide the same opportunities for employment as in the past. This situation should be corrected, if mass unemployment is to be avoided in the maritimes, by the launching of new projects of the same wide scope as those I have mentioned. Projects of these proportions were also suggested by my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. McWilliam.)
Without, then, elaborating on their advisability I submit that the government should seriously consider the construction of a causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and the construction of the
The Address-Mr. Michaud Chignecto canal. The undertaking of these works would bring about the double advantage of creating a wide field of local employment for our working force as well as fostering a wider development of our commercial and industrial life.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear during the reading of the throne speech the government's intention of reviewing farm credit. The following words appear in the speech from the throne:
You will also be invited to make a comprehensive review and revision of the legislation concerning farm credit, in order that credit may be more effective in assisting in the development and maintenance of an efficient and prosperous agriculture.
The matter of farm credit is one of great concern to all those whose responsibility it is to guide agriculture at the present time. Farm groups, farm leaders and farm technical advisers, nearly all are agreed that the emphasis should be placed on larger farm units in order to reduce the cost of farm operation and increase net farm revenue.
Great interest in farm practices is emerging in the maritime provinces at this time. I should like at this time to read from a news report in the Moncton Daily Times of January 19 last:
Proper Use of Land said Fundamental-
Atlantic provinces farmers "must change their methods drastically to meet needed changes in production pointed out by agricultural research, changing marketing practices and changing consumer demands," declared Dr. Frank MacKinnon, Charlottetown, president of the Atlantic provinces economic council, in a Moncton address Saturday.
Addressing the first sales clinic of the maritime wholesale hardware association, Dr. MacKinnon said that a "fundamental necessity to the forward march of the Atlantic area economy is "proper use of our land."
"We are wasting much of this valuable asset- 2,500 vacant farms on Prince Edward Island alone. Agriculture is a basic industry upon which every other industry depends, and agriculture is changing. It is not too much to say that in 10 years most present-day farm methods will be obsolete. What are we doing about it?"
The APEC president stated that he had not heard "any good reason why a good living can't be made off a farm and why all our vacant land cannot be taken up again and utilized to the full with profit.
There is no sense in being short-sighted in agriculture; it demands careful planning and the same emphasis on giving the consumer a high quality product that has worked well in industry. Artificial, temporary aids like floor prices are good in only a limited way.
Hard facts must be faced; for example, if the Texans can sell their carrots effectively in our own stores when we are growing them here and cannot sell them, we simply have to learn how to grow and sell carrots properly.
There is gold in the grass right here, too, but we need nothing short of a complete revolution in farm methods to get it."
We shall await with great interest the introduction of the government's legislation

The Address-Mr. Michaud as it will apply to the vital question of credit assistance to agriculture.
Much has been said lately, Mr. Speaker, in regard to certain fishing practices in the maritimes. Needless to say this is of the greatest concern to all those interested in the future welfare of our fisheries, particularly the lobster industry. Many suggestions were offered as to the best methods to stop those poaching practices which seem to be common around some of our shores. The debating point centres on two main suggestions: more education, or more rigidity on the part of conservation officers. I would respectfully submit that both are essential. I recall with satisfaction a series of lectures held in my own constituency in the early summer of 1954. I remain convinced that those lectures, by and large, were beneficial, and my only criticism at this time is that such a program, or other programs of a similar nature, was not further pursued.
We were told that the fisheries department has in its possession films on various aspects of lobster fishing, the life history and the habits of this fish. I am sure that great benefits could be derived if those films were shown in every fishing community. Pamphlets on these same matters could also be distributed in schools, which the school children would subsequently bring back to their homes.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite all efforts to convince fishermen that those illegal practices are detrimental to the good of the industry and to their own personal good, we must be realistic enough to recognize that poaching is an evil that will still remain with us. This is where the department, through its protective staff, will have to intervene with the appropriate measures to master the situation. The best-intentioned fishermen, and those are surely by far the larger number, are demanding action by the department; for many are now convinced that unless a halt is put to the present scale of poaching practices the whole future of the lobster industry will be imperilled.
As an indication of the organized fishermen's views-and these are essentially wellmeaning fishermen-I should like at this time to quote from a news item which I read in the Moncton Times dated January 24 last, containing some of the recommendations made during a recent meeting held in Shediac, New Brunswick, in connection with fishing regulations. I am not commenting on the adequacy of these recommendations; I am simply quoting them as an indication of the trend of thought among the fishing people on this matter:
1. That any fisherman found with illegal lobsters in his possession be required to pay a minimum fine of $2 for each illegal lobster.

2. That any fisherman found with more than 50 per cent illegal lobsters in his possession be subject to the minimum fine of $2 for each illegal lobster, plus the suspension of licence for a 12-month period.
The news item adds:
All fishermen present were in agreement that a strict adherence to the regulations would tend to bring the industry to a higher level, and be a distinct advantage to all concerned.
The general consciousness of all those concerned with this vital matter, Mr. Speaker, augurs well for its ultimate solution.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, you must be an innately modest man to be able to withstand the wealth of compliments handed to you in the past two weeks, but at the risk of overdoing it I am going to add my own. Also, Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice to the voices of all other members on both the government and opposition sides in complimenting the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) on the masterly performance of each.
I have, if I may say so at this time, a matter to refer to which perhaps has not been debated so far, namely the royal commission on energy resources. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there seems to be a misconception of the role of royal commissions. Royal commissions are to collect facts and make recommendations. The government may or may not accept them. Sometimes it accepts them	in full,	sometimes in part	and sometimes	not	at	all.	It is a grand	thing that
under our democratic system the government makes the final decision, as the government will doubtless do in this case.
So	far	as	the	recommendations of thatcommission are concerned, may I simply say that for my part I cannot help but be glad	that	it	has	recommended	a national
energy board, provided, however, that such energy board is not so restrictive and so final as to throttle that very energetic industry, the oil and gas industry. On the other recommendation, which may or may not be the correct interpretation, I for one must object to the suggestion that the energy board should attempt to limit the profits on equity capital, to what they consider a fair amount; because to do that, Mr. Speaker, without including in the decision the whole picture, would be to throttle the expansion which is going on at the present time and would bring an end to the risk capital without which the tremendous strides in the Canadian west in oil and gas production could not possibly have been made.
Having said that, may I say at this time- and I have not had an opportunity to do it before-that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), in his references to the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), was wistful. At this stage may I say that I would like to be nostalgic, just for a moment, because it is not so many years ago that I sat at the feet of a certain history professor at the University of Toronto called Pearson, Mike Pearson. We did not know then that his name was Lester. In those days, as we had those quiet seances in his chambers in Baldwin Hall, many of us wondered what he would become, whether he would be a great history professor or whether he would be a great football coach. I suppose he had that problem to decide himself. None of us, however, suspected-least of all I-that my old history professor would one day occupy the second most important position in this chamber, that of leader of Her Majesty's opposition. I want to compliment him at this time upon his achievement.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should say that no one could have been more amazed than I at the opening of the throne speech debate to see my old history professor, so kindly, so good-natured and so charming as he was then, come out of his corner of the ring fighting, swinging in all directions. He kept on doing that for an hour and a half, and I thought he certainly had changed. After that hour and a half the good humour we all know he possesses asserted itself, and for the next hour he made his points, yes, but he made them with a smile on his face as if to say, "Well, boys, I have to say this but does it not sound ridiculous?" I know he will not mind me saying this, because I know he has a sense of humour.
I went home over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, just to go from home to home in my riding of Rosedale, which includes such parts of Toronto as Regent Park and Cab-bagetown mentioned so eloquently by the hon. member for Port Arthur, and I was somewhat amazed to find that the people there were really fed up with the debate so far. They felt that the government had been criticized, and it should be criticized, but that the criticism was of the carping, destructive type. They felt it was time the opposition parties became constructive in their criticism. I came back to the house prepared to say something about it, but I did not need to because on Monday night last the Leader of the Opposition realized the disservice that his party was doing not only to itself but to the country. Having realized this, he rose in the house and suggested that the throne speech debate be brought to an end, and quite properly so under all the circumstances.
Perhaps in the future, Mr. Speaker, we can have some constructive criticism in the throne speech debate. I would suggest also
The Address-Mr. Walker that we should consider the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps in future years reduce the duration of the throne speech debate from ten days to five. Surely all that needs to be said could be said in five days instead of the present ten.
I was surprised also to learn that my friend the Leader of the Opposition had visited Montreal over the weekend, during which time he had made a speech. According to the report I read in the Globe and Mail he made this statement:
It is obvious that something is going to blow.
He was not talking about a football team, and he was not talking about himself. He added:
The government is sitting on an inflationary time bomb.
I should like to ask the hon. gentleman, my former professor: which horse are you on, inflation or unemployment? Unlike the rider in the circus, the Leader of the Opposition cannot ride both horses at the same time because they go in opposite directions. I ask him, as the Prime Minister asked him at the opening of the debate, where does he stand in connection with the situation which confronts Canada today? In his opinion, which has priority,-unemployment or inflation?
We have heard a great deal from the members of the opposition-able speeches they were-on the subject of the deficit. All sorts of figures have been suggested, and some of them are fantastic figures. None of these figures has been more fantastic than the one which came from the newly incorporated Martin bureau of imaginative statistics, which set the deficit at over a billion dollars. This is a gross exaggeration, of course; but supposing the deficit is, as has been suggested, $700 million. Has the government no authority, has the government no support, has the government nothing outside of its own decision to support a deficit of that kind? I ask you that. The opposition members apparently think not.
May I remind them that the Leader of the Opposition himself has justified the position in which the government finds itself today in its deficit budgeting by a speech which he made on February 10 last, or which is reported in the Toronto Daily Star of February 10 last. At that time he was campaigning to become prime minister. The article states:
Hon. Lester Pearson today promised the Canadian people a program of major tax cuts and social changes if the Liberals were returned to power on March 31. He pledged tax reductions of $400 million to spur the lagging economy.
Then the article goes on:
The $400 million tax cut proposed by Mr. Pearson would add to the budget deficit for the coming fiscal
478	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Walker year which his colleague, Hon. George Marler, has estimated will come to around $380 million as a result of existing commitments.
On that basis, if Mr. Pearson's program was put into effect during the next session, the federal government would end the 1958-59 fiscal year with a deficit in the neighbourhood of $800 million-
Now, that is the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition himself, made when he was campaigning for election; yet now his supporters have castigated the government for having the deficit which it is expected they might have. I do not know that he has pressed such views with vigour, but his supporters have. Then according to this article he went even further:
If the situation deteriorated still further, Mr. Pearson stated that he was prepared to recommend even greater deficit financing.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker; here he is on record on February 10 last, and contrast that with the speeches we have heard in this house since that time. Then the Leader of the Opposition went on to boast about the Liberal party, and the article reads:
Mr. Pearson said the idea of creating a budget deficit was in keeping with principles of the Liberal party which had reduced the national debt by $2,500 million during the prosperous post-war years, while resorting to deficit financing in 1955 when that was necessary to stimulate the economy.
What we find is this, and I have figures here to prove it; that the Liberals talk about cyclical budgeting as if they had invented it, yet in the recession years of 1954 and 1957 they budgeted for a surplus. When we came into power in 1957 the Liberals had budgeted for a surplus in that year of recession, while in the boom years 1955 and 1956 they contrived to have deficits. The theory of cyclical budgeting is to reduce demand when it is excessive and inflation threatens, and to expand demand when it is deficient and unemployment is the major item. However, far from reducing the amplitude of the economic fluctuations during the last cycle between 1954 and 1957, the Liberals actually increased those fluctuations. On the basis of their figures they had surpluses when they should have had deficits and they had deficits when they should have had surpluses. The figures speak for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in Montreal may I say this. The facts would appear to indicate otherwise than the likelihood of this time bomb going off at the present time or in the near future; because it would appear that the inflationary tendency which has been in evidence in recent months is almost at an end and that the year 1959 will be a year of renewed expansion, with increased stability of prices. Such inflation as we have had since


assuming office is not "demand" inflation. It is not what we used to call classical inflation. It is not that at all; it could not possibly be so because there is no pressure upon our resources. No one knows better than does the Leader of the Opposition that the tremendous influx of capital investment in our country since the war has begun to assert itself in the great capacity of this country for production. This result is already instanced by the fact that the commodity price structure has at last become stabilized. As a matter of fact we have now more stability in commodity prices than we have had in years.
Therefore, with the greatest of respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I ask whether it is not wrong that he should stress this "demand" inflation over the immediate and pressing problem of unemployment. It seems to be generally accepted by economists that in 1959 the level of prices possibly will rise a little, and that the only reason that prices will rise at all will be cost factors such as, for instance, increased freight rates, increased wages and matters of that kind. After all- and this is fundamental in answering the Leader of the Opposition-the theory of supply and demand is still extant, and there is no possibility of a runaway inflation such as that about which he has the people worried. Furthermore, and credit for this is due to our Minister of Finance, the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada have carefully kept a firm check on the supply of money, not permitting it to go up in recent months. This fact is extremely important.
I do not know what happened to the Leader of the Opposition last week end when he went to Montreal. It may be that he visited some of the boys on St. James street with his old friend Mr. Howe, who may have introduced him to some of his colleagues on the 40 or more directorates of which he is a distinguished member. I do not know what it was that happened, but in any event the Leader of the Opposition made this speech about the fear that something was going to blow imminently. May I say to him with the greatest respect-and he knows I have for him the greatest respect-that to quote the words of the late President Roosevelt, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
All we have to fear is fear which might lead to what is known as a psychological inflation. If these prophets of doom and gloom or, as the Prime Minister has called them, the gloomsters, led by the Leader of the Opposition, continue to pound away on the theme that inflation is inevitable, then in time by the very repetition of this thought, they may convince the consumer and the businessman himself that perhaps after all

there is no use in resisting increased prices, that perhaps after all inflation is inevitable. That is called psychological inflation; and that is possible in this country; but it is only possible if the gloomsters continue to pound away on the subject which I suggest, with great respect, does not have any merit at the present time.
How can we have a runaway inflation at the present time? The facts belie the statement. Here we have commodity futures at a low and world trade depressed. When the economy of our country is operating below capacity not only in Canada but in the United States, how can you have a runaway inflation? How can this bomb go off at the present time? But if the gloomsters continue to pound away, then it may happen.
That would be a catastrophe, Mr. Speaker, because if our costs and prices continue to go up our competitive position both in our domestic market and, what is more important, our export market will be undermined. If that event happens Canada will be exporting jobs to the United States and other countries, Mr. Speaker; and this is one export which we the people of Canada cannot afford.


Azellus Denis: It is your job to deal with it.


David James Walker: And we are ' delighted to assume that burden. May I say to the hon. member that I enjoyed his speech yesterday when he himself tried to make a contribution to that end.


Azellus Denis: The sooner the better.


David James Walker: In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I do not stop at flag stations. May I carry on with the vital part of my speech, if I may say so, with regard to a matter that is in the minds of all good Canadians, one which has been pointed up by the Prime Minister, namely the fact that the communist trade offensive poses the most serious threat to future employment and prosperity in Canada. In order to meet this threat-and my hon. friend who so kindly interrupted me realizes this fact-it will require not only responsible but far-sighted action on the part of every citizen, Liberal, Conservative and C.C.F., and every segment of our community. This is the only real solution we have for cost inflation. A policy of deflation, which the Leader of the Opposition appears to advocate at this time when the economy is already operating below capacity, would do nothing but cause further unemployment and further dislocation of industry without solving that extremely tricky and complex problem of cost inflation. The answer lies in the united effort by all the Canadian people.
The Address-Mr. Walker
May my concluding and final point be this. This problem of the communist trade offensive and the vital importance of expanded world markets to the future prosperity of Canada and, as a matter of fact, the rest of the world, were the reason for the Prime Minister's world tour. The Prime Minister and Canadians generally wish to increase economic co-operation between the east and the west-as I am sure do all members of the house-between the developed countries and the undeveloped countries, between those which have and those which have not. If we are effectively to combat this communist trade offensive then we, one of the western countries, with all the other western countries must join with the uncommitted eastern countries and work together for world trade.
That is the message which the Prime Minister took with him around the world. Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people of Canada have any idea what a tremendously successful commonwealth tour the Prime Minister had. I have taken the liberty of going through the press of all the countries of the commonwealth at the time he happened to be there. I should have liked to take the time of the house to tell hon. members-but because there are many others who wish to speak I will not do so-of the tremendous impression made by "Mr. Canada" during that tour. It was fantastic. Wherever he went he brought fresh hope and a new vision of commonwealth solidarity. He has done much, and we all recognize this, to cement the bonds of commonwealth by stressing in particular, and this is very important, the ties of trade. I should like to have gone on with what has been said in the different countries but may I just quote from the newspaper in India known as the Hindu of Madras. That newspaper had this to say:
Mr. Diefenbaker has recently manifested a refreshing freedom from preconceived notions and prejudices. Mr. Diefenbaker reveals himself as a statesman who is interested in seeking remedies for the world's ills which will cure instead of worsening them.
In Australia's Sydney Morning Herald he was praised for "a vigorous and consistent Asian policy with firm aims imaginatively pursued, a condition of survival for this commonwealth." The London Observer summed it all up with these words:
His great success was that he persuaded all those with whom he came into contact that whatever they had thought to the contrary they were fully members of a great fraternity in which they were regarded as good as the next man.
How important it is to convey that message. Finally may I place on the records of the house the greatest tribute of all, delivered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain at the Albert hall meeting when our Prime Minister

The Address-Mr. Peters addressed an overflow audience. This is what the Prime Minister of Great Britain said:
From the first talks we had together X realized that we had here a great man, and great because he had the one vital thing that any great man must have,-faith. He has faith in his fellow countrymen, in the tasks which Canada has to undertake and the contribution she has to make to the whole world. He has faith in the continuing and, indeed, ever-increasing moral and political value of that unique combination of nations which we call the commonwealth; faith as he has told you today, in the economic progress and development of an ever-expanding commonwealth based upon the steady development of industrial power and financial strength and, above all, faith that in the great secular struggle between the principles of freedom and communism the commonwealth can play an immense and, perhaps under providence, a decisive part.
That was the tribute of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. In this connection may I say that in the 19 months since the Conservative government took office commonwealth relations and trade have been stimulated as never before, first by the very successful mission headed by our able Minister of Trade and Commerce to the United Kingdom; second, by the Montreal conference presided over by our distinguished Minister of Finance; and finally by the world tour of the Prime Minister.
In conclusion may I say that it is time we united to boost our country. We are all good Canadians. Everybody in every party on both sides of the house is a good Canadian and none is a better Canadian than the other. But is it not time that we started to talk ourselves up? At the risk of appearing to be sentimental, and I do not feel that way at all, may I paraphrase words of Tennyson:
To Canada, whom we love and prize
Whatever statesman holds the helm;
Hands all round
God the glooms|er's hopes confound;
To this great cause of Canada
Praise,-my friends,
And all her glorious provinces
Round and round.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect of a quotation attributed to me by the hon. gentleman. I am not complaining, because he quoted my Montreal speech correctly from the press, but it paraphrased what I said. I sent for the text of my speech and fortunately I now have it here. There was only one reference to an inflationary time bomb in the speech, and perhaps I might quote what I said:
The new borrowing requirements of the government exceed $1.5 billion and to the extent that they are met by increasing the money supply, that is planting an inflationary time bomb which might some day blow up.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, rather than make a speech concerning my riding, which has many problems,

I am going to discuss one of the several national problems facing the Canadian people which I think should be brought to their attention. Canada is faced today with two major problems. One is unemployment and the other is inflation. In this debate my colleagues have offered to the government some advice in solving the rising unemployment situation. I should like to do the same with respect to inflation. That this problem is important was illustrated by the words of James Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, when he said:
We seem to have reached the economists' hell on earth; inflation and unemployment. The alternately "creeping" and "surging" inflation is apparently still the pattern in recovery as well as in recession. I believe that this chronic inflation is the greatest single threat to Canada's economic development. The disease must be studied, it must be understood, and it must be cured.
I was very pleased to hear that the previous speaker has considered this matter and has offered some suggestions to solve the problem. Economists in general are very concerned over the present economy of Canada which is seeing for the first time in history both inflation and unemployment. Previously it was felt that inflation would end unemployment, and many economists today are trying to find what, change has taken place that produces this phenomenon.
The question can legitimately be asked, what is inflation? One opinion was advanced by Mr. D. E. Kilgour, vice president and managing director of the Great West Life Assurance Company who, when speaking in Montreal, said:
Inflation is simply a technique of stealing money without the embarrassment of identifying the victim or too closely pointing out the benefactors. One thing is abundantly clear. It is that insurance policyholders are being victimized and also the holders of savings accounts, bonds and pensions. If this generation has not the fortitude or the wisdom or the restraint to control the grab-bag of inflation, we can destroy our democratic nations and our way of life.
Or, as was said on another occasion by Gladstone Murray:
An honest dollar is the noblest work of government; an inflated dollar is the vilest.
Canada today has reason to show concern about the problem of inflation. Inflation is considered to be an essential element in a capitalist economy. An increasing labour force, technological advance and automation make it necessary to increase industrial production continually. Otherwise rapidly developing unemployment cannot be avoided.
It is estimated that a 5 per cent annual increase in industrial expansion must have a monetary inflation of from 1 to 2 per cent per annum to maintain such expansion. Therefore a capitalist economy cannot have both

full employment and a stable currency. This was realized by the people of the country when the Bank of Canada was established, because in the preamble to the Bank of Canada Act we find these words:
Whereas it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of the dominion-
That is taken from the 1956 annual report by Mr. Coyne. He goes on to indicate that each country is responsible for its own inflationary pressures where they exist. He states on page 4 of the same book that although most countries in the western world experienced a measure of inflation this was chiefly due to causes within each country and manifested itself more in costs of production and distribution than in raw material prices.	After maintaining that
some of these inflationary factors should be controlled by the federal government, he points out on page 5 of the report that "the so-called federal credit controls do not exist". He goes on further to indicate the fields in which they do not exist, referring particularly to finance companies operating without the controls which governments can and do exercise with regard to questions of interest and related matters.
With a steady increase in industrial development during the past century, the value of our dollar has continued to fall. Today the value of the Canadian dollar is less than half its prewar value in terms of purchasing power. Let us review what has happened to the economy of Canada in the last 20 years.
For the first six years, 1939 to 1945, under a partly planned economy, by the use of price controls implemented during the war inflation was very moderate especially when one considers the huge expansion that took place during those six years. By 1945, the end of the war, the Canadian people had accumulated a fantastic volume of purchasing power. This had been accomplished by the purchasing of war bonds, service gratuities and other methods of compulsory savings. All types of consumer goods were in short supply. It was obvious that if the wartime price controls were removed this great power in the hands of consumers to buy goods which were in short supply would result in severe inflation. The Canadian Manufacturers Association and other organizations with similar interests persuaded three of the political parties in Canada to 66968-9-31
The Address-Mr. Peters press for the removal of these controls. The C.C.F. alone warned of the potential dangers to the stability of our currency and our economy.
However, the Canadian people who had at such great sacrifice saved their money now wished to purchase the consumer goods they had been unable to purchase for many years. The manufacturers, taking advantage of the short supply, boosted prices as high as the traffic would bear. We all know the disastrous results to the purchasing power of the dollar which occurred in the years immediately following the end of the war.
What is the situation today? The whole theory that the one and only cause of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, causing a rise in prices, is no longer true. This theory was based on the premise that our economy would allow prices to find their own level. This theory is no longer true in practice, because today we see prices continuing to rise in the face of unemployment and a scarcity of money among a large segment of our population.
We contend that our problem should no longer be called "inflation" but rather "rising prices". We no longer have a situation where prices are mainly determined by the cost of production or demand and controlled within limits by the element of competition. Prices today are determined to an alarming extent by corporations, monopolies and cartels which, though less in number, are growing rapidly in size. This is especially true in the fields of basic materials; for example, in the price of steel, automobiles and energy. The determining factor in the setting of a price now is what the traffic will bear.
We in the C.C.F. wholeheartedly agree with the recent request by the Canadian Labour Congress for an immediate public investigation into the automobile, steel, farm implement and other basic industries. The congress is also to be commended for its demands on the government to strengthen the effectiveness of the Combines Investigation Act.
The people of Canada have a right to know if the reputed benefits to the consumer from competition are still available. The people of Canada are desirous of having a real investigation made so that they can determine whether or not there is any relationship between labour costs and retail prices. Statistics are available by the score to prove to us that both wages and prices are rising independently of each other.
In Canada today a concerted effort is being made to make labour the scapegoat

The Address-Mr. Peters in an attempt to avoid discovering what are the real causes which produce rising prices. Let us examine, for example, the increase in wages compared with productivity for the years from 1947 to 1955. On page 397 of the publication "Output, Labour and Capital in the Canadian Economy" the author warns us that the productivity figures are at best to be regarded as rough estimates, but adds that these are the best figures available. The figures do not indicate that wages have increased over productivity, which, if it had been the case, might have been a cause of our postwar inflation. On the contrary, these figures suggest that wages have been slightly lower than the increase in productivity. This would tend to contradict completely the statements of the manufacturers association, newspapers and financial publications that increases in wages are responsible for the high cost of living. For this period, 1947 to 1955, productivity in manufacturing rose by 32.12 per cent and real wage rates by only 30.51 per cent.
It should be noted in fairness to labour that unions have sought increases which they were able to justify to conciliation boards and public opinion as only maintaining the standard of living that their employees had previously enjoyed. In many cases the demands of labour, based on the cost of living at the time of current negotiations are met many months and sometimes years after the cost of living has continued to rise, so that the worker finds after obtaining a wage increase that he has not been able to maintain his standard of living.
Mr. Graham Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, said the same thing a great deal more briefly on November 14, 1957, in a speech on inflation which he made at a joint meeting of the life underwriters' association of Toronto and the Toronto chapter of the institute of chartered life underwriters. This is what Mr. Towers said:
Current discussions of inflation often refer to it as the "cost-push" type; and as labour is a very important factor in costs, price-increases more often than not are attributed to the successful efforts of labour unions to secure wage increases greater than increases in output per man hour. Labour, quite properly, I think, resents being saddled with a large share of the blame for the lower value of money. They are certaintly not responsible to any greater degree than all the rest of the population for what occurred during and immediately after the two world wars. It is not worth while to argue about the extent to which increases in wages in excess of increases in the productivity of labour have contributed to the rise in the cost of living during the last year and a half.
Organized labour, operating in our modern society, has an obligation to its membership to try and maintain the standard of living enjoyed by its membership. The Prime

Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was, in my opinion, unfair when he addressed the Canadian Labour Congress convention in Winnipeg and asked them to hold the line on wages while at the same time making no effort to preach restraint to the other segments of our economy.
Mr. Towers pointed out that leaders of government have appealed for restraint on a number of occasions in the United States and the United Kingdom. Such appeals resulted in a growing awareness on the part of the public, but produced no tangible results.
The willingness of big business to cooperate with labour for the general economic good was clearly indicated in the United States when Walter Reuther, president of the united automobile workers, offered to maintain, or even lower, the wages enjoyed by his membership if the automobile industry would reduce the price of their cars to the consumer by $200. He was told to mind his own business, to run his union, and they would run their companies. The subsequent strike of 150,000 General Motors' employees obtained a sizeable increase based on maintaining the current standard of living which resulted in the wage increase plus interest being passed on to the consumer. In application, a wage increase is desirable to big business which operates, in the main, on the principle of cost of production plus a predetermined mark-up or profit. The higher the cost, the higher the profit. An example is Massey-Harris who in the ten-year period, according to the Financial Post, was able to increase its profits by 254 per cent.
Agriculture and agricultural leaders speak of the cost-price squeeze and it is an undesirable condition where the cost of the production rises while the selling price of the product remains the same or, in most cases, continues to fall.
Labour denies that wages are the deciding factor in our rising prices spiral. They contend that prices are rising because of other factors over which they have no control. The workers of Canada have no alternative but to join together with their fellow workers in order to protect themselves against the system under which we live. Many statistics are available to prove the returns to labour are only in line with increased production and are always lagging behind prices. Statistics are also available to prove that the non-labour part of retail prices has risen more rapidly than wage prices. The worst offender in the non-labour price rise has been the profit element. Just taking one example that appeared during the steelworkers' strike of local 1005, it was pointed out that the Steel Company of Canada had increased its net

profits alter taxes in the ten year period from 1946 to 1956 by 790 per cent while at the same time the average weekly wages had increased by only 60 per cent.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Who wrote that speech, Stanley Knowles?


William Arnold Peters: 
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Would you prefer that they have no pension at all?


William Arnold Peters: Savings in banks have been hit, as I said. This is something to which the
484	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Peters government must give consideration. Certainly all the leaders of banking institutions are considering the implications of inflation and now it is time for the government of the country to do something about the matter. Because costs have risen in the matter of food, shelter and clothing, pensioners of all kinds are undergoing great difficulty. In these three basic commodities the rise in the cost of living has been greater than in any other field, and certainly this matter of inflation has taken its toll on the savings and the pensions of the Canadian people.
I have attempted, Mr. Speaker, to show that since the days of the industrial revolution, either inflation or unemployment has plagued our society. Today Canada is faced with both inflation and unemployment for the first time. Indeed, the only time we had a relatively stable currency and full employment was when we were at war and had a planned economy. The problem today, with the disappearance of free enterprise and competition, is really one of rising prices and not of inflation as we used to know the term. Today corporations, monopolies and cartels, with tremendous powers are determining prices on the principle of what the traffic will bear. The activities of these powerful forces need to be curtailed, in that they must be prepared to act primarily in the public interest. This control of those who exploit our human and natural resources must be supplemented by control of those who deal with currency and credit within our country. We feel that the measures we propose are essential for the health of our own economy and are also essential to the interests of the free world in general and the needs of mankind.
Unless these concepts are adopted, real confidence cannot be restored in the hearts of Canadians. Uncertainty, indecision and floundering can be disastrous and can lead us to chaos. Mere palliatives will, at least, lead only to brief periods of rapid expansion and flash-in-the-pan prosperity. Those responsible for government must analyze what has happened over the past century and also consider the vast changes which have taken place within the last generation. Such an analysis must then be followed up by long range policies. Only in this way can real confidence and prosperity be given to our people. There is a growing body of responsible, well-informed and thinking people which is rapidly coming to the conclusion that parliament and government, and especially this parliament and this government, must assume responsibility for the economic welfare of our nation and of our people.


Gordon Campbell Chown: What are you going to call the new party, the Liberal-Labour party or the Labour-Liberal party?


William Arnold Peters: That is as good a name as any.


James William Baskin: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise on this ninth day of this debate and take part and follow some of the distinguished members who have already made their contributions. Before I begin I would like to join with other members in offering my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Provencher, who gave such a clear account of the problems of the prairie farmers and of agriculture in general and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet who made such a strong and sincere plea for the rights of the individual no matter to what race or religion he might belong. I think it is important for us to remember that our belief in one Canada is stronger than all the things which may have helped to divide us in the past.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how extremely pleased we all are to see your return to the chair. You have always discharged your duties with dignity and impartiality and you have thus gained the respect of each and every member in this house. The same remarks apply to the Deputy Speaker.
This is the second parliament which I have attended as the member for the constituency of Renfrew South. During this time I have had the opportunity to compare the throne speeches of this government with those of the previous regime and I am particularly impressed with the content of this throne speech. Outlined in this speech is the confidence which our Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and his cabinet and the supporters of this government have in the men and women of Canada. Put briefly, the throne speech is a vote of confidence in Canada and in the Canadian people. It was once sufficient for a government to make a few platitudinous statements about our canals and the state of our economy. Today we are concerned with our whole country, with the welfare of our fellow Canadians and with the broad aspects of human relations between our people everywhere, yes, and with Canada's role in a world where time and distance are being shrunk in ratio to the increased speed of communication.
Canada, as we know, borders the two most powerful nations in the world today, namely the United States of America and the Union

of Soviet Socialist Republics. This is a geographical fact, and if we ignore the responsibility our position as a middle power entails, then we shall be doing a great disservice both to ourselves and to the other peace-loving nations of the world. We as a nation have confidence in each other and in the other nations that with us are seeking a lasting peace in the world today. I believe that without that trust and confidence in each other none of us can live in freedom and security.
A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the state of the Canadian economy. I was struck with the substance of his remarks which showed a woeful lack of confidence in both his country and the men and women who live in it. For years the members of the former government, now in opposition, clung to the 49th parallel with a sort of ostrich-like blindness. When they did lift their eyes they always seemed to be facing south, seeking help from our neighbours. Their lack of faith held us all, or most of us, bound to the settled portions of our country.
This is now changing through the government's national development policy. The members of our government have told the people of this country that we have faith in the future of Canada. We have chosen to identify ourselves with the men and women who are showing the courage and the foresight to move north and to take their chances in the vast and challenging new areas which are being developed. We do not believe that it is the duty of our neighbours to the south of us to show us how to develop our own country. We believe that if we are to have sovereignty over the thousands of square miles of our northland, then we as Canadians must go there and live, and Canadians are doing just that. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) deserves special credit for the initiative and enterprise he and his department have shown in this regard.
I have mentioned these matters because our friends across the way are more accustomed to dealing in division than in the strength of unity. When they speak they still show that they lack confidence in the very people they represent, the men and women of Canada. They do not want to recognize the responsibility of leadership and the playing of their role of opposition; they are more concerned with the negative view of opposition than with the positive role of constructive criticism. They still suffer from the complex of defeat and they are still tempted to blame the Canadian people for that defeat rather than their own shortcomings.
The Address-Mr. Baskin
Many have been the achievements of this government since it took office. Of great concern to each and every member of this government has been employment-and I emphasize "employment"-dollars in the working man's pocket. The government cannot look after every field of employment but this government has been able actively to promote construction across Canada. I would like to put on the record at this time a few facts that were outlined at the Canadian construction convention held in Montreal last week. I quote H. J. Ball, the retiring president of the association. The headline in the paper reads:
Many healthy developments in 1958.
The article reads:
Construction tops $7 billion.
Mr. Ball goes on to say:
The trend towards larger construction programs should continue in 1959, with a total of perhaps $7.5 billion.
A total of $7.5 billion of construction means the employment of over 625,000 Canadians in construction operations and an even greater number manufacturing, transporting and merchandising construction materials and equipment or supplying services dependent upon construction activity. It will mean that over one out of every five dollars spent in Canada in end goods and services will be a construction dollar.
In 1958, while all this construction of new homes was taking place, there were over
150,000	units completed, the biggest homebuilding boom in Canada's history, and 1959 promises to be just as good. What impetus will this building boom have on our immediate future? Once again our factories are commencing to hum, our manufacturers are busy and will be much busier. Heavy industrial machinery, new stoves, refrigerators, washing machines and furniture will be required. My colleague, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) advises me that for the first time in many years the furniture factories in his riding are operating on an overtime basis.
I have just mentioned the 150,000 houses completed last year in Canada. We all know that this is a direct result of the action taken by this government in amending the National Housing Act to provide an additional amount of $350 million. My home county of Renfrew was able to obtain from this fund the sum of $1,615,922, and from our banks and loans companies an additional amount of $649,000. These sums provided 231 new housing units in our area. Over and above this, our Department of Public Works has awarded contracts in Renfrew county for approximately 500 units having a total value of $6,137,800. The Department of Defence Production is presently processing tenders for a new $1 million

The Address-Mr. Baskin project near Eganville in my riding. This project will be under way early in February, and it will involve a considerable labour force. A great deal of material will be required, material which is manufactured in the district. Our carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians and, in fact, all tradesmen can look forward to a more prosperous year.
In so far as hospital construction is concerned, we plan to spend in the coming year more than $2 million. This will include a new 32-bed hospital at Barrys Bay, to be named the St. Francis memorial and district hospital. It will serve the western area of Renfrew county, a portion of Nipissing and part of the adjoining ridings of Hastings and Hastings-Frontenac. The estimated cost is in the neighbourhood of $400,000. There will be a three-quarters of a million dollar addition to the Arnprior and district memorial hospital and a one million dollar addition to the Victoria hospital in Renfrew. This new hospital construction is a direct result of the action taken by this government when they doubled the hospital construction grants early in 1958. A great deal of credit is due to our Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) for the role he played in the introduction of this legislation.
The Canadian civil defence college at Arnprior, Ontario, comes within the jurisdiction of our Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are about 100 men and women employed at this college and during the past year 3,524 Canadian citizens received training at the college. Citizens from across Canada who have trained at this college, and the citizens of the town of Arnprior and district, are indeed grateful to our government for the rebuilding in 1958 of the road that leads to the college. All of this is a direct result of the boldness, the imagination and foresight of this government. We have not been able to cure everything in Canada since we took office, but we have swung the economic pendulum in an upward turn.
The hon. gentlemen in the opposition want to remember just how fast we were heading towards a serious depression in late 1956 and early 1957 when they were swept out of office. There are those of you who will not admit it, but the Canadian people knew what was going on, and that is why you were voted out of office. You had become all too powerful, and had long since forgotten that you were the servants of the people and not their masters.
Returning to my constituency, I should like to note that our manufacturing firms greatly appreciate the co-operation they have received


from the various departments in our government, especially the Department of Defence Production, the Department of Transport and the Post Office Department. These manufacturing plants are keenly interested in our government's aircraft and missile program. They are hopeful of participating in the manufacture of equipment which is to be installed on the proposed new guided missile sites in northern Quebec and northern Ontario.
My people were greatly concerned over the fact that Canadian National Railways made application last November to the board of transport commissioners for the discontinuance of the railway passenger service between Ottawa and Barrys Bay. The board met in Pembroke with all interested officials and citizens concerned. Following a two-day hearing, the application of the Canadian National was not approved. The discontinuance of this service would have completely shut off a section of the people in our county. I am pleased to say that the Canadian National Railways is now in the process of instituting a new and modern service. I wish to say to our Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) how very much our Renfrew county citizens appreciate the decision of the commissioners, and through him I wish to thank them.
Television reception is not satisfactory in many areas of the riding I represent. This is particularly true of the Eganville area and westward to Barrys Bay, Madawaska and Whitney which is on the borderline of Algonquin park. The government and the C.B.C. are very much aware of this situation because I have made numerous representations about it during the past year and a half. I have made these representations, not only to our Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) but also through him to the general manager of the C.B.C. Our people in Renfrew South, of course, realize that the same situation prevails in many other areas of Canada. I am pleased to say that this year a number of new low-power transmitters will be installed to correct this situation, and I have been advised that better reception will prevail in my constituency in the not too distant future.
There has been a need in all sections of Canada for new postal services and extensions to existing services. I wish to commend the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and his entire department for the vigorous action they have taken to improve the postal service generally across this country. Renfrew South, which I represent, covers a large rural area and at the time this government took office in June, 1957 many of my constituents were dissatisfied with the rural mail situation. At that time the density requirement throughout the rural areas of Canada was

four householders per mile. In a number of areas in my riding, as well as elsewhere in Canada, citizens were not receiving daily mail because the density of householders along many of the concessions was less than four per mile. The change in the density regulation has meant new rural routes and extensions to existing routes. Ninety-two new routes have been established and some 1,700 extensions authorized, serving approximately
40,000	additional patrons.
Householders served by rural routes and suburban services now total over 600,000. I know that the people deeply appreciate this improved service. We have not completely corrected the situation, and will not until the density requirement is reduced to two householders per mile. I have brought this to the attention of our Postmaster General. I believe that we have a Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) whose sympathies lie in this direction and that perhaps action will be forthcoming in this regard.
These are some of the things that are going on in my constituency and elsewhere in Canada. I have mentioned these construction projects, all of which have been made possible through the co-operation of the various cabinet ministers and the hardworking civil service in their respective departments. When you multiply this many times -and I know we have 208 members on this side of the house who are extremely active in this regard-you have some idea of the amount of effort that is being put into new development in this country under the leadership of a new and vigorous government.
For the future we are hopeful of increasing in my riding iron ore production in the townships of Bagot and Blythfleld, near Cala-bogie. The first few carloads of ore were mined there in December. It is hoped that full scale production will soon make this development an important part of our economy.
These accomplishments are not the work of any one individual. They represent the work and co-operation of many people. They also reflect the confidence of men and women in their government. Here I should like to say something about that confidence and the leadership that inspires it. When hon. members opposite or some of them were in office they were happy to think themselves supermen or at least they became known as such; but events have served to show them as something considerably less. The government which is now in office does not claim to be made up of supermen. But one great difference exists between it and the hon. members opposite. I refer to the leadership that these men and women are giving to this country. Particularly I should like to
The Address-Mr. Baskin speak of the Prime Minister who, I believe, has made his greatest contribution in the field to which I referred a little while ago, namely that of confidence in his fellow Canadians and in the future of this country.
On December 30 last he was interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor. I have the Christian Science Monitor and I wish to quote from it. When the Prime Minister was asked the question, what is Canada's most significant development today, he answered as follows:
Surely it is this dynamic new concept of Canadian-ism. It is a feeling of unity, and it is a sense of destiny, an awareness of what Canada can contribute in this churning world.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of positive, hopeful statement that the Prime Minister of Canada should be making to the world today. There is nothing boastful about this statement, nor is it one calculated to frighten other nations. Rather, I believe it is a statement made by a distinguished Canadian who, along with other members of his party, has an awareness of the important position his country must play as a bridge between nations.
In this respect I should like to refer to the commonwealth trade and economic conference held in Montreal last September. The scope of their deliberations was as broad as the diversity in interests of those who gathered around the conference table. Yet while the delegates at Montreal represented countries at every stage of economic development, every colour, culture and creed, they met not as strangers but as members of the same family. It is noteworthy that the theme of the conference was "an expanding commonwealth in an expanding world economy". The opposition may try as they will to downgrade the importance of this conference, but their criticism and their attitude are seen for their true worth when contrasted with the evaluation of the success of the conference made unanimously by the representatives of the commonwealth countries who participated. At the conclusion of the conference Right Hon. Derick Heathcoat Amory, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had this to say:
In the opinion of us all, I ana sure the results of our work here have amply justified the bold initiative of your Prime Minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, in proposing this conference a year ago. Looking ahead, it was hard to visualize that we would be able to cover so much ground and to reach so many decisions of great importance to our commonwealth aim of expansion and prosperity.
Before leaving this subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the role of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). The success of the commonwealth trade and economic conference was in no small measure due to the

The Address-Mr. Baskin outstanding leadership given the deliberations at Montreal by the Minister of Finance.
On Wednesday, January 21, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), when he rose to take part in this debate, referred to the period of our history between the years 1867 and 1896. He reminded us of the spirit of confidence and optimism demonstrated by that great Conservative, Sir John A. Macdonald, the man who brought forth confederation and who was instrumental in the building of the C.P.R. which linked all Canada together. It is my belief that our party has never lost that spirit. I also feel that this same spirit was prevalent in the house last week when the Minister of Transport announced that Canadian Pacific Air Lines had been given the right to operate a daily service from Montreal to Vancouver. This announcement means that not only is Canada linked from coast to coast by two major air lines but that the passengers will be able to fly across this country and to other cities of the world without changing aircraft. This action, is significant of our optimism for the future and a further development by the government of Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker.
The Leader of the Opposition, a few days ago, spoke in terms of "ruin, confusion and doubt". It seems to me that his words, if they reflected anything, reflected the temper of his own party. I am certain that the majority of the Canadian people would not agree with him. Most of them are too busy earning a living, educating their children and carrying out their responsibilities as citizens to take this kind of wishful pessimism seriously.
To me, the future of this country appears to be extremely bright. The population by 1970 is quite likely to be at least 30 million. This means work and prosperity. It seems to me that opposition members should stop reading in Hansard old speeches of the years 1931, 1932 and 1933 and then getting up and repeating them as they have done during this debate. In my opinion this country is headed for no depression. Rather, it is headed in the opposite direction. We are on our way up.
For too long now the opposition have shown enthusiasm for only one subject, namely unemployment. Actually, Mr. Speaker, from the way in which they dwell upon it you would think that they had invented it. As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we are doing our best to get rid of it. Whether hon. members opposite like it or not, they are going to have to find a new theme to replace unemployment, because once again Canada is marching forward 

steadily and assuredly. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the members of this government, placed here by the people of Canada, are finding an answer to the recession and to the problems bequeathed to them by those members who sit in gloomy judgment upon themselves across the way.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker,
may I first of all express my congratulations to you upon the high position you occupy in this house. Although I have just had the pleasure of meeting you for the first time this session, I know that you have those fine qualities of tact, diplomacy, patience and good humour which fit you so admirably for the position you now hold.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their very creditable launching of this debate. Their contribution is recognized and appreciated. I hope also that my three hon. friends who were introduced at the opening of this session will find their work as challenging, interesting and rewarding as I have.
Third, Mr. Speaker, may I express through you to the electors of Trinity my gratitude for the honour they have given me. I received support from men and women of every race, colour and creed, people of varied backgrounds who all believe in the British parliamentary system and who felt it was imperative at this time that the people of metropolitan Toronto have a voice in the opposition. I appreciate their confidence and I assure them that I will do my utmost to prove worthy of the trust that has been shown. I regret the circumstances which made the byelection necessary and wish to join those who have paid tribute to the late Mr. Lockyer. He was a fine gentleman who received a great mandate last March. I join in the expressions of sympathy to Mrs. Lockyer.
There are many serious and urgent problems facing us at this time. I feel a bit sorry for the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his government but actually most of the problems are of their own making. Now they must face the difficult task of finding solutions. Among the most pressing of the problems are unemployment, inflation and defence. I intend to leave my remarks on the subject of defence until another time and to consider today the joint problems of unemployment and inflation and later, as it relates to them, the matter of trade.
I must, of course, talk about unemployment. It is something that affects tens of thousands of my fellow Torontonians. I have had the experience of learning about this problem in

terms of people rather than in terms of statistics. On the subject of statistics, however, I know that quite a number of people seeking work in Toronto are not registered with the national employment service and consequently the figures we get do not include all the people seeking work. One family I visited, a family of five, had no income, no money, a very sick boy in bed, three prescriptions from the doctor and no money to fill the prescriptions. Another man and his wife were living in one room without food and without adequate fuel for their stove. There are many other cases of equal hardship, and one cannot possibly come in direct contact with people living in these conditions without rebelling against a situation which permits such a thing.
This is not an underdeveloped country without sufficient resources to supply the basic needs of our people. It is a land of riches and it is not right that we should have so much poverty and distress in the shadow of plenty. It is not necessary to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment problem is twice as grievous now as it was under the former administration. This has been said many times and will be repeated until corrective action becomes effective. Not only do we have more people unemployed and for longer periods of time but these same people are being penalized through inflation. The prices of the things they need to keep body and soul together are rising and getting even farther beyond their reach. Unemployment insurance and relief payments buy even less of the necessities of life and prove quite inadequate for sustained periods. It is not good enough to say that we had inflation under the previous administration. The inflation of the immediate post-war period and the Korean era were caused by trying to do too much in too short a time, by overtaxing the physical capacity of the Canadian economy. The inflation of today is of an entirely different sort. We now have unused resources and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. Inflation under these circumstances cannot be condoned. It is a disease, an insidious, cancerous growth which eats at the very foundation of our economic system. It must be stopped before confidence in our currency is destroyed.
We were told that the reconversion loan of last year was designed to help control inflation. Until that contention is proven some of us may be forgiven for the notion that is was more inflationary than otherwise. At least the cost of borrowing is up, municipal taxes are up, federal taxes will have to go up or deficits increase, and the cost of 66968-9-32
The Address-Mr. Hellyer doing business is up, all as a result of one financial adventure by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Rubbish.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will wait with interest to see if he is now able, as he categorically stated, to keep inflation in check.


Frank Charles McGee: How is the house building business?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Furthermore, the currency debasement which was necessary to finance the federal deficit did, is and will add greatly to the inflationary fires. In a year when the total output of physical goods and services did not increase we have had the greatest increase in the money supply in recent history. This is an old trick, practised by ancient kings. It is interesting to note that some of them subsequently had their heads rolled when the people became aware of their mischief.
But. say some people, there is no difference between the parties. What would the Liberals have done differently? The difference is that we would never have allowed this to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The best joke of the year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Conditions would never have been allowed to deteriorate to the extent that they have in the last 18 months. No Liberal government would ever have launched the great reconversion loan with its consequences for Canadians yet unborn. Nor, Mr. Speaker-


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


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -would we have had to increase the money supply by $1,750 million in the same 18 months to finance a huge deficit because we had adopted the attitude that we would only undertake such ordinary expenditures as we could afford to pay for. We know that the great expansion in government expenditures was not necessary. We have the word of a minister of the present government on that. As a matter of fact, he believed that they could have been cut. Listen to the hon. member of Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), as recorded on page 2464 of Hansard for March 19, 1957:
I am not going to weary you with a long dissertation on government spending. Everyone who is not a moron knows that it could be cut down. It is like the weather. Everybody talks about it but nobody does anything.
And, Mr. Speaker, under a Liberal administration the real output of the country would have continued to expand, albeit at a temporarily reduced rate, because we would

The Address-Mr. Hellyer have expanded trade rather than contracting it. The Liberals have been out of office and the situation has deteriorated. People will soon become tired of hearing why it has happened and will want to hear what should be done about it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Tell us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Be patient. The extent of the deterioration makes the problem all the more complex but none the less real.
The government has launched a program of public works as its solution. It is a well known fact that public works are no solution at all. The effect on employment is delayed and the number of persons employed is very small in relation to the vast expenditure. No, Mr. Speaker, public works, other than those of a self-liquidating nature which generate additional employment, are not an answer. The answer is trade, domestic and international. It is interesting to note the interrelation between domestic and international trade. When international trade declines, domestic activity seems to follow suit. Likewise when international trade increases, domestic output increases together with employment.
What has been the government's position on trade? The British made a proposal. It was an obvious attempt on the part of the British government to encourage trade and increase the volume of transactions between our two countries to the advantage of each. Was it given serious consideration? Apparently not. It seems to have been summarily dismissed by the Minister of Finance. Surely, we should give serious consideration to such a forward-looking and liberal proposal. If not, the British are likely to view with scepticism the pious pronouncements of the Prime Minister and his ministers during the election campaign.
According to the newspapers, the British West Indies Federation has suggested a customs union with Canada. Our products are complementary, and the immediate acceptance of their proposal would likely result in nothing but benefit to each. It is strange that there has not been a single word from the government on this proposal either.
In short, the government's reaction to trade has been the traditional Conservative one of running up trade barriers with the inevitable consequence of lower business activity and greater unemployment. In addition to urging the government to reconsider the British proposal and to consider seriously the one from the British West Indies, I wish to put forward a few broader suggestions about how it would be possible to increase international trade. I must make it clear that
(Mr. Hellyer.]
the proposals I intend to outline, although strictly liberal in nature, have not been considered by my colleagues and, consequently, are presented as my own views.
I am a convinced and unrepentant free trader. Oh, I fully appreciate the impossibility of achieving a world without tariff barriers overnight, but I believe it is a goal to be sought. The recent pronouncements of the soviet leaders that they intend to outstrip the west must be taken seriously. Undoubtedly in the world struggle in which we are engaged the soviet will bend every effort to equal and, if possible, to surpass us in the fields of military preparedness and domestic production and trade. Whether they are successful or not depends on ourselves. To keep our front, the western world must expand production and trade in each of its component parts. We must have something better than we now have. Surely a system which permits 10 per cent or more of the available labour force to sit in idleness needs to be streamlined. These conditions are not good enough to merit support at home or acceptance by the uncommitted nations abroad. We cannot casually accept the existence of poverty, misery and hardship in a society which claims to be affluent. One of the great mechanics available to us in the pursuit of expansion is increased trade.
The Liberal party should be complimented on its effort to expand trade since world war II. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has been a noble experiment and has undoubtedly encouraged a higher level of international trade than would have been possible without it. Canada has been a world leader in its efforts to make the agreement work and has always-at least until quite recently-tried to live up to the spirit and the letter of that agreement. The great weakness of GATT has been the fact that the intent and spirit could be frustrated and to a degree made ineffective by customs regulations and interpretation.
Let us consider, as an example, the trading relations between Canada and the United States. I have seldom heard a red-blooded Canadian manufacturer admit or infer that he could not meet United States competition on equal terms. All most manufacturers ask is the same access to United States markets that his United States competitor has to the Canadian market. Unfortunately for many products and industries such has not been the case. It has been because of this one-sided aspect of trade and the frustration of trying to do business with the United States within the terms of its customs regulations which have caused many people to appear to reject the principle of free trade and to fall back

upon the old cry for protectionism. This is a most unfortunate effect and tends to divert attention from the real principles involved.
On the subject of what trade really accomplishes, the Conservative and Liberal approaches are opposite. Let us consider for a moment the position of the people living on the Japanese islands. They have to trade to live. They literally cannot produce enough food domestically to keep themselves from starvation. They must exchange manufactured products for food. The moral answer to this problem is clear enough. If we believe in the brotherhood of man we must accept responsibility for our fellow mortals. We must not just allow, but actively help these people to earn a livelihood. Any other course would be inhuman and certainly unchristian. If we fail we drive them to the point of desperation where they have only two alternatives-starvation, or a war of aggression, or self-preservation, depending upon one's point of view.
The economic answer is not as clear, nor as universally agreed. The Conservative views the import of Japanese manufacturers as a direct threat. The goods imported and consumed in Canada cause the unemployment of those Canadians who would otherwise have produced an equal volume of the same merchandise. The Liberal does not look on the import as an isolated transaction. The Liberal knows that every dollar earned by the Japanese for their manufactures comes right back to Canada, most of it for wheat and barley. The farmer receiving the income from his grain decides to buy a new car or a new tractor. The automobile or implement manufacturer buys tires, accessories and other components for his product, and on it goes. Trade is a chain reaction. When trade is expanding, income and employment expand. When trade contracts, business slows down and bread lines grow.
I should not like to imply that there are not some specific industries that feel the pinch from specific imports. There are some, but actually, in most cases, it is not an entire industry but specific products of an industry which face stiff competition from abroad. The loudest objections come from industries where the management is inflexible and not aware of the possibility of new products and new markets.
Taking our great industrial complex as a whole, one concludes that it would benefit from expanded trade and this benefit would be reflected in higher profits and greater employment. How then can we achieve the goal of increased trade within our terms of reference, the real world in which we live? I think the present General Agreement on 66968-9-32J
The Address-Mr. Hellyer Tariffs and Trade which has served its purpose and been a useful experiment should not be renewed. Such a radical proposal could not be made, of course, without an alternative proposal which is more likely to accomplish the desired result.
I would beg to suggest, therefore, that instead of renewing the present agreement that a new one be negotiated along the following lines. Each signatory nation would agree to two schedules of tariffs, one for most favoured nations and one general list. The lower schedule for most favoured nations would then apply to imports from all signatory nations which had imported from the world on an average for the preceding three years an amount equal to 90 per cent or greater of its total exports, on current account, averaged over the same three years. Nonsignatory nations would be subject to the general list.
The effect of this mechanism would be to provide each nation with a real and tangible incentive to buy from the world approximately the same value of goods and services it hoped to sell to the world. It would also alleviate, if not eliminate, present problems related to the convertibility of currencies. Customs regulations and other devices would not be able to frustrate the workings of international trade because each nation would be able to freely choose whether it wished its exports to receive most favoured nation treatment or not, and there would be a natural and automatic corrective.
Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that some such arrangement could be agreed upon, and that it did encourage world trade on an unprecedented scale, we still have another grave and urgent problem which faces us. It is the disparity of living standards between the peoples of our several countries. Particularly the gap in standards between Canada and the United States on the one hand, and various countries of Africa and Asia on the other hand is most striking.
One does not need to be a historian to know that many wars have been caused by political decisions taken on the basis of economic facts. Without going into a dissertation on the relative merits of the ascetic as against the opulent or abundant life, it suffices to say that from the beginning of time there has been conflict between the "haves" and "have nots". Here again there is both a moral and a practical aspect. There is no question morally but that we should help the people of the less developed nations to bring their standard of life more closely in equilibrium with our own. From the practical aspect, we have to do it or as surely as night follows day someone will ultimately wrest from us
492	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Hellyer our apparent material advantage. As so often is the case, the moral solution and the one which might be described as enlightened self-interest are identical. How then can we accomplish this goal in an orderly and acceptable manner?
Trade, not aid, is the cry. How often have we heard these words hollowly sung. And yet that simple idea states briefly and accurately the only workable solution. The less developed countries do not want largesse. It is suspect. It is also humiliating and takes away their self-respect. Proof of this lies in the fact that after our most generous neighbours, the people of the United States, have given tens of billions in aid to countries all over the globe that they are not really liked, collectively, in most of these nations. Aid smacks too much of the rich aunt or uncle patronizingly doling out various amounts in accordance with the likeability of the nephew or the relative merit of the project.
Please do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. I do not mean that financial aid, technical assistance, etc., should be withdrawn. The point I am trying to make is simply that aid with or without strings attached is no solution. Trade, not aid, is the acceptable long term solution to equate the relative standards around the world. As I said earlier, it would be quite unrealistic and impractical for even the most fanatic free trader to suggest the removal of all trade barriers at this time. How then can we pay the idea more than lip service, without bringing about a chaotic result?
The answer, might be tied in directly with my earlier proposal for a new general agreement. Once the nations and peoples of the world accept the necessity of such a course of action, and are willing to go the second mile and make the proposal work, the action can be complementary and continuous.
I would suggest, therefore, that when the schedules of tariffs had been agreed upon by the signatory nations that they would then agree to reduce the most favoured nation schedule of tariffs by a minimum of one-fiftieth per annum and the general list by one-hundredth per annum. That means that at the end of 50 years all tariff barriers would be removed between trading nations. The general list reduced by half would still apply to nations which chose to restrict imports below the required level.
What a prospect, Mr. Speaker. The whole world as one market. The possibilities are staggering and unlimited. Only by some such positive approach can we hope to achieve a lasting peace in the world and good will between men; alleviate the unemployment at
IMr. Hellyer.]

home and raise the standard of life everywhere. The time has come when we must take our stand!
(Translation):


Gérard Bruchési: Mr. Speaker, it is not without some diffidence that the youngest member from Quebec is venturing upon his maiden speech in the House of Commons. To me, and to a great many of us, the first session was a period of adaptation after the result of the recent election.
Once we are more familiar with customs of parliamentary life, we find it easier to join the great family forming this house, and to bring our contribution, however small it might be.
It is with great pleasure that I associate myself with previous speakers in congratulating the members for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), for Springfield (Mr. Slogan), for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), for Trinity (Hon. Paul Hellyer), who, at the beginning of this new session, joined the parliamentary fraternity.
I congratulate the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet who, as mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, brilliantly outlined various problems, the one about our greatest national asset, agriculture, and the other on national unity, a purpose that all here should strive to achieve.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the constituency of Beau-harnois-Salaberry, which I have the honour to represent in this parliament. On March 31, 1958, the people in my constituency celebrated a fiftieth anniversary. It had been 50 years since a Conservative member had represented that constituency in the parliament of Canada. To find the last Conservative member, defeated in 1908, we have to go away back to the time of Mr. J. H. G. Bergeron, nicknamed the "Beauharnois boy", who might be remembered by several of the senior members of this house.
The constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry which extends from Chateauguay to the U.S. border, and through the cities of Beauharnois, Salaberry and Valleyfield, is comprised in a triangular area which, according to economists, is the Quebec area where the greatest development will occur in the next 20 years.
This year will be an historic one for Canada; it will mark the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, and the beginning of a new era. The constituency of Beauharnois-

Salaberry right by the new seaway, should be the scene of a new development in various industrial fields, since on both sides of the canal which crosses my constituency for a distance of about 15 miles, there are vast parcels of land that would be ideal locations for new industries. We must not forget that today Beauharnois is synonymous with hydroelectric power. In fact, within the next few months, that plant will be able to supply over
2.200.000	horse-power. This power is bound to attract many industrialists looking for suitable locations for new plants to supplement the many others already established in the constituency.
I think it would be advisable to consider expanding the port facilities at Beauharnois, so as to relieve the congestion at Montreal harbour and to reduce shipping costs of plants already located in the area, such as the Aluminum Company of Canada, the Electro Metallurgical Company and the Standard Chemical Company, all of which are expanding their plants this year, which shows their confidence in the Canadian economy.
The constituency of Beauharnois, like the others, is faced with many more or less serious problems.
All levels of government should, therefore, try to have answers ready for future problems.
In my constituency as elsewhere, there is unemployment although, incidentally, it is now 15 to 20 per cent less than it was last year. I think it is high time our friends opposite stopped juggling with the figures, for they are distorting the picture and destroying people's confidence.
One of the main problems facing the citizens of Salaberry-de-Valley field, the largest city in my constituency, has to do with textile products.
The plant operated by Montreal Cottons Limited, largest plant of its type in the area, also the oldest since it dates back to 1873, has run into many problems in the past few years.
About eight years ago, this firm had some
3.000	people on its pay roll; right now it has about half that number, or just above 1,500.
A couple of years ago the firm spent some $5 million on plant modernization and expansion, and to iron out difficulties it had been experiencing for some years.
The Address-Mr. Bruchesi
Surely this should set a fine example for Canadian manufacturers and show them that even in a recession they should not be afraid to invest more capital, not only to increase production but especially to improve the quality of their products.
We have become accustomed to seeing delegations come to Ottawa for assistance from the central government. Personally, I feel that the government should give consideration to those who are trying to help themselves. The present plight of the textile industry is part of the legacy left to us by the Liberal party, a legacy we could have well done without but which the Conservative party accepts, to prove to the growing Canadian nation that the Liberal party is unworthy of the overrated reputation it has claimed credit for over the past 22 years.
The textile industry is the economic foundation of many communities in Canada. It is a noteworthy fact that textile imports account for 55 per cent of our total consumption. If only from 65 to 70 per cent of textiles consumed in Canada were of domestic manufacture, that industry could provide jobs for the 2,500 people, more or less, who are looking for work in the district of Valleyfield, and who would be very delighted to be able to work and to live normally, as it is their right, and consequently, to contribute to the economic growth of this nation.
The amounts made available to builders, by the government, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, have enabled some 800 new families of the Chateau-guay area to move into a house of their own in 1958. Incidentally, this is hardly an indication of distress, as hon. members opposite would have us believe. Those developments are creating many problems in the various growing municipalities. It might therefore be advisable to renew the winter works offer, so that more municipalities can take advantage of this program next winter. This would also help in a tangible way to lessen the seasonal winter slump and consequently, to eliminate many of our governments' worries.
Being of the younger generation, and aware of the many problems facing the young people of Canada, I suggest that the government ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), to launch a campaign to advertise the benefits of greater specialization. A campaign such as I suggest would reduce the

The Address-Mr. G. R. Muir available labour force, would encourage more young men to learn a trade, would increase their productive capacity, would lower the production costs and, as a consequence, would enable manufacturers to get a larger share of world markets and to face the growing competition of many countries which, until now, had kept out of international trade.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has won the esteem of the people of Canada, will do much to help us realize our dearest ambition, the happiness of all Canadians.
(Text):


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, on rising to make my contribution to this debate I first want to express my personal pleasure at your still occupying the very important position to which you were elected in 1957. In that position you have gained the respect and high regard of all hon. members. The gentleman to whom I am referring is not in his accustomed place at the moment but I hope he will receive this message.
At the same time, I would like to tell the Deputy Speaker and the deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole house that these expressions apply to them as well. At this time I should like also to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As has been indicated by previous speakers, it is the general opinion of this house that these two gentlemen made an excellent contribution to this debate.
Although I have had the privilege of speaking in this house on other occasions, this is the first time the opportunity has presented itself for me to take part in the debate on the throne speech. As a member from Manitoba representing the federal riding of Lisgar, I consider it my duty to endeavour to interpret the views of those whom I represent, and to place those views on the records of this house. This is particularly important since it is a well known axiom that as Manitoba goes, so goes the nation. The truth of this statement was borne out, I think, in the last general election.
At the outset, however, I should like to tell hon. members, with some pardonable pride, something about the people and the economy of my riding, the fertility of its soil, the well kept farms and the progressive
[Mr. Bruchesi.l

towns and villages within the area whose names are widely known throughout this country. One of the reasons for this, of course, is that the blood lines of our people stretch into every ethnic group and into almost every locality. The area was settled by the people from the counties of Ontario and Quebec in the 1870's. They were joined by members of different ethnic groups who, at that time, were helping to colonize our nation. I think the population of this riding today represents a real cross-section of the Canadian people. These descendants of the French, English, German, Irish, Icelandic, Scots, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Dutch and Flemish settlers have learned to live and work together in a spirit of true Canadianism.
In my remarks about the riding, I should first mention that the eastern end of the riding is in the famous Red River valley, that flat, fertile bottom of a prehistoric lake called lake Agassiz. This particular area is one of the few remaining in Canada that has a soil and climate suitable for growing small fruits and vegetables, as well as various other crops, on a commercial basis. I would suggest that when the time has come when you have completely paved that fertile area in Ontario called the Niagara peninsula, you will have to depend on this particular area in Manitoba for your supply of fruits and vegetables. At the present time, the area is short of a water supply which would enable us to make full use of our potential production, and for processing and manufacturing purposes. I would commend to the government that serious consideration be given to joining with the government of Manitoba, under the terms of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, to provide the necessary funds for the construction of the capital works needed to provide water for the area.
The western end of the constituency encompasses one of the finest areas in western Canada for the production of livestock and grain, and is served by the excellent towns and villages located on the three provincial trunk highways running parallel throughout the length of the area. Within the constituency, stretching from the United States boundary north to the Assiniboine river, there has been developed a unique diversified type of agriculture. The production of alfalfa, registered seed, canning crops, poultry, livestock, and mink-ranching has helped stabilize the economy of the district. As a consequence related industries have also been developed. Canneries, creameries, hatcheries, plant nurseries, poultry and feed processing and seed cleaning plants are strategically placed amongst the progressive towns in the district.

We are fortunate also in having an outstanding experimental farm located near the town of Morden. This farm has helped immeasurably in the development of the area and has demonstrated the possibilities of varied production. With an assured water supply for our town and for agriculture this area could well become one of the most productive in the nation.
During this debate we have listened day after day to the purveyors of gloom on the other side of this house. I would suggest to those gentlemen that they should not confuse self-pity with concern for their fellow citizens. If they really want to be of service to the people of Canada, they should forget the last election and raise their eyes to the future. It has been said on many occasions by the leaders of both political parties that the last half of the twentieth century belongs to Canada. This, I believe, could come true, provided we grasp the opportunities afforded us in this bountiful land. However, the last half of the twentieth century is not going to be handed to us on a silver platter. In order to make sure it is going to be ours, we must do everything possible to earn it.
This fact imposes on us, as citizens and groups of citizens, certain obligations. We must be prepared to subvert selfish personal and regional interests to the national interest. The various groups within our economy, including labour and industry, must heed the advice of our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to hold the line on wages and profits in order that we do not price ourselves out of world markets and out of our home markets as well. There is also an obligation to produce at reasonable prices, to assist our primary producers who are doing their share to hold the price line in this country.
I was interested in hearing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) give figures in his recent address showing that the cost-price squeeze on agriculture had lessened by some nine percentage points in 1958. I hope this trend continues until our farmers are on an equal footing with the other segments of our economy. As a farmer, I am concerned about any reversal of this trend which would result in a further reduction of farm income with its consequent adverse effects on the whole economy.
As a representative of an agricultural constituency I find that our farmers are appreciative of the fact that we now have a government which recognizes that our producers have been faced with problems beyond their own control. This government, recognizing those problems, took certain steps to correct the situation. No responsible person
The Address-Mr. G. R. Muir would suggest that the solution of these problems is easy or that they will be solved immediately. However, the government has charted a program aimed at providing for agriculture an economic climate in which our farmers will be able to better their own positions. It is a continuing process this session. Amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act should assist our farmers to improve their operations. The crop insurance program, carried out in co-operation with interested provincial governments-and the government of Manitoba is one of those-will be a real help in stabilizing farm income.
I believe the majority of western farmers have accepted the principle of the acreage payment as made by the government last year as the most equitable basis upon which supplementary payments can be made, since it recognizes each farmer and his family as being of equal importance to the nation. It compensates the small farmer for his higher costs of production and recognizes the need of the farmer who, through no fault of his own, either harvested a small crop or no crop at all. As a further example of the determination of this government to protect our farmers, the Prime Minister has stated that the Crowsnest pass rates on grain are regarded as a farmer's Magna Carta and as such must not be changed.
It is actions such as this that reassure our farmers with respect to the agricultural policies of this government and give us hope that those policies will attain for agriculture that measure of security and stability for which they are intended.
The prairie region usually has its quota of seasonal unemployed, particularly at this time of year, but figures released on January 16 of this year indicate that in that region applications for employment are down from the figure of a year ago. In Winnipeg, the largest centre of employment in Manitoba, the situation is particularly encouraging, with employment applications down by over 2,600 from the figure for the same date last year.
The fact that the home owner applicant is now able to apply directly to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for his loan should further encourage the home building program. This applies particularly to the smaller centres. With further funds to be made available by parliament this session-it was announced this morning that it would be an extra $250 million-this should prove to be a decisive factor in the employment situation for 1959.
I have some interesting figures on the total money spent in Manitoba on housing under the national housing scheme last year. The total amount of money spent on direct
496	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Gour loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and guaranteed loans under the National Housing Act amounted to $38,023,449. The number of loans was 2,887 and the number of units constructed was 3,800, which would make a sizable city. There is every reason to believe that this high level of construction will continue this year in view of the encouragement being received from this government.
As a Manitoban I was pleased with the announcement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) that Winnipeg would be one of the stop-overs in the connecting link between the Atlantic and Pacific flights of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines. That city is destined to become a major airport in the future of air travel, lying as it does in the path of the transpolar flights. Anything that is done to speed that process is a source of satisfaction, of course, to all Manitoba members who have become more than ever convinced, as we face the future, that Manitoba is indeed the keystone province of our nation. If the axiom "as Manitoba goes, so goes the nation" applies economically as well as politically, the housing development and building program contemplated for that province this year, with its beneficial effect on its economy, should be reflected across this country; and we as Canadians can have every confidence in the continued development within our nation throughout 1959.
(Translation):


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure indeed that I second the non-confidence motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), in which he clearly states that he has no confidence in the present government; and he is right. Poor Conservatives! Many of them are nice chaps, but they cannot make a go of running the affairs of this country! The situation today is no different from what it was between 1911 and 1921, and between 1930 and 1935. It has happened again in 1957 and will last until the people vote against the government at the next election.
Many of the Conservatives are clever, but they have no management ability, although, as regards their personal affairs, they are pretty good. I know that some of them are millionaires-and it is always among the Conservatives that we find the millionaires- but when it comes to managing the country's business, it seems they just can't do it. They manage to enact legislation that favours the rich and, needless to say, such legislation is hardly ever of benefit to the poor. I was very much amused this morning, listening to


the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) making his little political speech. However, it does not befit the head of so important a department to waste the few moments it took him to blame the official opposition, because the opposition has been telling the government some home truths, it has proved that the present administration is no good, and has said that the way the country is being run now will lead to the same situation as we have known under the Conservative regime during the terrible and dark years of 1930-35, as I explained when I addressed the house last Monday.
The Minister of Transport is a nice chap, very personable, tall and handsome, and flashes a pleasant smile; but he spent part of his time running down the official opposition, saying time and again that we, the Liberals, lacked confidence in our country. Now this is quite false. Under the Liberal administration we have proven beyond any doubt that we had faith in Canada and we still have that faith to-day. Instead of this the minister should have told the house, and Canadians, what he has in mind to improve the management of this country. He merely ranted at the official opposition, going over what the Liberals had done. And yet, we are telling our friends on the other side what they should be doing for the proper management of this country's affairs and keep it away from bankruptcy.
They have no right to tell us, Liberals, that we have no faith in our country. Instead of this they should change their behaviour here in the house. I don't mean they are doing it on purpose, but it seems to have grown into a habit with them, and they don't realize they are doing it.
We have faith in Canada. We have faith in the ability of all Canadians and in the future of Canada. This is something we have repeated time and time again and no one should be accusing us of the contrary. Canadians are not the only ones to have faith in their country; all nations in the world have faith in it too, and besides they had faith in the Liberal party and that is why thousands of individuals from every part of the world would have liked to emigrate to Canada. What is true, however, is that the people have no faith in the present government. Why? Because they remember what happened in the thirties. Besides at the time the Liberals were in office, thousands of people would have emigrated to Canada and settled here, if we had been able to let them in. But today these people no longer want to come because they have no confidence in the present government. We have proof of

this in the last two by-elections which took place in the riding of Trinity (Ontario) and in Springfield (Manitoba) where the Conservatives were reported to have done all they could to win those seats. They spared no effort to get those two seats; and yet, they were defeated in Trinity, and, had it not been for bad weather, even though they fought like mad, they would also have taken a licking in Springfield.


An hon. Member:: That is not the way it turned out in Montmagny-L'Islet.


Joseph-Omer Gour: You will see that next time it will be the same in Montmagny-L'Islet.
No, if we lack faith it is not a lack of faith in Canada, even though the minister kept repeating this throughout his speech, but a lack of faith or confidence in the Conservative government and in the way it is being managed.
Oh, you will say: "The people voted for us." Yes, they did for a time, because they accepted your promises, and I don't blame them. They thought you were sincere. But they have had their lesson and they realized what could happen. There are people in my constituency who shed tears every day because they believed in your promises. But make no mistake, the great majority of people in Canada are keenly disappointed, as evidenced by what I have just said. No, Mr. Speaker, no one will give credit to the statements of the Minister of Transport who, as I just pointed out, looks bright, seems fully qualified for the position he holds, but is, after all, only a plain small politician.
What the people of Canada want to know from the ministers and from the Conservative government, is what they intend to do to bring an end to unemployment, inflation and the present economic recession. That is what the people of Canada want to know from this government. Government members have been asking us to tell them how to run the country and when we do tell them how to go about it, they shoot back that we do nothing but criticize. After all, what else can we do but criticize them, and give them advice; we are not the ones who are running the country; if we were we would be running it the right way. Right now the Conservatives are entrusted with the affairs of Canada and it is not up to us to suggest this or that legislation, and every time there is a vote, they are extremely submissive. In fact, they listen to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) even more than a two-year old baby would listen to his mother. And because they are such obedient followers of the ministers, whenever there is a vote, we know ahead of time that we are defeated.
The Address-Mr. Gour
I shall be glad when the parliamentary secretaries are finally appointed, because then many Conservative members will be in a better position to quit their party when they realize that they were not among the elect. Then they will say: "I think I had better move in with the Grits and vote against the Tories", and by that time they will have good reasons to have confidence in the prosperity of their country.
As I said last Monday, under the Conservatives, from 1930 to 1935, the government was paying workers at Rockcliffe airport 2 cents an hour. As soon as the Liberals came back into power in 1935, wages immediately went up to 45 cents an hour, and these men were putting in an eight hour day. When we got out of office in 1957, tradesmen's wages in Canada averaged $1.25 to $3.00 an hour. That is what workers were being paid, according to the trade they practiced. We had brought back prosperity to the country. Yet, we had taken over a bankrupt government, and the war, which started in 1939, entailed tremendous expenditures. Our war effort which lasted almost 6 years, compared favourably with that of any other country which we went over to defend. In fact, if the population of Canada is compared with that of those other countries, it will be seen that we took better care of our servicemen than did any of those countries, and that better than any of them we helped our veterans and not only those of World War II but those of World War I, for the latter had a raw deal at the hands of the Conservative government, which had given them nothing on their return. In fact, with what they were getting, they had barely enough to buy a suit of clothes which at the time cost $75. Having only $10 left the returned men could not buy themselves shoes, socks or gloves. And that was all they got.
Furthermore, we helped them settle on farms and find jobs in industry. We also paid part of the tuition fees of those who sought higher education or wanted to take up a profession. We also helped those who wished to build themselves a house or start a small business, even a printing shop.
All this was making the country prosperous. Nearly all Canadian veterans were able to get jobs to provide their families with a decent living. In fact, between 1945 and 1957, there was prosperity in Canada such as no other country has ever enjoyed, a degree of prosperity unprecedented in the history of this country. And yet our hon. friends opposite dare ask: "What did you do in the 22 years you were in power?" My answer to this is: the Liberal party did

The Address-Mr. Gour so much for Canada that if a person went out to certain parts of the country which he had not visited for 5, 10 or 15 years, he would hardly know how to find his way in any village or small town and, of course, still less so in the larger cities. He would not be able to find his way, because of the changes wrought from one end of the country to the other.
The Liberal party can claim credit for the construction of over a million homes, and for the establishment of thousands of plants throughout the country. It looked after the development of our national resources, and provided Canadian citizens with the opportunity of proving their ability. Citizens rose to the challenge and made of Canada one of the most prosperous countries in the world, considering its limited population.
We started building the trans-Canada highway so that Canadians could travel from one end to the other of this beautiful country. We Liberals also drew up the plans of the St. Lawrence seaway, and almost completed this project to improve shipping conditions. We also built the pipeline which now enables us to carry to all other provinces, oil buried in the soil of Alberta, thereby providing jobs for thousands of Canadians.
We made huge sums available for the building of hospitals and universities. We introduced social legislation such as family allowances, veterans' assistance, old age assistance and unemployment insurance. We can also claim credit for drawing up all plans regarding health insurance.
Furthermore, we appointed a Canadian as Governor General. We abolished appeals to the privy council, making our supreme court the highest court in the country.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, we built a very substantial part of the trans-Canada highway, but we did not stop there. We introduced television and contributed to the progress of the National Research Council. We set up the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which, according to claims of our friends opposite, was set up only recently. Furthermore, we established fourteen crown companies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party's achievements are so numerous that I shall not take up more of the time of the house in enumerating them.
Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago that the Liberal party had appointed a Canadian to the high position of Governor General. I take this opportunity of suggesting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)-I see
that he has just gone out, but I am making the suggestion just the same-that it would be fitting, when the time comes to appoint a successor to the Governor General, when his term of office has expired, to follow a tradition that has been established in the House of Commons and in the Senate with regard to the choice of the Speaker, that is, that a French-speaking representative replaces an English-speaking representative and vice versa.
I hope that the new Governor General will again be a Canadian, for there are many Canadians who could very creditably fill this position. I do not see why one should oppose the selection of qualified men just because in the past they may have participated in the nation's political life. In support of my suggestion, I could mention the case of our judges who are always appointed by the party in power. Whether they have been in politics in the past or not, whether they are appointed by the provinces or by the federal government, these people cease to be in politics as soon as they are appointed, and I do not think I am mistaken in saying that we have the reputation of having judges who are as competent and, if I may say so, even much more competent, than those of any other country. We know that judges are very often selected among men of a recognized standing and who have played an active role in the political life of our country. Therefore, I do not see why our Governor General could not be a Canadian citizen; I would even prefer that he be selected among the Conservatives, if necessary, rather than have a representative from abroad.


Azellus Denis: I don't know about that!


Joseph-Omer Gour: We established markets in nearly all countries of the world, except those behind the iron curtain, and even there we brought certain business transactions to a successful conclusion. We provided Canadians with the opportunity of participating in the development of Canada, and to the citizens of other countries of coming here to help us promote the development of our natural resources. We also recognized that, because of their talents, their money and their intelligence, those new Canadians would become good citizens, for the greater benefit of our country.
And you Conservative members, what have you done? In the space of 19 months you would have wrecked the financial stability of the country had it not been for the social legislation introduced by the Liberal party-legislation including family allowances, veterans' assistance and old age security-the present economic depression would be even more terrible than that of the thirties.

And when we confront you with those facts, you want us to tell you what should be done. Small wonder you are unable to manage the country. We will tell you what to do, and if you can't bring yourselves to listen to us, in two or three years you will be back where you were in 1935.


An hon. Member:: You are going to get out.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Several Liberal members have made suggestions; now it is my turn.
Cut out the petty politics as you have been doing since 1957-


An hon. Member:: Yours is high politics!


Joseph-Omer Gour: -and try to give us practical government.
The winter works program you submitted to the provinces and to the municipalities should have included certain subsidies on building materials. Moreover, it should have come forward in August, not at the end of October. You should have called a conference of the provinces and the municipalities no later than June, July or August, and should have decided then and there what you had to offer. You should have guaranteed financial assistance to municipalities at an interest rate no higher than 5 per cent.
It is not the Mont Tremblant conference, after which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) did indeed tremble for a month-


An hon. Member:: Very funny!


Joseph-Omer Gour: According to radio, television and newspaper reports, the minister shook for five weeks. Calling such conferences, or travelling all over the world, is no way to solve the unemployment situation. I have nothing against the trips you made, in so far as you were looking after the interests of Canada first. We have offered to help in the development of other countries; that is fine, I go along with that. However, the first thing is to develop Canada, in order to give some encouragement to the new Canadians, so that they will become good citizens in the future.
Since you are asking for suggestions, I shall give you a few. Why not immediately call a conference with the provinces and the municipalities?


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


Joseph-Omer Gour: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will kindly let me finish my speech, he will have ample time for his question.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, since the
hon. member has reached the stage of sug-
The Address-Mr. Gour gestions, why does he not suggest that the Conservative government start paying old age pensions by age 35?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Would you be in favour of that?


Joseph-Omer Gour: 
An hon. Member:: Surely, you are not going to claim credit for all that!


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It was the Liberal party's doing.


Joseph-Omer Gour: It was certainly not the Conservative party's. Therefore the population of my constituency increased by 68,000, which means that since my friend's awakening, some 25,000 homes have been built in Russell constituency. Before my hon. friend's awakening, over 1 million new homes were built in Canada. He didn't know that, so I am telling him. And, at the time, it was much more difficult to build houses. When my good friend was sitting on this side of the house, he used to say: "Shortage of manpower"; you can't get either materials or labour. True, building materials were hard to get. And there was no unemployment. Today, 750,000 unemployed are looking for work and you can get all the materials you need, one hour after placing the order.
You should be in a position to build this year at least 200,000 new houses. The population of Canada is increasing at the rate of
400,000	each year. All you have to do is to get ready accordingly, and figure on the basis of three people per house. Therefore we will need over 135,000 to 140,000 houses a year. Besides there are many old houses that need to be repaired. With all this unemployment, and because of your lack of ability, the least you can do is to build houses.
You should build 200,000 houses this year. It is better to build houses, to do something worthwhile that will be an asset to the country. And it would be much more useful than to pay some $500,000,000 in unemployment insurance benefits, because it is better to give workers wages than to pay them $25 or $30 a week for doing nothing. If you pay them $50-$100 a week in wages for work done, at least we will have something left of this.
I want to make a suggestion that would promote construction. Indeed, many of you will say that it is incorrect, but I suggest that the interest rate on housing loans should not exceed 5 per cent.
Furthermore, the sale of building lots should be supervised. There is too much unfair advantage taken of the people in the


sale of land. The government should intervene. There is no reason why building lots should sell for $4,000, $5,000 and even $6,000. In fact, a man has to pay $25 a month for 25 years to pay principal and interest on the lot. The government, with the co-operation of the provinces, should contribute to the cost of sewer and water systems in new districts. This would reduce the cost of housing and would further encourage Canadians to become house owners.
Mr. Speaker, our good friends opposite should manage the business of the country in the proper way. At the time of the Liberals, we used to sell aircraft to our good neighbours, and to other countries. According to newspaper reports, the government is disorganizing our aircraft factories. Yet this industry is very important for the defence of our country and for our civil aviation.
Our engineers and specialists are going to the United States. Consequently, our workers stay here without work.
During the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, it was said that we were buying too much from our good friends to the south, that we should divert 15 per cent of our purchases to commonwealth countries. Naturally, this was intended to win the election. But today, when we are buying Bomarcs, aircraft, etc., from the United States, we are making Canada dependent on the United States for our defence.
That is the way the Conservatives understand politics. The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the good job that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has done for the country. I didn't say that you are all bad boys, because many of you are good boys; the only trouble with you is that you are Conservatives, and that, as such, you do not know how to run the country.
I think I know my way in the field of agriculture. The market price of butter was 64 cents; you lowered it to 63 cents. Powdered milk was 17 cents, I believe, and you cut down the price by 3 cents, so that it would not look too bad. But things are bad, and could be even worse. Do you know why they are not worse? It is no fault of yours, nor is it the Liberals' fault! It is because the Americans are buying our cattle. However, I want to tell you now that if the Americans are buying our cattle, it is because of an agreement entered into by the Liberals with the U.S.A. If Americans should stop buying our cattle, I do not think that the Conservative government could come to a new agreement with them. Therefore, don't try to make us believe that you have done something about that.


I recognize, however, that you have provided a substantial aid to western farmers; it is an average of $200 for each farmer, whether or not he was a millionaire. But that is not the way to run this country!
Mr. Speaker, my remarks are sincere and I hope that they will be received as constructive criticism, for the welfare of Canada. I cannot get used to the idea that after four years of bad Conservative administration, and in spite of my age, I will not see another era of prosperity.


Louis Fortin: You will not see it.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I hope that I will never see the time when we will have to be content with only one meal a day.
I repeat that there are some very good boys among the Conservatives. The minister says that the advice that we give them is bad advice and that, in fact, it amounts only to criticism of the Conservatives. You certainly know that things are not going well in your family; you could not make me believe the contrary. If ever you have to go to hospital, you will be glad to accept our advice and to follow it. We can give you some and we will continue to do so as long as we have a chance to do it.
(Text):


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my first wish as I rise to take part in this debate is to join with the hon. members of this house who have preceded me in offering congratulations to the mover, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), and the seconder, the hon. member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the member for Montmagny-L'Islet because when he spoke on national unity it made me as an English speaking member appreciate the tremendous opportunity we have to widen our horizons as a result of the new simultaneous translation system. I would also suggest that we owe a debt of gratitude to the government for having made possible the installation of this system because without it some hon. members would have been unable to fully appreciate the profound and soulsearching remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet made a speech in this house, which I think was a tremendous contribution to this debate,
The Address-Mr. McGrath when he spoke on a subject which we in eastern Canada-and I mean eastern Canada-are so deeply interested in, namely national unity. I would compliment the hon. member, but at the same time ask him and other hon. members to bear in mind, in developing this theme of national unity, that we in Canada should develop a national unity without uniformity. Canada is developing into a great nation comprised of many races, people of many ethnic origins, and to my mind each has something to contribute more fully to a greater Canada by retaining those traditions, those colourful traditions of his national origin, traditions, which I suggest are contributing to make a new and more distinctive kind of Canadian.
This year will mark the tenth anniversary of the entry of my province into this family of Canadian provinces. I like to think- and perhaps this thought is shared by other hon. members-that perhaps one of the greatest contributions my province made to the Canadian family was to contribute to the Canadian scene a culture and a tradition which are rooted in folklore, a folklore in the traditions of Devon, of the west country, of Scotland and of Ireland, folklore and traditions which have been carefully retained and protected down through the years.
As a member from the most easterly constituency in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I was interested to notice in the speech from the throne a reference to freight rates. The quotation reads:
My ministers will recommend to you action to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the recent horizontal increase in freight rates.
I cannot tell you how keenly we look forward to this measure being introduced because we are at the extreme eastern end of the line. We are at the mercy of the railways and the future of what secondary industry we have in my city and my constituency solely depends on such a measure.
While on the subject of transportation, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record a statement of the president of the Canadian National Railways, which he made in Halifax on November 20 or 21, 1958. It is taken from the St. John's News and is a Canadian Press dispatch. Mr. Gordon said:
Sensational reports about the Canadian National Railways ferry, William Carson, having trouble docking at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, are doing a disservice to the maritimes and alarming the tourist trade.

The Address-Mr. McGrath
The statement goes on:
I am surprised that the newspapers of this area make so much of the fact that wind blows in this part of the world and interferes with shipping.
In addition to that statement for the record, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give you briefly the record of the service of the William Carson and which I might add bears the name of a distinguished Newfoundlander, Dr. William Carson, who carried on the fight for responsible government in Newfoundland more than a hundred years ago. The figures that I have cover the period from October 6, 1958 to December 31, 1958. During 13 trips of the William Carson, which is our main link with the Canadian mainland, from North Sydney to Port aux Basques this ship which has been surrounded with so much misfortune was delayed for a total period of 237 hours and 20 minutes; 237 hours and 20 minutes lost in 13 trips. I have more comprehensive figures, but I will not detain the house with them at this time. However, I do propose to go into this more fully during the discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees). The point I would like to make is this:	I respectfully suggest that the Department of Transport take steps to place the William Carson in a service where she can do the most good. The Newfoundland board of trade has offered the suggestion that the William Carson should operate from North Sydney to Argentia, of which I am sure the minister is most familiar. I would like to state for the record that I feel such a service is the only justification we have for, and it is the only way that we can fully take advantage of such a modern and beautiful ship.
Not only that but I would like to bring home the fact that in my province, with which I realize perhaps most Canadians are not too familiar, we are two separate regions. We have no transinsular highway; hence we have only the Canadian National Railways which operate a single narrow gauge antiquated railway which was taken over from the Newfoundland government in 1949. Consequently the people of the west coast of Newfoundland and of the east coast have little or no communication with each other. It is with this point in mind that I would support the claims of the Newfoundland board of trade and respectfully suggest that the passenger ferry, William Carson, which carries the name of such a noted Newfound-

lander, in this tenth year of confederation be used to link the vast population of this country who are living on the east coast of Newfoundland with the mainland.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
James Aloysius McGrath: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was making reference to the record of the Canadian National Railways' ferry William Carson, which operates from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, the western terminus of the Newfoundland service of Canadian National Railways. Time will not permit me to delve further into this contentious subject. For the time being, I shall let the record speak for itself.
During this debate we have heard continuous remarks from hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that this government has done nothing to relieve the unemployment situation in Canada. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite must have read and listened to the speech from the throne, as I have. I noticed several references in there. For example, there is a suggestion of the introduction of a measure to increase the funds under the National Housing Act from the consolidated revenue fund, boosting that fund to a billion dollars. Surely, this will have the effect of stimulating house construction in Canada, and it will have the related effect of providing jobs for Canadians from coast to coast. I do not believe it is necessary to go into the chain reaction that results from the building of a home.
There is a suggestion also in the speech from the throne concerning an increase in the total funds that may be expended under the Trans-Canada Highway Act. There is a reference to certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In my own province of Newfoundland, the government has embarked on a program to relieve distress in the fisheries of Newfoundland by means of a program for the building of community stages. This initial program will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500,000 and there is some suggestion that the program will be carried out during the coming year. For the benefit of hon. gentlemen who perhaps do not know what a

community stage is, I would say that a community stage may be described as a central fish landing and processing building where the fishermen can prepare their fish for salting; salt, store and process the article under efficient, sanitary conditions. The stages will be managed and operated by a local authority or a fisherman's co-operative. The fishermen may continue to operate as individuals or pool their operations, as I mentioned, in a community enterprise.
This program is a joint undertaking by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean). I would suggest it is a step in the right direction. It is, perhaps, somewhat unfortunate that that program is not on schedule because of the severe winter conditions being experienced in my province of Newfoundland. The program will have the effect of providing direct employment for the hard-pressed fishermen of my province, another step in the right direction towards relieving the unemployment problem.
I would suggest that hon. gentlemen opposite should be constructive in their criticism instead of trying to propagate their fallacious doctrine of gloom and doom. In the limited time at any disposal, I should like to close by commenting on a suggestion which is, to me as a young Canadian an exciting one, and which will have an appeal, I feel, to all Canadians. This is a project national in scope and national in its significance.
I am sure all hon. members of this house have heard references to the establishment of a free port or a transshipment port on Canada's eastern seaboard, or more specifically on the island of Newfoundland. Such a port, located on our east coast would, in effect, receive the grain from the port of Churchill on Hudson bay and from the lakehead down to the St. Lawrence seaway, and there await transshipment in the grain elevators of this port to the markets of the world. This would, of necessity, have to be a deep water harbour, an ice-free harbour; it would, of necessity, have to be strategically located near what is known as the great circle shipping routes. In other words, it would have to be accessible to the trade routes of the world. We have two such harbours in the province of Newfoundland and, I might add, they are both located in the constituency of my friend the hon.
The Address-Mr. McGrath member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter). One is a great natural fiord on the southeast coast of Newfoundland called Head Bay d'Espoir. The other one, which is most often mentioned, is a beautiful natural inlet, the water-way of Mortier bay on the Burin peninsula.
In order to give you an idea of the strategic location of this great natural harbour I am sure you will be interested to learn that it is 700 miles closer to Gibraltar than is the port of New York. It is closer to the main ports of South America, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires, than any single port in North America. These are interesting statistics. Furthermore, all the important trade routes originating from the English channel and the main industrial ports of Europe and which terminate in the western hemisphere pass within less than 100 miles of this great natural harbour on the east coast of Newfoundland. Such a transshipment port would be of immense value to the grain growers of Canada for it would result in reduced transportation costs. The advantages of such a development to my province cannot really be over-emphasized at this time. It would, in effect, mean the creation of a virtually new industry, a thriving industry, which would have a great effect on the economy of the Atlantic provinces.
There is now being shipped from the port of Churchill on Hudson bay something like 16 million bushels of wheat each year in a relatively short shipping season. The transportation of this grain requires somewhere in the vicinity of 50 ships. However, this is a somewhat costly means of transportation because these bottoms must arrive at the port of Churchill empty, with the resultant high cost of transportation. However, in spite of this fact, the use of this route results in substantial savings per bushel on the grain. If such a transshipment port were to be established, and if grain elevators were to be built on Canada's eastern seaboard, it is suggested that it would be possible to make a saving of four cents per bushel. I understand this would be a substantial saving indeed. This project can be projected as the ultimate expansion or the ultimate completion of the St. Lawrence seaway because in reality they virtually complement each other. Reference has been made to such a port by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo on another occasion and I would presume that it would receive the full support of the hon. gentleman.

The Address-Mr. Garland
The shores of Mortier bay, as most hon. gentlemen from my province will readily tell you, lend themselves by virtue of their terrain to the building of wharves, shipping docks, grain elevators, immense warehouses, factories and even a great new city. This might sound like an ambitious scheme, but all great schemes are founded on ambition. As I stated before, the economic advantages of such a national development to the economy of the Atlantic provinces and of Canada as a whole cannot at this time be fully appreciated. I would urge the members of the government and all hon. members of this house to acquaint themselves fully with the advantages, the possibilities and the potential of such a great national development.
May I close on the theme with which I started. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin) eloquently expressed his theme of national unity. I would suggest that this would be a step in the direction of that greater national unity because it would have the effect of making the eastern seaboard, the Atlantic region of Canada, a more integral part of the economy of this nation. I feel it will warrant the serious consideration of this government, a government that has done more to develop this theme of national unity than has any other government since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As usual, this task was carried out in a most commendable manner, bringing credit to both the mover and the seconder and to the ridings which they represent.
I should like to explain, Mr. Speaker, that I had not intended taking part in this throne speech debate because it semed to me that our leader made a brilliant, comprehensive review of the present situation, pointing out the many shortcomings of the government especially in respect of the lack of a clear-cut government policy. However, the contributions of the cabinet ministers in this debate have been so partisan and so void of policy that perhaps a word is necesary to remind them again that they are no longer in the opposition but that, as members of the government, they are expected to be providing leadership. Instead, they seem to be following a policy of opposition to the opposition.

The best example to illustrate my point was the political speech made in this debate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) who devoted one part of his remarks to apologizing for his somewhat less than brilliant showing on "Press Conference" and the balance of his speech to criticism and belittling of Liberals, past and present. It was hardly the kind of speech expected in these critical times from one aspiring to be Minister of Trade and Commerce and hardly the kind of speech that would inspire much confidence throughout this country. I would ask businessmen looking for economic guidance with respect to the future to read that speech and judge for themselves.
This morning we had another rather strange utterance, this time from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who should be in possession of the facts and who was again attacking the opposition concerning the use of statistics. I should like to refer to some figures the minister used. Pie made the extraordinary statement this morning that the Canadian merchant marine at the end of world war II consisted of 500 ocean-going ships. I am not going to pursue this point and I want to be fair to the minister. I know that he realizes that the statement he made was a grossly exaggerated one. The figure was not 500 but, to the best of my knowledge, was 173, practically all of which were built during the war for wartime use and were disposed of after the war.
Mr. Speaker, we have been listening for nearly ten days for something constructive from the government but what have we heard? We have heard from the government only criticism and further attempts to belittle our leader and to drag him down from the high place he so rightly occupies in the minds of people at home and abroad. Then there is this further and unfounded accusation by the government that we lack confidence in the economy. The only thing in this regard that the Liberal opposition lacks confidence in is the ability of the government to do its job. After all, it has been Liberal administrations that helped create the kind of economic climates in which Canada made its greatest progress over the years.
Then there is this further untrue accusation by the Conservatives, and they do it at every opportunity, that the Liberals did nothing for the commonwealth. This afternoon the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. JANUARY 29, 1959
Walker) read and referred to some newspaper clippings having to do with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker's) recent commonwealth tour. But he apparently did not go far enough with his reading of those press clippings or he would have found some others. This came out at the time our present Prime Minister was visiting India; the story came out at that time, I believe. At the commonwealth conference of prime ministers in 1949 a Canadian formula was put forward by the Canadian government which made it possible for India to remain as a republic within the commonwealth.
Rarely, except in wartime, I suggest, has Canada's parliament met in a more difficult period. As has been pointed out, the two most difficult and most urgent problems are unemployment and inflation or, if you prefer, jobs and rising prices. However, there are many other serious problems confronting the Conservative administration as this new session gets under way. Canadians are facing the prospect of a billion dollar deficit as compared with regular reductions in our national debt from surpluses under Liberal administration. After many years of steady growth under Liberal administration, Canadians are witnessing our second year of slowdown in our national production. Indecision and uncertainty are dimming the 1959 prospects for the Canadian oil and natural gas industry. Canadians are concerned about the muddle in our defence policies and the lack of decision about building the Arrow fighter plane. Canadians are also concerned about our role in continental defence. I do not think anyone but the most partisan Tory would argue that Canada's role in international affairs has taken on added vigour under Conservative administration. I think it is fair to say that Canada's influence at the United Nations and at NATO has not been increased under the present government. Shrinking immigration with 125,000 immigrants last year as compared with 282,000 in 1957, with our economy under Conservative administration unable apparently to absorb more, according to government spokesmen, is a matter of real concern.
Another serious problem is the apparent lack of confidence resulting in the weakening of prices of Canadian bonds. This poses another real problem in the government's future financing.
Some of us have wondered why, in view of the importance of Canada-United States re-
The Address-Mr. Garland lations, the important position of ambassador to the United States was left unfilled for such a long period. However, we are all pleased to see that the matter has been corrected and we would hope not at the expense of the civil service commission.
In view of the ministers' partisan speeches I am tempted to bring up several shortcomings of the present government but I realize I must be careful lest we be named as one of Khrushchev's helpers. This seems to be the attitude of the present government toward any criticism. I suppose the pattern for this was set on the opening day of the debate by the Prime Minister in replying to my leader and is understandably repeated by aspiring government supporters. It seems rather strange that this new government, in power for such a relatively short time and so flush with criticism when in opposition, should be so sensitive about any criticism of their lack of policy.
Having due regard for the many factors contributing to our economic slow-down, I believe that a major factor was the shock of realizing on June 11, 1957 that Canada had lost its experienced government. This lack of confidence that became apparent so soon was not because it was a Conservative government but rather because it was an inexperienced government. Never since June, 1957 has it been so apparent that this new, inexperienced government is incapable of dealing with the problems of the day. I believe this lack of confidence has contributed substantially to the decline in capital investment by business, which has been one of the major contributing factors in our economic slowdown. This lack of confidence in the government is, I believe, more than justified. When we look around us today and see the mounting list of problems piling up over the last 18 months, it is little wonder that businessmen, both at home and abroad, are temporarily at least delaying many of their expansion plans and taking a second look.
What a difference a year makes! What a difference between Canada under Liberal administration in 1956 and under Conservative administration in 1958. During the 10 years previous to the Conservatives coming into office the Liberal administration was able to reduce taxes by substantial amounts every year except in the year of the Korean incident. In addition to these substantial tax reductions, the Liberal administration was able to effect substantial reductions in our national debt. These reductions in our national debt during the last 10 years have

The Address-Mr. Garland been wiped out in the last 18 months by Conservative patchwork policies.
Yes, indeed, what a difference a year makes! Canadians were shocked to find that between Harris in 1957 and Fleming in 1958 there was a difference of $1,200 million. That is what it cost the Canadian people to change their administration from Liberal to Conservative. This new Conservative government may well go down in history as the most expensive luxury Canadians ever had. It is little wonder that investors are concerned about the new government.
I should like to say a word about the problem of steadily rising unemployment. The only words of encouragement that the government seems to have offered over the past few months are utterances from time to time that the unemployment situation is worsening at a slower rate than before. This is not much comfort to the person who is without a job. The most recent figures show that one worker in every fifteen is without work, with every indication that the situation will be worse. I say it is a disgrace that in this young, vigorous and rich country we must accept the proposition from our government that two millions of our men, women and children must suffer as a result of unemployment this winter. The average Canadian is understandably shocked by the situation. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions have been poured into our economy, with a maximum of publicity by the government, we find more people seeking jobs since the Conservatives took over than at any time since the depression of the thirties when they were last in office.
The government cannot shirk its responsibility. Surely the government's failure to deal adequately with unemployment is well recognized. Even today they apparently are not ready with any legislation to ease unemployment this winter or they would have taken advantage of our proposal to terminate the throne speech debate. Surely it is the responsibility of the federal government to maintain a high level of employment. Surely they must now realize that relief measures, though helpful, are not a cure for unemployment.
In addition, we have the Prime Minister's own words that no person would be permitted to suffer from unemployment. Despite the fact that the number of unemployed is steadily rising, the government is almost daily taking credit for relieving the situation. They take special credit for their winter works program which provides for paying 50 per cent of the labour costs on projects that would not normally have been undertaken this winter. On the surface this looks like a sound proposal.


However, its soundness will be established only if it proves to be effective. To date, in the municipalities I have checked personally, I find it has been of little or no value.
After all, the labour costs on many municipal projects represent only a small portion of the over-all costs. This means that the municipalities in most cases, in order to take advantage of this offer, would have to assume substantial financial obligations to cover these capital outlays. These additional financial obligations have been made more costly by the government's actions in raising interest rates. The government's ill-fated conversion scheme, referred to by some as "Fleming's folly", which had the effect of increasing interest rates by 50 per cent on a substantial portion of government borrowing, has naturally had the effect of making provincial and municipal borrowing more expensive. In this field of government endeavour alone I think the government should be severely criticized. By increasing the cost of borrowing at the provincial and municipal levels the federal government has retarded, rather than encouraged, badly needed projects, projects that would have yielded much needed jobs not only on the projects themselves but in the production and transportation of the materials used.
As I indicated at the beginning, I do not intend to belabour the shortcomings of the government. These are well known. I simply wish to point out in a friendly way that the brave new world promised by the Conservatives prior to June, 1957 has failed to materialize.
It would seem that Conservative government policy falls into two broad categories: first, an attempt to outbid the Liberals with the people's own money and, second, that political expediency replace prudent planning. How often do we hear the expression that members of the government are acting like kids in toyland for the first time, trying out all the gadgets and free rides. I suggest that their journey into fairyland is over. Canadians expect them to stop acting and to settle down and grapple with these serious Canadian problems. Much valuable time has been lost already. This year Canadians will be expecting more on budget night than a blue message read from a blue lectern by a blue minister with a blue flower in his blue lapel.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A very good political colour.


George James McIlraith: Depression blue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It made the Liberals blue.


John Richard Garland: I should like to turn now to problems directly affecting the district of Nipissing. Some few weeks ago Premier Frost

announced his government's intention to establish a port at Moosonee which would provide safe, all-year-round anchorage for ocean-going ships. At that time the premier said that the ocean port would be established with or without federal assistance. I realize that this is an election year in the province of Ontario and critics of the government may well be suspicious that this is an election promise. However, it seems that the Ontario government has approved $5 million to start the project and it is reported that engineers and drillers are currently on the site.
I know this matter has been discussed with the federal government and hope has been expressed that they will be sufficiently interested in the Moosonee project to build suitable docks there. It is also to be expected that private mining companies and others will be building their own docks. In addition, it is hoped that an all-weather landing strip will be constructed with the materials dredged from the bottom of the river. I should like to urge the cabinet to give this project its wholehearted support.
The establishment of this deep water port at Moosonee will make our whole northland readily accessible to the industrial centres of Canada. Here, it seems to me, is a readymade project which the federal government could readily endorse. This is a project that could be proceeded with now, not at some future imaginary date. I suggest this government, which has, by its statements, indicated such profound interest in northern development, do everything within its power to encourage its friends in Ontario to get on with this development. In this way they can silence the critics who would say that Ontario is only dragging this out because it is an election year. I urge the government to recognize that here is an opportunity to do one important but not costly thing for the 18 million Canadians we have today, rather than sit around dreaming about the 100 million of which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) spoke on Monday.
I should also like to make a request of a regional nature concerning work on this Moosonee project. If the federal government does enter into an agreement with Ontario I would hope that since this is a northern Ontario project northern Ontario firms might be given every opportunity to participate in this development. I understand that contracts being carried out at the present time in connection with the preliminary surveys were awarded without asking northern Ontario firms to bid. On a local basis I can think of at least three or four drilling firms in my own city which are highly competent to undertake
The Address-Mr. Garland this work and which would have been most anxious to tender had they been given an opportunity.
In this connection I should like to suggest that when defence installations are made- I am referring now to the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile base-northern Ontario firms should be given every opportunity to participate. I recognize that these projects are of a national character and that discrimination cannot be shown against any firm, regardless of its location in Canada. However, I do urge that wherever possible local northern Ontario firms be given every opportunity to provide their services, having regard to their technical capabilities.
May I turn now to a matter of local and national interest, namely the plight of a basic Canadian industry, the manufacture of Canadian plywood. The plywood industry in Canada is divided into two main sections; softwood, which is for the most part Douglas fir produced in British Columbia and hardwood, produced in eastern Canada, the prairie provinces and British Columbia.
May I go a step further and explain that I am concerned primarily with one division of the hardwood plywood section which has to do with decorative hardwood plywood. The production of decorative hardwood plywood is centred in eastern Canada. It involves approximately 30 companies located in small communities in Ontario and Quebec. This industry employs about 4,600 persons, with an annual payroll of approximately $12 million and a production value of approximately $43 million. This industry is experiencing considerable difficulty and is currently operating at a depressed level. I am advised that in 1957 eight companies had a consolidated loss of approximately $575,000 as compared with an average profit of $1,316,000 during the four previous years.
The reason for this depressed state of the industry is well known to the government and especially to the members of parliament on both sides of the house who represent the constituencies where these plywood mills are located. It is reported that Japanese imports have actually captured more than 50 per cent of the hardwood plywood consumer market in Canada. This problem has resulted from the fact that Japanese plywood can be retailed in Canada for less money than it costs a Canadian manufacturer to produce. In January, a year ago, representatives of the industry discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and presented the problem squarely to him.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question? It is a very interesting problem which he has raised: what would he do about it himself?

The Address-Mr. Garland


John Richard Garland: I have great respect tor the Minister of Public Works who is a very experienced and very astute politician, but I do not intend to illuminate him. I will probably think of a smart rejoinder on the way home. Suffice it to say that if I was sitting on the other side of the house and in the minister's position I would know the answer.


Howard Charles Green: You were here for a long time and you did not know the answer.


John Richard Garland: I am not talking about a long time ago. This is a problem which must be dealt with now.
Before I was invited to advise the government I was saying that in January, a year ago, representatives of the industry made representations to the Minister of Finance and placed the matter squarely before him. At that time the minister seemed interested in the problem and agreed to discuss the difficulty with the Japanese ambassador to see if some solution could not be worked out.
It is reported the minister found the Japanese government willing to apply voluntary controls on their plywood exports. A quota was to be placed on Japanese exports of plywood from April 1 to December 31 of last year. The Japanese plywood industry agreed to reduce its exports by 10 per cent from the 1957 levels. Figures for 1958, however, show that Japanese plywood exports to this continent are on the increase. Another highly important aspect of this situation is that shipment of veneers ready to be glued into plywood is in a category which falls outside the quota system. I recognize at once that there is no easy solution to this problem. However, the government must take action in the very near future if our Canadian hardwood plywood industry is to continue to exist.
Let me relate this problem to the local level. I have in mind the Guelph Plywood Company Limited with mills located at Mat-tawa, in the east end of the district of Nip-issing, and in Scotstown, Quebec-I hope the hon. member for that district will not object to my referring to his area. After 50 years of operation the plywood mill at Scotstown had to be closed, which removed from that community, I am told, virtually its sole means of support.
At Mattawa, a town of 3,500 people, the Guelph Plywood Company Limited is also the main source of employment. Since Japanese manufacturers have taken over 50 per cent of the North American plywood market the industry at Mattawa is considered to be in a dangerous position. Representations have been made to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) with regard to this danger and,

as I have mentioned, additional representations have been made to the government through the Minister of Finance.
The Guelph Plywood Company Limited have made every effort to sustain activity at Mattawa and have succeeded by the questionable means of exporting veneer to the United States instead of finished plywood. This is a retrograde step so far as Canada is concerned, inasmuch as it is using our nat-tural resources to our minimum advantage.
It should also be pointed out that while endeavouring to maintain activity at Mattawa the company has responsibilities to the provincial department of lands and forests for the upkeep of their licences in respect of the crown lands they hold. This company accepts and discharges these responsibilities at considerable cost. Means of recovering the outlays and promoting better forestry are greatly curtailed by the loss of markets. The Guelph Plywood Company's over-all employment payroll has fallen from approximately 300 people to less than half that figure. Their woods operations have been greatly curtailed with a production of logs of possibly half what it was previously.
This firm, as well as many others in the decorative hardwood plywood industry, are anxious to take their place as a sound Canadian industry, paying adequate wages, pursuing the best forestry practices, producing a volume of exports for the national benefit, and maintaining research facilities which will keep their industry to the forefront. This they cannot do under the circumstances in which they find themselves today.


Howard Charles Green: May I, in all seriousness, ask the hon. member another question? Has he no suggestion to offer as to how this situation could be remedied?


John Richard Garland: I should be very delighted to make suggestions if I were on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder if I might answer the hon. gentleman?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leon David Crestohl: This government has no
answers.


George Ewart Nixon: The government does not want an answer.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would permit a question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Richard Garland: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there are plenty of provisions for dealing with

this matter. One of my parliamentary assistants, if I may use that sensitive term, has suggested that I remind the government that there are provisions in the Japanese trade treaty.
The industry to which I have referred has no wish to see the dangerous trend I have outlined continue. Those in the industry believe that the responsibility they bear is one that must be shared in part at least by the government.
The industry will seek action by making further representations to the government and I would hope that this problem in a basic Canadian industry will receive the most serious consideration by the cabinet. I recognize the difficulties involved. Trade is a twoway street. It is understandable that our Japanese friends, at the diplomatic level, are careful to point out that their purchases from Canada are many times larger than Canadian purchases from Japan. But it should also be remembered in dealing with this matter in a friendly way with the Japanese that this is not a basic industry in Japan. In this case all wood is picked up in the Philippines, transported to Japan, processed there, and then thrown on the Canadian markets at prices substantially lower than those for which we can produce locally. I repeat that the government must face up to this problem in one of our basic Canadian industries.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question now that he has resumed his seat?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You made your speech.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate there have been many flattering remarks made about the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address and I believe these remarks were very well earned. However, I am always worried that flattery may ruin a young member of parliament and in fact I have seen that happen in several instances. I am perfectly certain that these two young and very promising members will accept the flattery in the right way and realize that there are many obstacles to be overcome before most of us get within shooting distance of the top in public life. It so happens that there are many promising young men in this house, practically all on the government side fortunately-


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are "promising" all right.


Howard Charles Green: -although there are all too few on the other side.
The Address-Mr. Green


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there are too few on
this side.


George Ewart Nixon: Truer words were never spoken.


Howard Charles Green: In view of the fact there is such a wealth of talent I am sure that not one of these young hon. members is going to be spoiled during the present parliament and we expect they will all turn out to be leading statesmen of Canada.
The debate at the moment is on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) which is in the following words:
We respectfully affirm that Your Excellency's advisers, by reason of contradictory and confused policies; as well as lamentable indecision in dealing with grave national problems such, for example, as those concerned with mounting unemployment, no longer merit the confidence of this house.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rather strong amendment, although exaggerated it is true, and losing a great deal of its effect because of the broad grin on the face of the Leader of the Opposition when he read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at all; I was very serious.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: His grin was not as broad as the one on your face right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why is the minister laughing?


Howard Charles Green: The amendment was weakened not only because of the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to read it with conviction but because of his failure and that of the other three horsemen of the Apocalypse and the lesser lights behind them to follow through with this fighting amendment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have heard that before.


Howard Charles Green: I thought that we on this side of the house were going to be torn to pieces in this debate. But what happened? The C.C.F. moved a subamendment, one of their usual amendments with a big bait of socialism tacked on it. We on this side know all about those baits because we had to deal with them for many years when we were on the other side. To my amazement the Leader of the Opposition swallowed this socialist bait hook, line and sinker and tagged along behind the small group of eight C.C.F. members in this house.
May I point out to the hon. gentleman in all kindness that he is never going to build up this hulk across the floor of this house in that way. He will have to find a better system than that. Not only did the hon. gentleman try to climb aboard the C.C.F. boat but just before the vote was taken on the C.C.F. subamendment and then again through the words of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier), who is the house leader for the official
510	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Green opposition, alter the vote the Liberal party made a great gesture. "We want the government to get on with the business of solving the problem of unemployment and we will forget all about our amendment", they said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: "Let us get this vote over with right away," they cried.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And get to work.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, they said "let us get down to work". This was the story. They had not a thing to back up their strong amendment nor do they have a thing tonight to back it up.
You know, Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago I was really frightened at the prospect of facing the official opposition in this house in view of press reports I read such as the one I hold in my hand which appeared in the Vancouver Province of January 19, under the caption, "Rough, Tough Ottawa Session Predicted As Pearson Leads New Fighting Liberals". And tonight we have before us the official opposition. The maneating tiger that was going to maul and devour the government turns out to be the same old tabby cat we faced across the floor of this house during the last session.


An hon. Member:: You are too tough to eat.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Tell us about the public works program.


Howard Charles Green: When we ask the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) and other hon. members in the Liberal party, these men who were sent here to represent a large number of the Canadian people, to offer suggestions as to meeting some of the problems which confront the Canadian people today they are unable to do so.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: You asked us how to do your job. You do not know what to do.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what is the policy of his government with respect to unemployment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are a minister now; you tell us.


Howard Charles Green: The Leader of the Opposition had this to say about the responsibilities of hon. members of parliament who happen to be sitting in one of the opposition parties-


George James McIlraith: What about your responsibilities as a minister?


Howard Charles Green: He said on Saturday:
We are tired of being asked by the government side what we would do.


I know there is a school of thought which thinks that all anyone in opposition has to do is just to criticize but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not being efficient public servants. These men across the way were sent here to make suggestions as to ways in which Canada can be strengthened.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question? I do not want to interrupt his very interesting speech on government policy but I would ask him, now that he has reached this point, will he not take advantage of this opportunity to deal with the seven proposals for government policy which I made in my original speech?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member's proposals were not suggestions; they were just trick questions. I know you don't like this but you deserve it and you are going to get it. If the Leader of the Opposition and the other Liberal members in this house think they are going to render much service to the Canadian people in the next four years by sitting across there and just being critical without making any constructive suggestions they are badly mistaken.


Osias.-J. Godin: What is the minister doing
now?


Howard Charles Green: So much for this strong, powerful amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition; I do not think it merits any further consideration.
One of the basic beliefs of the Progressive Conservative party, and a belief which has been held by the followers of that party from the days of Sir John A. Macdonald-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was not Progressive in
those days.


Howard Charles Green: -has been a national development policy. When we were in opposition we put forward this policy on many different occasions and I am going to read it to the house tonight because this has been and is basic in our approach to the problems facing the Canadian people.


Osias.-J. Godin: Is this a new policy?


Howard Charles Green: This was moved by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on February 11, 1957, and had been moved before that and it was moved on other subsequent occasions:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of the Canadian people requires the adoption now of a national development policy which will develop our natural resources for the maximum benefit of all parts of Canada, encourage more processing of those resources in Canada, correct the present serious unfavourable trade balances, foster wider

financial participation by Canadians in the development of our resources and promote greater opportunity and employment for a steadily increasing population.
Summed up, this means nation building, and tonight I propose to point out how we have been following this course since taking over the government of the country in 1957. I cannot deal with all of the questions which could be classified under this proposal but I shall deal with some. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, behind this policy is the belief that our nation, with its resources, not only raw materials but also lavish energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, hydroelectric power and uranium, and above all, with the courage, common sense and character of the Canadian people, can become one of the great nations of the world.
Let me tell the story briefly of our experience with housing, which is one way of building a nation and a very good way at that. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Province of February 1, 1957. This was about four months before the defeat of the last government. The heading is:
Builders Go Bankrupt as Money Gets Tight
The article continues:
Many contractors now under the gun.
Withdrawal of mortgage money for home building has hit contractors here and resulted in bankruptcy of several firms.
Nothing was done by the former government to meet that situation. We had not been in power very long until we began to get complaints from the men in the building industry in various parts of Canada, and also from young Canadians who were unable to get a home. I think at that time, in the late summer of 1957, the Canadian industry which was closest to getting into a state of depression was the house-building industry. As you know, Mr. Speaker, although we were very green in office-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lester Bowles Pearson: Green is right.


Howard Charles Green: Green is a favourite colour of mine. I always fight my elections in green and with the slogan, "Keep Quadra Green."
We moved to meet the situation by making available for the construction of small houses the $150 million which then remained under the terms of the National Housing Act. Twice after that we increased the amount, first by $150 million and then by $350 million, and hon. members will have noticed that we now propose to increase the amount by a further $250 million. This was done primarily for two reasons or may I say three reasons: one, to maintain the house-building industry, which I believe is the most important industry
The Address-Mr. Green in Canada; two, to provide employment; three, to give young Canadians a chance to own their own homes; also to provide more lower rental accommodation and to provide for more slum clearance schemes such as, for example, the new project I announced earlier this week which is to be undertaken shortly in the city of Windsor.
The results, Mr. Speaker, as everyone will admit have been spectacular. In the last calendar year there were over 163,000 housing starts. We do not have the exact figures yet; it will be some days before we can give it exactly but this is about 25,000 units higher than the record in 1955 and it is over
40,000	higher than the number of starts in the calendar year 1957.
In so far as completions in 1958 are concerned, they have set a record of about 146,000 units. The previous record was 135,700 in the year 1956. The carry-over of houses under construction in Canada in midwinter is higher than it has ever been, about 88,000 units. Even more remarkable is the fact that there continues to be an excellent market for these homes. We have always watched very carefully for any indication that there were too many of these small homes being built. However, as of the end of December, there were only 3,239 which had been completed and were unoccupied, and that included single units and duplexes, whereas in December, 1957, there were 2,765. When you realize the greatly increased number of completions in 1958, you will see that there is, as yet, no indication that the market is breaking.
The officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have recently interviewed the heads of all the banks and lending institutions, and have been told that there will be about the same amount of money put up by these companies for mortgage lending in 1959. All indications are that this present year, 1959, will be another splendid year for house-building in Canada.
We believe that in our housing policy we are really building Canada. I have here a letter from the secretary-manager of the national retail lumbermen's council of Canada, dated November 26, in which he says:
I have been asked by the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada to write to you and to express the sincere appreciation of the 2,000 lumber retail firms which make up its membership, for the forward thinking which has been exhibited by the federal government in making available the very large sums of money to assist in the housing program.
The members of the National Retail Lumbermen's Council of Canada are well aware of the very material benefits which have resulted from this action and feel that it has been most timely and beneficial to all segments of the Canadian economy as well as to their own businesses.

The Address-Mr. Green
We have had similar word from many other responsible organizations across the country. I do not believe anybody, even on the other side of the house, questions the accuracy of the statements contained in that letter.
So much for housing; then, I should like to tell briefly the story of the activities of the Department of Public Works in building Canada during the last year and in 1959. It should be realized that this is only one of the building departments. Transport, we think, gets more money than we do. Defence production and other departments also do building; in public works there has been a tremendous program under way from coast to coast. My officials tell me that there have been 292 different projects, all of them over $15,000, which would not ordinarily have been proceeded with in the fiscal year 1958-59. In addition to that, there have been many, many projects under $15,000.
I must admit it is a bit discouraging to a minister of public works to have lock-outs and strikes such as there were in Vancouver for the whole of this last summer when there were many millions of dollars worth of construction under contract and waiting to be done. This is one of the discouraging aspects, and I think it is an aspect which everyone, no matter what his political belief, should face.
Then, during the present winter, in addition to these programs I have mentioned we have had the winter work program in co-operation with the municipalities. The idea for this came from a very worth-while, informal conference between the members of the cabinet and the representatives of the various municipalities of Canada. Most of the outstanding mayors of the country came here last fall and gave us excellent ideas. One of them was this winter works program.
This program is so designed that it is available to every municipality. In fact, the first municipality in British Columbia to pay money under it was one of the very smallest, the municipality of Kent. This program is available to all the municipalities in Canada who wish to take advantage of it. There has been co-operation as well by the provincial governments. This has been a truly national co-operative effort, and I believe it is one which might very well be carried on every winter.
Then we have had a program of building small post offices across Canada. There have been between 65 and 70 small post offices rushed on in order to provide employment. There have been the community stages described this evening by the hon. member for

St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). These have all been worth-while projects, and certainly they have all helped. We do not have to offer any apologies for any of these programs. It is significant that general construction, including housing of course, was at a record level during the year 1958. The president of the Canadian construction association predicts that 1959 will see an even higher record.
Then I should like to go on for a few minutes to the broader aspects of national development policy. Here, too, we have a good story to tell. Let us consider the dam on the South Saskatchewan river. This project is actually under way. Contracts have been let. My, how long we would have had to wait for a Liberal government to get around to doing that particular one. This is a great nation-building project.
Then, there is the Columbia river. Here is another huge nation-building project. This afternoon you heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) read an announcement to the effect that the United States has now agreed that the question of downstream benefits should be worked out between the two sections of the international joint commission. This is the first time they have admitted that Canada is entitled to any downstream benefits. Here is a self-liquidating development which we believe can now go ahead with great benefit to both Canada and the United States and, above all, of great benefit to the people of my native province of British Columbia. If this project can be undertaken, it will mean great industrial development in the southeastern interior of British Columbia, in the Kootenay valley and in the Okanagan valley. It will mean cheap electric power in the lower mainland. It will give that province the greatest impetus it has ever had since its establishment over 100 years ago.
It is true that this project will depend upon the co-operation of the government of the province of British Columbia. They have been giving some indication that they would prefer to have a pet scheme of their own up on the Peace river developed by the Wenner-Gren interests. I can only say this. If this Columbia river project is killed by failure of the government of British Columbia to co-operate they will be doing a great disservice to the people of our province and to the people of Canada.
I wish to refer also to these famous old cities of Fort William and Port Arthur at the Canadian lakehead. They are greatly worried at this time. They see the St. Lawrence seaway being developed and they read in the Duluth News-Tribune of January 11

that a group of Canadians, if you please from Winnipeg are proposing to build a big port development at Duluth, Minnesota, for this purpose, and I quote from this article:
Freeman-
Mr. Freeman is the Winnipeg promoter of this scheme.
-is reported to have in mind making Duluth the port for the rapidly developing western Canadian provinces as well as the mid western and western parts of the United States.
This government has been greatly interested in the lakehead. For over a year we have had our engineers considering where best harbour terminal facilities could be installed. Then we engaged engineering consultants, Sir Alexander Gibb and Associates. They have just finished their preliminary report. There is some controversy as to which of two sites should be chosen. One of them is right at the boundary between the two cities. The other is over on the west side of Fort William. They have recommended that the site at the boundary should be used for these terminal facilities. The government intends to accept this recommendation and to get ahead with the construction of these harbour terminal facilities just as quickly as possible. The new harbour terminal will include the facilities for handling ocean-going ships and will assist the lakehead ports in meeting the changes in transportation patterns resulting from the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. The first tenders are expected to be called in the next two or three months. The preliminary estimate of the total cost of the development is approximately $5 million.
Then the lakehead has also been worried because of the threat of the closure of the Canadian car company's plant there. A few weeks ago members of the cabinet met a delegation from the lakehead, including the members; the mayors of the two cities; the provincial minister, Hon. George Wardrope; the provincial member for Fort William, Hon. C. E. Mapledoram; and the representatives of various groups in the cities. They told us their story. We had a very helpful discussion. Subsequently we have had discussions with officers of the company. Today the Canadian car company has been instructed to proceed immediately with further development of the amphibious tracked personnel carrier known as the Bobcat. This vehicle has been designed by the army and Canadian car company engineers and has attracted military interest in both hemispheres.
This announcement underlines the role the Bobcat may play in future defence plans. Recent tests of three prototype vehicles have established the tactical effectiveness of the
The Address-Mr. Green Bobcat as a defence weapon of the future. This further development will be closely followed by army engineers and defence requirements are being studied.
I point out that this weapon is still in the development stage, but this move is something which has been taken in the hope that it will be of help to the citizens of the lakehead. I have no doubt there will be a statement being made by the officers of the company within the next few hours.
Then I might go on to mention the causeway to Prince Edward Island. There again we expect to have a report in within the next few months, by the end of March.


George James McIlraith: Who initiated that report?


Howard Charles Green: We did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Charles Green: Hon. members opposite talked about it. We did it. Another one is the new postal terminal at the city of Quebec. Here again there had been talk for years. These Liberals holding all the seats in Quebec city and in the surrounding country did not get anywhere on the construction of the postal terminal in Quebec. We now believe that we shall have the "go ahead" from the city within the next six weeks. Then the postal terminal will be commenced. I might go on to mention the St. John's harbour. That is another case where we rescued a derelict idea of the former Liberal government and put it into actual being.
I also might mention the reference in the speech from the throne to the establishment of a national energy board. The paragraph reads as follows:
At the earliest opportunity you will be invited to authorize the establishment of a national energy board to ensure, so far as it lies within the jurisdiction of parliament, that Canada's energy resources are used effectively and prudently to the best advantage of Canadians.
Here is another step toward implementing our national development plans. Various departments have had to do with different aspects of energy up to the present time. We believe that order can be brought out of this confusion by the setting up of a national energy board.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a question on that matter?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would this board cover all the sources of energy about which he has been talking?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite improper for me to forecast the terms of the legislation. That is something that will be seen within the next few weeks.

The Address-Mr. Mcllraith We are also greatly concerned about and are studying ways and means of bringing about more processing of Canadian metals in Canada. I refer to such minerals as iron and many others. We believe that they should be processed to the maximum within our own country. To listen to these members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, you would think that everything had stopped in Canada just to let them do a lot of whining. May I say that the development of the nation has been going right ahead ever since we took office on June 21, 1957 and it is going to continue to go ahead no matter how loudly these calamity howlers cry during the whole of this parliament.
I have a very good authority to whom my Liberal friends perhaps will listen-Bruce Hutchison. You have heard of Bruce. He is a well known Liberal. He writes books about the late William Lyon Mackenzie King.
I do not know that they are entirely flattering but he does write these books. He does not make any pretence to be anything but a red hot Liberal. In fact, he is a lot hotter Liberal than members of parliament across the way. Toward the end of the last session of parliament he had this to say as found in the Financial Post of August 23, 1958:
We have managed, in all the confusion of the last year, to erect a vigorous, adventurous, flexible government-
We are members of a great team. Conservatives in this House of Commons are members of a great team led by a leader we admire and for whom we have the utmost affection. We realize the trust that has been placed in us by the Canadian people and we do not intend to let them down.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, no matter what sort of act may be put on across the floor that everybody in this house expects Canada to make great progress in 1959. Furthermore, I suggest that every member across the way right down in his heart of hearts thinks that the government is not doing too badly. I am sure that in this session, working together, and after all we can work together if we want to, we can give real leadership to the Canadian people, but the responsibility for doing that rests not only with the members who happen to be supporters of the government but also with every member in both the opposition parties.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, my time is somewhat more limited than I would wish before the vote is taken.


Some hon. Members:: Good.


George James McIlraith: After what we have had to sit and listen to for the last forty minutes it is apparent why backbenchers on the government side would applaud. I want to point


out that the minister who has just taken his seat has in his speech been the best example we have had of the -


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George James McIlraith: -indecision and uncertainty of the present government and the fact that it is not dealing responsibly with the great problems that confront us. Lest anyone believe that the views of Bruce Hutchison which he just quoted represent the whole of Mr. Hutchison's views, let me quote from Mr. Bruce Hutchison's article in Maclean's of January 31, 1959 -


Some hon. Members:: January 31?


An hon. Member:: How confused can you get?


George James McIlraith: He refers to the present crisis and the incompetence of the government in dealing with it in this way:
Economics and politics thus combine to make what I believe to be the gravest crisis, (apart, of course, from international affairs) since the great depression.
That was a pretty serious indictment and perhaps the minister might well have taken some of his time to deal with some of the problems that have arisen in the great economic crisis facing the country instead of taking virtually all of his time except for a bit about housing, which is a responsibility of his own department, to make personal remarks about the opposition. I trust that when hon. members read Hansard tomorrow and examine the use of the word "tabby-cat" tonight by the minister in the context in which it was used by him they will see what I mean.
Starting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Dief-enbaker) and followed by all the ministers who have spoken in the debate so far we have had an example of abuse of the traditional practice of ministers in the throne speech, the like of which we have not had in the past forty or fifty years. I refer to them refusing to deal with matters of policy by putting them forward, explaining them, exposing their policies or criticizing the policies put forward by us. Instead, they spent their time on personal attacks. If they wish to do that it is all very well, but may I respectfully suggest to them that they forget their campaining for a while and give some little part of their time to the business of the country. Let them give consideration to the actions they are now taking and have been taking in the last year which are bringing about inflation and the actions they are taking in the trade field and the financial and fiscal field which are contributing so directly to the unemployment we have today.

We have higher unemployment today than we have had since the previous Conservative government was in office in the thirties.


An hon. Member:: What about 1955?


George James McIlraith: Instead, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) gets up and tells us how we are building Canada, "we" meaning the government. If they are permitted to continue their policies for many years they will build Canada into a nation of unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 9.30 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 4 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any amendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
518	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is about five minutes to ten o'clock and we have all had a long day I wonder whether I could-


Some hon. Members:: Keep on.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I take it the necessary consent is not to be given to adjourn at this time.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Keep on or vote.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I will commence my remarks and I will continue tomorrow.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and the seconder

(Mr. Fortin) of the motion now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members insist on hearing the member for Oxford they should at least give him an opportunity to speak.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the mover-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock the house stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


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

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

Mr. Boulanger: Statistical
Class No.	Description
2260	Turkeys, dead or alive n.o.p	
2259	Chickens and fowl, dead or alive
n.o.p	
2254* *	Poultry, n.o.p., and game; quails,
partridges, and squabs, dead or
alive, n.o.p	
2264*	Canned meats, including poultry
or game, n.o.p	
2013** Baby chicks and turkey poults ....
2015** Fowls, domestic, pure bred	
2021** Animals, for improvement of stock, n.o.p	
*Separate figures are not available for poultry included in these two statistical classes.
**Quantity not available in pounds. The figure for class 2015 covers the period April 1, 1957 to Dec. 31, 1957 only, as effective January 1, 1958 this class was discontinued and included in class 2021.


IMPORTS FROM UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. Boulanger: What was the value of imports from Great Britain for the period from June 1, 1957 to May 31, 1958, of boots and shoes, textiles, automobiles, machinery and parts thereof?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics of imports of boots and shoes, textiles, automobiles and machinery and parts from the United Kingdom to Canada are as follows:-
June 1, 1957 to May 31, 1958
Value
Boots and shoes	 $ 4,099,926
Textiles	 43,194,886
Automobiles	 41,154,263
Machinery and parts ....	52,455,029


SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTS, NATIONAL FILM BOARD GROUNDS
Mr. Rouleau: 1.	What firms were awarded the contract for snow removal from the grounds, streets and sidewalks of the national film board at St. Laurent (a) for 1957-58; (b) for 1958-59, and at what price each year?
Questions
How many pounds of turkey and other poultry has Canada imported from the United States between April 1, 1957 and March 31, 1958, and between April 1, 1958 and December 31, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics of imports of turkey and other poultry from the United States to Canada, are as follows:
Unit of Qty.	April 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958	April 1, 1958 to (latest) Oct. 31, 1958 (avail.)Lb.	5,900,635	203,451Lb.	4,613,843	2,299,301Lb.	1,247,192	915,545Lb. No. No.	2,896,795 2,623,773 7,828	1,693,439 4,998,731No.	741	1,496
2. Were the said contracts awarded after public tenders?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	(a) 1957-58-Western Sod Supply Reg'd., Montreal, P.Q. $3,900; (b) 1958-59-Western Sod Supply Reg'd., Montreal, P.Q. $3,700. Due to delay in getting started on this contract for 1958-59, it was reduced by the contractor, after negotiation, by $700, making the actual amount $3,000.
2.	The contracts were awarded as the result of a local public tender call.


CAUSEWAY SURVEY, P.E.I.-N.B.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What firm or firms have been engaged in the survey of the feasibility of building a causeway between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
2.	Has the research determined whether or not there is available in the area rock which would be suitable for the construction of a causeway?
3.	What other aspects of the projects feasibility have been studied?
4.	When is the survey expected to be completed?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	C. B. Joint Venture, of which C. B. A. Engineering Limited and Canadian-British Engineering Consultants are the two member firms.
2.	This has not been definitely established yet.
3.	(i) Tides and currents, (ii) Shoreline condition and land use. (iii) Ice conditions, (iv) Alternate site investigations, borings, and soundings.


S18 HOUSE OF COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Questions
4.	The consultants' report covering alternate feasible designs is scheduled for completion by March 31, 1959, but on receipt of this an assessment will have to be made of the remedial works along the strait which would be required as a result of construction of the project to the design selected.

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has the city of Sherbrooke asked for grants in connection with the building of one or more collector sewers in Sherbrooke, Quebec?
2.	If so. to what department?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of
Labour):
1 and 2. The Department of Labour has not received an application from the city of Sherbrooke for federal assistance under the municipal winter works incentive program in
connection with the cost of building one or more collector sewers in the city of Sherbrooke.


WINTER WORK AGREEMENTS, GATINEAU COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Leduc: What towns or rural municipalities in the county of Gatineau have signed agreements with the federal government in order to benefit by the grants offered by the government for winter work carried out in such municipalities or towns for the relief of unemployment?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):
The Department of Labour has not received any applications covering winter works projects from towns or rural municipalities in the county of Gatineau, under the municipal winter works incentive program.

Friday, January 30, 1959