1959-01-22

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that the ultimatum issued by the C.B.C. to its producers in Montreal expires today, and in view of the most undesirable consequences of the implementation of this ultimatum on French language broadcasting, he would not intervene even at this late date in an effort to avert these unhappy consequences.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question will be answered by the minister who reports to parliament in respect of the C.B.C.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am not aware of any such ultimatum as the hon. gentleman mentioned. There were discussions going on until four o'clock yesterday morning and, I know, during the night, and I understand there were also discussions going on last night. I have not been advised this morning of the situation. This is a matter entirely in the hands of the management of the corporation. In view of certain reports I heard yesterday I should like to make it clear that any steps which might be taken to bring this matter to a head were decided upon last week in consultation with the officers there, and there is no intention of delivering any ultimatum whatsoever; but sooner or later this matter must be brought to a head. I am told by the corporation that this was the plan of Mr. Ouimet, and this was the matter he was working on at the time of his collapse on Sunday.
The house will be glad to know that he is resting reasonably comfortably considering the very severe attack he had, and there is every reason to hope that if his present condition continues for a few more days he will be restored to health.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wonder if I may ask a supplementary question. Since this unfortunate dispute has continued for
some time, could the minister say on behalf of the government rather than in the capacity as reporting for the C.B.C. whether the government or any ministers have considered making their good offices available for bringing the parties together so this dispute might be settled? There are many precedents for this being done in other instances affecting government corporations.


George Clyde Nowlan: The government has not
given any consideration to this whatsoever. This is a matter for the management and staff of the corporation. The suggestion certainly has been made. There were 15 different proposals, I am told, 15 suggestions made by the management to the producers, every one of which was refused. The primary suggestion was to go to the Canada labour relations board and deal with that board and obtain recognition, and that also was refused. The management feel in the circumstances that there is no further suggestion they can make, but they are very happy to welcome any suggestion that might be advanced by the producers.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Can he give us the latest available figures for the month of January of the number of unplaced applicants for employment? This question is based on the fact that the report given out by the minister two days ago-


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -gives the figures for December 11. Could the minister bring it up to date? On December 11 I think it was about 570,000.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East I have the latest figure of registrations at our national employment service offices for the week ending January 8, which is 749,886 as compared with 796,371 a year ago, which is a decrease of 46,485, and which is also'
250,000	less than the hon. member for Essex East predicted last July.
174	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us whether or not with regard to the increase of some 170,000 within a month, the new figure as well as the old figure in December did not and does not include the category of fishermen representing in terms of unemployment some 50,000, which would bring the figure up higher than that mentioned by the minister?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the two figures I gave for comparison purposes, the figure for this year and last year, do not include fishermen.


Murdo William Martin: They are not included.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Wrong again, Paul. (Translation):



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN WINTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Galineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton).
Would he mind telling me if the Quebec government has accepted the federal government's offer to share expenditures, under the special winter works program, for the construction of forest approach roads and the development of camping grounds?
(Text):


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was handed notice of this question as I was coming into the house. I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of it. To my knowledge, up to yesterday the answer is, not yet.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of Labour or anyone in his department any objection to the publication of local unemployment figures in the local newspapers?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Hector McMillan: Would the Minister of
Labour issue a directive to that effect?


Michael Starr: A directive to that effect has already been issued and is in existence.


(Translation):



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) a question. Is he aware of the statement of His Eminence Cardinal Leger, as reported in Tuesday's press, to the effect that the present situation requires the government to take further special action to deal with the serious problem of unemployment in Canada, especially in the city of Montreal?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I seem to recall that this question was dealt with a couple of days ago, if I am not mistaken.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Might I ask the hon. Minister of Labour a further question?
Could he tell the house what further projects he has in mind to solve the problem of unemployment in the city of Montreal, where conditions have never been as serious there being 88,000 people out of work? (Text):


Michael Starr: In
answer to the first part of the hon. member's question, I wish to say that I admit immediately that I have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with Cardinal Leger. I also wish to add that I can only commend him in the highest terms possible for the true Christian spirit behind the program he has launched. Like measures undertaken by the government and motivated by the same spirit, the cardinal's program is aimed at coming to grips even in a limited way with the economic situation which has developed. He has taken action that I commend to all leaders of this country to try to help in the alleviation of the problem, and in the same positive way that the government is taking action.
As to the second part of the question, I am happy to report that the province of Quebec is now participating in the winter work program, and close to 100 projects will be submitted and some are being processed by our department at the present time.
(Translation) :


Guy Rouleau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell us whether the government has been asked by the city of Montreal to share the costs of specific unemployment relief projects?
(Text) :


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the city of Montreal is taking the lead in the 100 projects I mentioned as coming from the province of Quebec,

and I am sure these projects will help a great deal in alleviating unemployment in the city of Montreal.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Hector McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the figure he is reported to have given in an address to the Canadian club in Toronto on January 5, 1959 is correct, namely that there would be increased annual interest charges of $48,225,000 as a result of the conversion loan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if that is a question for the orders of the day-as to which I am in some doubt-I can say to my hon. friend that all the figures which I gave in that address are correct.



INQUIRY AS TO INCORPORATION OF CO-OPERATIVE BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a dispute between the caisse populaire and the credit unions and the chartered banks as to charges to the credit unions for clearance purposes. In light of the growing suggestion among credit union leaders that a co-operative bank should be incorporated in this country, has the government or any department given consideration to the possibility of legislation to incorporate co-operative banks in this country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, any such question must be hypothetical until somebody makes an application.


Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the statement made by the president of the co-operative union of Canada, has any such application been made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not aware of any application for incorporation of a bank of that nature.



REPORTED REFUSAL TO SELL ALUMINUM TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Yesterday, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the Aluminum
Inquiries of the Ministry Company of Canada's reported refusal to sell a certain amount of aluminum, the minister indicated he would have to investigate the report. I wonder if he has had an opportunity to do that.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition asked me if I could give the house an assurance that no pressures from outside Canada were brought to bear on the Aluminum Company of Canada or on Aluminium Limited in the refusal of a $1 million aluminum order from communist China. In so far as I can find out, no pressure was exerted from outside Canada.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether or not he would recommend to his colleagues in the cabinet that appropriate legislation be enacted to ensure that such problems may be overcome in the future, and that companies such as the Aluminum Company of Canada will be obliged to act in a more responsible manner toward Canada, or failing that, that there be established an export board part of the function of which would be to arrange for exports of commodities which private corporations are afraid to export.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is raising a pretty broad field of policy and legislation. I do not say the minister may not answer if he wants to, but it seems to me this question goes beyond what can be dealt with in a summary way at this time.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I would like to know whether his attention has been drawn to a press release emanating from Washington, by the press secretary to the President, which states that President Eisenhower plans to meet Queen Elizabeth in June, probably on the United States-Canadian border, when she inspects the St. Lawrence seaway; and has the Prime Minister any comment to make on this statement?


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the first question is concerned, the particular press dispatch has not been brought to my attention. As to the second question, whenever the committee under General Graham is in a position to give a report it will be brought to the attention of parliament.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



STATEMENT ON PENSION NEGOTIATIONS AND

[Stage Direction]
.REPORTED WITHDRAWAL OF PASS PRIVILEGES
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Beni-dickson) inquired regarding revision of the C.N.R. pension plan, and in that connection made reference to the passes of labour representatives. The management of Canadian National Railways advise that following discussions by the Canadian National Railways pension board, which comprises both management and employee representatives, a revision of the pension rules was approved by the directors of the company and came into effect on January 1.
The matter of passes is not related in any way to the question of pension regulations. In any event, employee representatives have received, or will receive, the same kind of Canadian National Railways pass for 195960 as they held in 1958.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Would the minister indicate whether they had been notified that they were withdrawn and have actually been restored.


George Harris Hees: I cannot say anything regarding that; all I can say is that they will receive the same passes in the coming year, and I am sure that if they do not know about it now they will know about it very shortly.


William Moore Benidickson: They had been withdrawn.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Reports in the press at the coast show that the trial of 20-year old Arthur Chapman of Chilliwack for killing his brother was recently concluded. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang on March 31 next. The jury deliberated for four hours and made a strong recommendation for mercy.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Harold Hicks: I believe the defence counsel is appealing the decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question he should present it.


William Harold Hicks: The question is, what steps can the people take to save this boy from the gallows?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in reply I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask about this matter. I should advise him that all capital sentences are automatically reviewed by the governor in council. Any person has an opportunity to make representations to the governor in council. Of course the review by the governor in council will not take place until all rights of appeal have been exhausted and only if the appeal or appeals, if there be any, result in the appellate court confirming the finding. Perhaps I should say that such representations, if they are to be made, should be addressed in the first instance to the Solicitor General.



ALBERTA TAR SANDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the minister or the government received a request from Richfield Oil for permission to use atomic blasts on its lands in the Alberta tar sands area?
(Translation):


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, the Richfield Company has informed us of its intention to proceed with nuclear experiments on Alberta sands. Our mines division officials are now considering the matter and the committee set up for this purpose has not yet submitted its report.
(Text):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister table the agreement to which he referred yesterday in reply to a question of mine, which agreement is dated January 12, 1956 and has to do with the St. Lawrence seaway, Canadian National Railways and the co-ordination of work on Victoria bridge, the agreement also being one that does not concern the internal management of Canadian National Railways?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do so.



BURLINGTON, ONT.    LOW LEVEL BRIDGE ACROSS HAMILTON HARBOUR ENTRANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: On January 20 I asked a question of the Minister of Transport with regard to the construction of a low level bridge across the entrance to Hamilton harbour, but I should like now to direct the question to the Minister of Public Works, as it is under his jurisdiction. What is the expected completion date of the low level lift bridge across the entrance to Hamilton harbour, something which was requested by the former member and which was refused by the Liberal government.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: In reply to this question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that work is under way on the substructure of the Burlington low level bridge across the entrance to Hamilton harbour, and tenders for the superstructure have been called for February 3, 1959. Present estimates are that this bridge will be open to rail traffic by March 15, 1961, with final completion by June 30, 1961.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Did I understand him to say that two separate contracts were being called for this single project?


Howard Charles Green: I have here only the report from the department dealing with this particular question. I would take it from the reply that there was a contract for the substructure, and that tenders have been called for the superstructure.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether any representations have been made to the United States government concerning the revival of the Hyde Park agreement, and particularly the combined defence production board which operated so successfully under that agreement during the war?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Not having received notice of this question, I shall take this as notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS SASKATCHEWAN    REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO PROVINCIAL TREASURER CONCERNING TAX AGREEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I wonder if, in accordance with many precedents established last session in connection with dominion-provincial tax agreements, the Minister of Finance would table his recent letter to the treasurer of Saskatchewan in which the press indicates the minister alleges that the Saskatchewan treasurer has, in his public statements, made many misstatements indicating misconceptions of the recent agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend wishes I shall be glad to table that letter, which was dispatched within the last 48 hours to the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, and was in reply to statements which were attributed to him in the press within recent weeks, which statements on his part contain certain errors which I felt it desirable to correct.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he say whether or not the government intends to take any action in connection with the report of the royal commission on coastal trading?


George Harris Hees: I have received that report and given it a great deal of study. I shall be discussing it with my colleagues in the near future, and will be making a statement in the house.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. Jorgenson for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: When the six o'clock adjournment interrupted proceedings last night, Mr. Speaker, I was expressing surprise at the gloom we have heard from the opposition in the last few days. It seemed to me that they are viewing with alarm on all sides, and I do not believe

The Address-Miss Aitken they are speaking for the people of Canada when they express this gloom. Certainly pessimism is not a characteristic of Canadians and, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) said yesterday, Canadians are today greatly inspired by the prospects of a glorious future and are certainly ready to follow the inspired leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his cabinet.
There are three or four items in the speech from the throne on which I want to touch briefly. We are informed that we are to be asked to pass a bill of rights. Ever since the Prime Minister announced last year that he was going to introduce a bill of rights, lawyers have been having a heyday with it, arguing over all kinds of legal and jurisdictional difficulties between the federal and provincial governments. Like all other hon. members of this house I have been inundated with briefs, submissions and letters pro and con a bill of rights. I remember that last year the Prime Minister asked the people of Canada to give some thought to this proposal, and they certainly have done so.
I welcome the introduction of a bill of rights for two basic reasons. First of all, as I have said in this house before, it seems to me it is a good thing for all of us to take time occasionally to assess and evaluate the freedoms that we cherish. It is a good thing to stop and spell out democracy as we see it. The second reason that I welcome a bill of rights is that we of the western world can certainly do a much better job than we are doing of selling democracy. We take too much for granted in the rights and freedoms that we enjoy, and we expect other people in other parts of the world to take them for granted also.
The Prime Minister made a speech in Toronto recently when the University of Toronto bestowed an honorary degree upon him. He warned us all that democracy is losing the struggle for the minds of men in Asia and in other undeveloped areas. I think democracy is losing the struggle because we are not highlighting those things of the mind, heart and spirit that mean so much to us in democracy. Hence for those two reasons I welcome a bill of rights so that we may tell the world about the freedoms we enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, I address my next point to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). In raising this matter I am probably speaking with a minority voice in this house. However, I believe there is existing an incongruous and discriminatory tax situation and that it should be corrected. I refer

to what is informally called the cosmetic tax, which is a 10 per cent excise tax. It is incongruous because presumably cosmetics are considered to be luxuries. They may have been luxuries at one time, but they are certainly not luxuries any more. Who would call toothpaste a luxury, or baby oils and powder, or shaving cream or shampoo and hand lotions?


An hon. Member:: And lipstick.


Margaret Aitken: Yes, I include lipstick in this list. I do not expect hon. members in this house to agree with me that lipstick is a necessity, not a luxury, but I believe that half the electors in this country would agree wholeheartedly.
Curiously enough the previous government removed this 10 per cent excise tax from several items but left it on cosmetics. The items that were removed from the incidence of the tax are ones which I consider to be luxuries such as fishing rods, cameras, golf clubs and soft drinks. However, the tax was retained on toothpastes, mouthwashes, medicated creams and many other items essential to good health and good grooming. I draw this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue in the hope that they will review this incongruous situation and remedy it.
In the speech from the throne there is promise of certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not know what those amendments are going to be, but I am sure they will be good and beneficial ones. There is one matter, however, that bothers me about the unemployment insurance benefits, and I am going to present this problem to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr). In the past, many times and oft, we in the Conservative party raised our voices against extravagances of the previous government. One glaring extravagance was the continual flow of publicity releases and pamphlets that poured from the various government departments. I am happy to note that this government has cut down a great deal on that flow. As a journalist I know what a waste it was, because these things would come into newspaper offices and simply be thrown into wastepaper baskets unread. However, at the risk of being paradoxical I am now asking the Minister of Labour to start a publicity project of his own or, as it may be more properly described, an educational program on the real purposes of unemployment insurance.
As I see it, unemployment insurance is insurance against the misfortune of being unemployed. But to be unemployed is not the real misfortune. To be unemployed and

unable to find work is the real misfortune. I feel that there is a wrong concept about this matter of unemployment insurance. People who take out automobile insurance are only too happy to assert that throughout their life they have never had to make a claim, and they certainly do not expect to get anything back from it. People who take out health insurance are only too happy that they are not obliged to make a claim for hospital care, and they do not expect to get anything back. But there seems to be a different concept about unemployment insurance. Far too many people appear to feel that since they have paid into this unemployment insurance fund, it is a sort of pension which must come to them sooner or later.
I should like to give three examples of what can and does happen with respect to unemployment insurance. Case No. 1 is that of an older woman who retired with a fairly substantial pension. She had paid into the unemployment insurance fund all her life and felt that it owed her something. When she retired she regarded herself as unemployed, applied for unemployment insurance benefits and obtained them. I do not believe that the unemployment insurance benefits were ever meant to be a sort of supplement to a retirement pension.
Case No. 2 is that of a young woman who had a highly specialized job but lost it. She applied for the same kind of job knowing full well, I am sure, that those jobs were not available. She was not able to get such a job, and she was quite happy to stay home and collect unemployment benefits.
Case No. 3 is that of a woman office worker who decided to stop working. Her husband was quite able to support her. Someone told her to be sure to get from her employer a letter to the effect that her services were no longer needed. He, I suppose trying to be a good fellow, gave her that letter and she collected her unemployment benefits.
I have given these three examples of the way in which I think this really great social security measure is being abused. I am sorry that all my examples happen to be women. I am quite sure there are an equal number of men. There may be hundreds or there may be thousands of such cases. They are all on the unemployment list and are included Jn the figures that we hear so much about these days. I believe there is really a great need for an educational program so we can appreciate that this is not a pension; that it is not a fund for people who do not want to work for a while but who want to take a short holiday; that it is not a little investment nest egg for those who do not want to work any
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin more. It is for those who have suffered the misfortune of becoming unemployed and who cannot find jobs.
Finally, in his speech the Leader of the Opposition, who was a great athlete in his day, did some extraordinary mathematical gymnastics which I had great difficulty in following. He said that between 1957 and 1958 the consumer price index rose by 3.5 per cent, and then he informed us that the old age pensioners had lost $2 of the $9 increase granted by this government. Mr. Speaker, 3.5 per cent of $9 does not come to $2 according to my calculations. I realized later, after figuring it out, that the hon. gentleman was taking 3.5 per cent of the entire $55. However, he certainly gave the inference that it was calculated on the $9.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask this house what would have become of the old age pensioners if it had not been for the change of government? The increase given by the previous government was $6 a month, or 20 cents a day. If we had not increased the pension to $55 I suggest that the old age pensioners would practically be giving the government money today.
There are a good many champions of the old age pensioners in this party. I have certainly been one of them ever since I entered the House of Commons. So has the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all the cabinet ministers. We have proved that our concern was not merely talk. We have fulfilled our promises and proved that their faith in us was justified. We shall continue to prove that their faith in us is justified, because the record speaks for itself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I say to you first of all, as have some other hon. members, how pleased I am to see you presiding once again over our deliberations in spite of rumours some weeks ago which might have altered that situation. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) and the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) on their speeches in moving and seconding the address.
(Translation):
May I be allowed also to offer warm congratulations to the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), for taking in his stride a task which is difficult to a new representative. I listened with watchful attention to the hon. member's very sensible remarks on national unity and was very pleasantly surprised by his somewhat novel attitude in the matter, as compared with the views of his fellow members from the province of Quebec. I therefore do want

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin to congratulate him once again, in the hope that he may win over to this cause several of his colleagues.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in replying to the comprehensive and responsible statement of the Leader of the Opposition on Monday last gave one the impression that he deplored any criticism of a character which suggested that all was not well in the country. I should have thought that a man who had proposed a bill of rights, inadequate though it may be, a man who had championed for such a long time the rights of parliament would have been the last person to complain about a speech which involved criticism of the administration of a free and democratic society.
The Prime Minister is familiar, of course, with Mr. Dicey, the author of the Law of the Constitution. He will recall as elementary the postulate of Mr. Dicey that the essential condition of parliamentary government is that the government should govern by agreement with the opposition, and that it is equally vital that the opposition should be at liberty to criticize the government. That is an essential basis in our parliamentary system. I say to the Prime Minister that he did not strengthen his position or defence by deploring the kind of criticism which was made from these benches, criticism which we have the right and indeed the duty at this time to put forward. The Prime Minister, good lawyer that he is, will recall the words of the late Chief Justice Duff who in the padlock case defined free discussion as meaning criticism, answer and countercriticism; attack, defence and counterattack.


John George Diefenbaker: What case was that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The padlock case.


John George Diefenbaker: In what year was that judgment given?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I forget the exact year. It was about five years ago, I think. By this the chief justice meant the freest and fullest analysis and examination. These are important words by the chief justice, and they signally apply to all ministers of the crown and members of parliament. The real reason why the Prime Minister did not like the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was that it hurt; that it was an indictment of an administration which gave certain assurances and pledges to the people of Canada which this government in large measure is not fulfilling.


John George Diefenbaker: 1 should like to ask a simple question. I am interested in this padlock case of Mr. Justice Duff five years ago. What is the case to which the hon. gentleman is referring?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will note the time taken by this intervention; I do not propose that the Prime Minister shall divert me from the main thesis I am advancing. Whether or not I was correct in my citation, the fact is that the chief justice defined freedom of discussion in a manner which was not recognized on Monday last by the Prime Minister of Canada.
I should have thought the Prime Minister would have taken advantage of this debate, in the light of the criticism which exists throughout the country, to make an objective statement as head of the government about the current economic situation, explaining what the difficulties are and being prepared to accept the kind of criticism which must come from an opposition, and yet at the same time urging the house and the country to appreciate the difficulties involved. Instead, what did he do? He did not address himself except for a few moments to the economic situation which confronts the country. He gave us no lead, certainly not the kind of lead which under our parliamentary system we have the right to expect from the man to whom has been entrusted the responsibility of directing the affairs of this nation.
However, the Prime Minister did at one point in his speech seek to do the very thing I am now complaining he did not do. He made a statement during the course of his observations as reported in Hansard at page 58, which I quote:
In the year just ended, Canadians worked more, earned more, spent more and saved more than in any comparable year in the history of this country.
Of course his followers applauded that statement with wild enthusiasm. Now, if that was a correct statement it would be a perfect defence against the charges which have been levelled at the government by members of the opposition. But let us see whether or not this statement by the Prime Minister represents the situation in accordance with the statistics provided by that organ of the government which is responsible for such computations, the dominion bureau of statistics, which is at the disposal of the Prime Minister more than it is at the disposal of hon. members sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker.
Let us examine the statement that Canadians worked more. The dominion bureau of statistics figures show that total employment in 1958 was on the average 23,000 below what it was in 1957, so that in fact a smaller number of Canadians worked in 1958 than in 1957.
Now let us examine the next statement, that Canadians earned more. The dominion bureau of statistics points out:
Real wages and salaries in 1958 have declined by 1.6 per cent. Moreover, national income at factor

cost (that is the sum total of wages, salaries, farm income, corporation profits as well as other incomes) rose by 2 per cent in 1958 from $23.8 billion in 1957 to $24.3 billion in 1958.
However, as reported by the dominion bureau of statistics, final product prices also rose by about 2 per cent, so that the net national income in real terms did not, as the Prime Minister suggested, increase in 1958. In 1958, the bureau points out, population increased by 2.3 per cent, with the result that in real terms and on a per capita basis Canadians earned less than in 1957. And so the Prime Minister was wrong again.
Then the hon. gentleman made the statement that Canadians spent more. Let us see what the dominion bureau of statistics itself has to say about this:
It may be noted that on a per capita basis consumer purchases in real terms showed a year to year decline in all categories of expenditure in the first nine months of 1958.
This was the period taken by the Prime Minister himself. The result is that Canadians in fact spent less in 1958 and the Prime Minister, with these figures of the dominion bureau as my authority, is consequently proven wrong again.
And then, as reported on page 59 of Hansard of January 19, the Prime Minister stated that according to the 1958 economic report it was felt that the gross national product would remain almost unchanged, with a possible increase of .7 per cent. In point of fact, said the Prime Minister, it increased by 2 per cent. Let us see what the bureau of statistics says on this point at page 5 of its report. Here are the actual words of the dominion bureau of statistics on this question:
Taking the change in the price of all components together, it is estimated that the implicit price deflator of total gross national expenditure was highei by about 2 per cent in the first 9 months of 1958. As has been noted, this price advance accounted for virtually all the increases in the value of production from one year ago, so that in volume terms the gross national product remained substantially unchanged.
So once more, according to the bureau of statistics, the Prime Minister was proven wrong. Then at page 59 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
The 1958 economic report predicted that total wages and salaries of Canadians would decline as compared v/ith 1957 by 1.1 per cent. Instead of that wages and salaries increased by 1.6 per cent or some $300 million.
The dominion bureau of statistics provides this conclusion:
On the average the consumer price index stood at 121.9 in 1957 and at 125.9 in 1958 which represents an increase of 3.2 per cent. This means that real wages and salaries-or the purchasing power of total wages and salaries-have declined by 1.6 per cent in 1958.
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
The Prime Minister is proven wrong again. Then, at page 59 of Hansard the Prime Minister said that consumer spending did increase by about 4 per cent in 1958, and I remember the way he said that with all the authority of his office and with his sweeping gestures and debating skill. Consumer spending did increase by about 4 per cent in 1958, he affirmed. Here is what the dominion bureau of statistics says about that, at page 7 of the report:
In the first 9 months of 1958, total consumer expenditure on goods and services was higher than the same period of 1957 by nearly 4 per cent. About two-thirds of this increase represents higher prices prevailing in the consumer sector. Expenditures on non-durable goods were up 4 per cent in value terms, but only 2 per cent by volume. Expenditures on durable goods increased by 1 per cent, but showed little change in volume terms. The gain of 5 per cent in outlays for services was largely offset by price increases, so that the increase in volume terms in this component amounted to only 1 per cent.
And then it goes on to state:
It may be noted that on a per capita basis consumer purchases in real terms showed a year to year decline in all three categories of expenditure in the first 9 months of 1958.
And so the Prime Minister was proven wrong again. Then, as reported at page 59 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
I have before me the record from my own province of Saskatchewan which I wish to read in answer to the professional gloomsters. I shall read from the sales record of the Saskatchewan retailers for the year 1958.
What the Prime Minister did not do was refer to the retail sales for the whole of Canada. Those sales, according to the dominion bureau of statistics daily bulletin of January 21, increased in value by 2.3 per cent during the first 11 months of 1958. However, over the same period the retail price index increased by 3.2 per cent, which means that in volume, retail sales declined by 0.9 per cent in 1958. Moreover, since population increased by 2.3 per cent, retail sales in volume terms and on a per capita basis declined by 3.2 per cent in comparison with
1957.	And so the Prime Minister was proven wrong again.


Mr. Fulion:: Would the hon. member
identify the source of his last statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are figures put out by the bureau of statistics under the control of the distinguished Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Ross Fulton: Would the hon. gentleman kindly remember to give us the references as he proceeds?

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin


Murdo William Martin: Let us examine what the Prime Minister said about the gross national product, as reported at page 60 of Hansard:
As far as the gross national product is concerned, it now amounts to more than $32 billion; in volume terms it is about the same as in 1957, but it is still some 7 per cent above the 1956 level.
The real fact is to be found on page 1 of the bureau of statistics report. It should not have been difficult for the Prime Minister to find it, because it appears on page 1. The report states:
On the basis of present evidence, it seems likely that the gross national product in 1958 will be about 2 per cent above last year's figure of $31.4 billion. With final product prices also higher by about 2 per cent in the first nine months of this year compared with a year ago, the physical volume of output in 1958 will likely show little change from that of the year 1957. This would represent the second year in succession-
And my hon. friend has been in office for 17 months-
-in which the Canadian economy has shown no change in the physical volume of production.
Then the dominion bureau of statistics goes on to point out that this would compare with a gain in the physical volume of output of 7 per cent between 1955 and 1956, 9 per cent between 1954 and 1955, and a post-war average for the years 1947 to 1957 of 4 per cent per year. And so the Prime Minister was proven wrong again.
Then on page 61 the Prime Minister said:
There has been a very striking decline in the Canadian trade deficit. The decline was largely the consequence of the change in our trade position with the United States. It goes on to point out in that report that the situation is improving in so far as our trade deficit with the United States is concerned.
So concludes the Prime Minister. Well, what does the bureau of statistics say on page 9?
A major factor contributing to the reduction in imports has been the lower levels of business investment in Canada in 1958 in machinery and equipment items, construction materials and inventories.
It is generally known that Canada depends mainly on imports from the United States for such products, so the change in our trade position with the United States is the result of the recession in our country, not to government policy, as the Prime Minister led us to believe; and so the Prime Minister was proven wrong again.
Then on page 62 the Prime Minister said:
Over the last year it has risen only 2.5 per cent.
He was referring to the consumer price index. He continued:
How modest this rise is may be seen when it is compared with the rise of 6.3 per cent in 1945-46.

Of course the Prime Minister arrived at his figure of 2.5 per cent by comparing December, 1958 with December, 1957. If he had compared the two full years instead of only two months the figure would have been 3.2 per cent. Moreover, was it fair for the Prime Minister to compare in this respect the recession period of 1958 with the period of 1945-46, when wartime price controls were abolished?
Then the Prime Minister concluded his economic analysis saying:
From 1935 when the Liberal party came into power to 1957 there were 14 deficits, part of them in wartime from 1940 to 1945.
Why did not the Prime Minister conclude this economic dissertation by saying that since world war I the Conservatives, when they were in office, had always shown deficits, and the other fact that since world war II the Liberals were able to reduce the public debt by almost $2,500 million? That was the economic statement given to this country on Monday last by the Prime Minister in respect of a situation which has provoked condemnation by presidents of banks, by labour leaders, by those who are on retirement and pension plans, by all classes in the nation including agriculture; yet all we have had from the Prime Minister, for whom personally I have the highest regard, as he knows, was a wholly inaccurate statement of the economic conditions that now face this country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to give us the D.B.S. publication or publications from which he says he got his figures, with the page reference in each case? Perhaps he can give them now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will read the text he will see that I have given them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have answered my hon. friend's question in so far as I propose to answer it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Lionel Chevrier: Sit down. The Speaker is on his feet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -the hon. gentleman well knows that it is a rule of this house that if he is quoting what he says are official figures he has to identify the source. If the hon. gentleman tells me that in each case he has enabled the house to identify the source of the figures he quoted as official figures I will be satisfied, but I do want to know. If the hon. gentleman assures me that the

identification is there I will take his word for it, but I did not get the identification as he went along.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the time taken up by the Minister of Justice has been noted so that I may be allowed to develop my argument.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friend's figures need careful checking.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In his speech the Prime Minister did not address himself to the problem of unemployment in the way which I believe that problem deserves, particularly in the light of the assurances he gave to the people of Canada in so many places in the election campaigns of 1957 and
1958.
We were told two days ago that there are
440,000	individuals without jobs, 79,000 more than in the previous month of November and 48,000 more than in the comparable month of a year ago. That situation in itself is serious. Those are the D.B.S. figures; but I invite the attention of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of Labour and of hon. members to table 2 of that same report, which was made available to the public on Tuesday last, which shows that on December 11 there were 574,237 unplaced applicants for jobs with the unemployment insurance commission offices. I also call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that in table 2 the second sentence reads:
The count excludes registrations from persons known to have a job and applying for another one.
I call the Prime Minister's attention to the answer to my question this morning by the Minister of Labour that as of January 8, instead of there being 574,000 persons in the unplaced applicants' list there are now 750,000 persons, a rise of almost 200,000 in one month.
That statistic in itself should arouse the Prime Minister and cause him to give some attention to the promises he made in this country, namely that no one will suffer because of unemployment as long as this government is in office. He should realize why we on this side of the house and why the country bear at this time in many places deep resentment against this administration.
To the number of 750,000 must be added the number who do not register because they have now lost any entitlement to benefit. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that I would not be inaccurate in suggesting that this number might be as high as 13 per cent, bringing the number up possibly by another
50,000.	Then when you take into account the fact that fishermen are not included in this list, and they are estimated by some employment officers to number 50,000, you have a
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin possible unplaced applicants' list not of
750,000	but conceivably of 100,000 in addition. Then when you bear in mind that the dominion bureau of statistics does not include people who are working fewer than 35 hours a week it will be seen that the nation is confronted with the most serious problem of unemployment that we have had since the dark days of 1930.
Another reflection of this situation is to be found in the status of the unemployment insurance fund itself. We are running dangerously close to the point where, if this kind of situation continues to develop, next year there may not be sufficient money to pay benefits. When one thinks that the fund was as high as $925 million, that as of November it was down to $641 million and at the end of 1958 had been reduced by another $252 million, one can see why the government is anxious to do something about increasing contributions so that the fund will not be completely or dangerously empty.
I suggest that by the end of March 31 this year, on the basis of present figures, some $400 million or so will be paid out in benefits. If that is the case, then the government and the country will be confronted with a situation which justifies my noting at this time that in 1959-60 there will not, in the light of the existing law, be enough money to provide benefits for the unemployed of our country if the situation at that time is at all comparable to the present period. This is a serious situation. One is not supposed to talk about these things according to the Prime Minister, but this fund was built up by the contributions of management and labour, not only by lesser contributions by the general taxpayers or by the state. We owe to those who from 1941 on have made these contributions some assurance that in the face of unemployment they are not going to find that the unemployment insurance fund, which is theirs, has been violated as a result of lack of foresight on the part of the government in dealing with the very serious unemployment situation, now confronting us.
Just think; in 1957-58 some $385 million was paid out of the unemployment insurance fund, more than was paid out from 1941 to 1951. Yet the government says, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said yesterday, "There is no serious problem of unemployment; I look forward to a buoyant year in
1959."


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, I did not use that word. I said it was a serious problem and that the government is facing it courageously.

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin


Paul Joseph James Martin: My friend may say that, but the fact is that he did give the impression that there was no serious problem. As a matter of fact the whole government, in the relaxed way in which it confronts this problem, is so out of step with the views of the majority of the people of Canada in this regard that the situation is alarming. I say to the Prime Minister that the situation with regard to the fund is serious, and I hope he is not going to seek to replenish the fund at the expense of employers and employees who are not responsible for the failure of the government to discharge its promises and take the necessary preparatory steps to meet the situation.
Those steps were pointed out in the months of May and June. The Prime Minister will remember my saying to him, "These are my projections for the future. They may be wrong, but will the Prime Minister not take steps now, in the likely event of unemployment, to provide programs in the month of June in accordance with the capacity of municipalities to participate in those programs?"


John George Diefenbaker: Your misinterpretation is just as bad today as it was then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What did the Prime Minister do? The Prime Minister was going away on his world tour. I do not criticize him for that; but just a week before he went, knowing that the people were being confronted with unemployment, he said that the government was prepared to provide financial assistance on a 50-50 basis with the provinces to help put men back to work.
The Minister of Labour points out with pride that out of an unemployed population of almost 500,000 according to D.B.S. figures, with 750,000 unplaced applicants, 15,000 men have been put to work under this scheme. Should the Minister of Labour be proud of being able to produce as the only bit of evidence of the government's work program the alleged fact that the government has been able to provide financial assistance to the municipalities which, with the co-operation of the provinces, has resulted in placing
15,000	men?


Michael Starr: Would you want them to remain out of work?


Murdo William Martin: There are almost half a million men out of work. Why was this program not started earlier? Why did the government wait until the month of October? Speaking in the house on March 15, 1955 the Prime Minister said, as found at page 2037 of Hansard:
You say to me: What suggestions have the opposition to offer?


These are the words of the Prime Minister.
I repeat that we do not believe that inaction should be allowed to continue.
These are words that are applicable today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Far more applicable.


Murdo William Martin: The Prime Minister said:
I repeat that we do not believe that inaction should be allowed to continue.
Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
As to our suggestions, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that there should be a dominion-provincial conference on unemployment . . . Why could not this conference in April be held with reference to this matter and plans made respecting other fiscal matters? That is the first question I ask.
I ask the Prime Minister today, having in mind that he said in the election of 1957-


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Murdo William Martin: That is page 2037 of Hansard, volume II, 1955.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When unemployment was half what it is now.


Murdo William Martin: Having in mind that my hon. friend said in the election of 1957 that if elected he would resolve the fiscal difficulties between the provinces and the federal government-


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the municipalities.


Murdo William Martin: -having in mind that there was a conference held in this chamber in December of 1957, having in mind that the Prime Minister said that the conference would reconvene in January, bearing in mind that the premier of Manitoba, Mr. Roblin, would like to have a dominion-provincial conference, bearing in mind the carefully selected words of Conservative premiers who have reacted to the latest statement of the Prime Minister on this subject, I say to him: In the light of his own recommendation in 1955, in the light of the serious unemployment problem confronting the country, why in the name of heaven does the Prime Minister not reconvene this conference? If the only way to cure the problem, as the Prime Minister said in 1955, is with the co-operation of the provinces through a dominion-provincial conference, why does the Prime Minister renege on his promise and fail to act in the light of this serious emergency situation?
The Prime Minister did, of course, meet the municipalities in September. He would not meet the provinces, in spite of his assurance, but he did meet the representatives of the municipalities in Ottawa in the month of September. When one looks at what the Prime Minister said on that occasion one

wonders what the mayors of our municipalities thought of the Prime Minister's assurances, just as we in this house could not help but regard with some amazement the conduct of the Prime Minister at that conference because of the assurances he gave to the people of Canada and to the municipalities in two recent federal elections.
Were any assurances given to the municipalities that anything would be done about the matter of unemployment? No. Under our constitution, said the Prime Minister, well informed and documented lawyer that he can be, this matter is not within our power. The municipalities are creatures of the provinces. There is nothing I can do to help you. We are overburdened with defence obligations. The expenditures of the federal government are frightening. I cannot do anything for you, but it was very pleasant to have you come this long way.
So I say to the Prime Minister, having regard to that abortive conference, having regard to this anaemic works program which is costing the federal government only $6 million, when one considers the millions that were spent at other times to meet unemployment does the Prime Minister not really agree in his heart or in his mind, I think I should say, that if there is any indictment that is justified against the government it is that it is not living up to its promises, that it is not giving any evidence of an ability or capacity really to do something about this very serious problem with regard to which the Prime Minister of Canada told the people of Canada on television and on platforms from one end of Canada to the other, "Elect me and I will see that no man suffers from unemployment as long as I am at the head of the government of Canada".
He says now to those who suggest anything else that they are giving assistance and aid to communism. This is the defence of the Prime Minister, who took such a positive line in the two recent federal election campaigns.
Now, in so far as this works program is concerned I should like to know, to the extent that it is meeting the problem at all and of course it does not by any means, just how these jobs are dished out. Does the Prime Minister condone the statements in this press clipping I now have in my hand from the Winnipeg Free Press? It says. "I Hand Out The Jobs Says Minnedosa Tory". Then the article reads:
Walter Weir, a prominent Minnedosa Progressive Conservative, says Nicholas Mandziuk, Conservative M.P. for Marquette riding, has given him the authority to hand out winter jobs in Riding Mountain national park.
-Mr. Weir described the method of allocating labour to park projects in an interview. "We have
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin agents in a number of centres throughout the constituency," he said, "and they refer names of people seeking work to me for approval."
Is that the way this abbreviated and anaemic works program is being discharged by the government of the day through its representatives in various parts of Canada? I am sure the Prime Minister would be the last man in the world to give work to a particular individual because of his political affiliation. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would never think of doing anything like that, but apparently that is what is happening. I hope he will take steps to correct it.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, would have us believe that everything is well in the nation. Indeed, he quoted from a letter written by the statistician of the Bank of Nova Scotia commending the government for certain of its policies. Then he cited the article in the London Times written by my leader. Did he expect that my leader would be disloyal to this country when writing for a publication outside of the country? The Prime Minister said there were no criticisms from labour or agriculture, and that even in Saskatchewan they are happy. Yes, this government is resolutely facing its responsibilities in accordance with the economic situation in the country, the demands of the people and the assurances given the people during the election.
What are the real facts? The real facts are, first, that every responsible labour leader is condemning this government. The leaders of farm organizations are condemning it, and for the first time in the history of Canada within my knowledge six bank presidents have not only commented on the economic situation in our country but have directly criticized this administration for its failure to deal adequately with unemployment and with inflation. Those bank presidents were the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, the president of the Bank of Montreal, the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the president of La Banque Provinciale and the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, who made the last indictment which I am sure the Prime Minister recalls. These are gentlemen normally regarded as strong supporters of my hon. friends opposite. These are the people who welcomed the conversion loan, with the consequential burdensome debt which it has created.
Some hon. members opposite may laugh, but this is no laughing matter. We have been called upon by those whom we represent to thoroughly discuss the problems that confront this nation at this time. The Prime Minister knows now better than anyone else the

The Address-Mr. Starr deep concern that prevails all over the country. If the Prime Minister cannot bring forward a program to meet unemployment; if his government after the most honourable and careful consideration finds that it cannot bring forward an acceptable program to deal with inflation, then the Prime Minister should rise and discuss these matters frankly in the house.
The Prime Minister is an avowed reader of political biography. He knows what happened on one occasion when one of his favourites, Mr. Disraeli, was confronted with an analogous situation. The British prime minister rose in the house and frankly said the government could not fully cope with the situation. He acknowledged he had made promises in the election campaign to the effect that he could deal with the kind of situation which then confronted him, but he wanted frankly to take the house and the nation into his confidence. He said that in this situation he wanted to put the interests of his country above the interests of his party and to clearly and dispassionately set out the facts. Our Prime Minister does not do that. Instead he resorts to unworthy debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed the hon. member to continue his speech for a couple of minutes because of interruptions, but his time has now expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the Prime Minister will pay heed to what I have said.


Michael Starr: My first words, Mr. Speaker, will be words of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the fine way in which these two young men acquitted themselves and the logical way in which they presented the situation in Canada, the one with respect to the agricultural position and the other with respect to unity in Canada. I am sure their contributions did a great deal to add to the debate; that they will serve their constituents well, and that their constituents as a result will be proud of their achievements. We in this house will also be proud of them as members.
I listened with greatly mixed feelings, Mr. Speaker, to the speech of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I may say that he was far more vocal today than he was on the television press conference the other night. He spent a great deal of time endeavouring to present figures which would agree with his forecast of last July in this house. I can only say that in past years, as a politician, he has been held in high regard in this house and in this country. I have a high regard for him


as a personal friend, but I must say that he has declined somewhat in his endeavour to take on the role of a prophet, and in this respect he has been a complete failure. In his prophecy of last July he said that during the month of December there would be 550,000 unemployed and seeking work according to the dominion bureau of statistics survey. He is only out 110,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend-


Michael Starr: He endeavoured to build up that figure today so his prophecy would be a reality.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that is not a fact. I estimated 500,000 and there were 574,000 on December 17.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Essex East is confused about these figures. He is quoting
574.000.	Let me point out to him that those are the N.E.S. figures, and I was talking about the D.B.S. figures. I will come to the N.E.S. figures for the month of December. These are on record in Hansard. He estimated one million registered for employment with the N.E.S. offices, and as a matter of fact he is just out 250,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman has no right to take the stand he has taken.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The Minister of Labour has the floor. If the hon. member for Essex East has a question he wishes to ask the minister he should ask it in the regular way. If permission is given he may ask it.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not asking a question, Mr. Speaker; I am speaking on a point of order. No hon. member has a right, unwittingly or otherwise, to deceive the house as to what another hon. member has just said. I have said that in the month of January, as of the 8th of this month, there are over 750,000 applicants for work. To this figure I have added certain categories that have been excluded, which brings the figure up to almost
850.000.


Mr. Harkness:: What is your point of order?


Murdo William Martin: The Minister of Labour knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: That is exactly what I have tried to point out in an effort to give the facts rather than the myth which has been perpetuated by the hon. member for Essex East, who endeavours to lend reality to his prophecy. He points out that a category is left out, and he refers to the fishermen. He also uses the figure of 50,000, which in fact is quite wrong. For fishermen at any time, particularly last year, the figure amounted to only 30,000. Even if he does add the figure of 30,000 he is still out 220,000.
This present concern about unemployment on the part of the hon. member for Essex East has me rather puzzled. I welcome his concern for people who are unemployed. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why when he sat on this side of the house and was an occupant of the treasury benches, when the unemployed in his own city of Windsor amounted to 12,000,
14,000	or 15,000 people, he never once uttered any word nor did he urge his government to do anything about that situation, nor did we hear anything about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Sit down, the Speaker is on his feet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Did the
hon. member for Essex East wish to ask a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. As a matter of privilege, when the minister says that never, when we were confronted with this situation, did we do anything, I will say this to the Minister of Labour. Will he not agree that when I was a minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I should like to know what it is. The hon. member for Essex East talks about a question of privilege. I did not quite catch what it is.


An hon. Member:: He wants to make a speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says that when my city was confronted with an unemployed population of some 14,000 I did not raise my finger at any time as a member of the government to do something about the matter. That is a serious indictment and a reflection on any member of parliament. By way of answer to that allegation I should like to say that my record in this house-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
The Address-Mr. Starr


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. We cannot have two hon. members making speeches at the same time. The Minister of Labour has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have raised a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am sorry, but I do not recognize the question of privilege. All I seem to hear from the hon. member for Essex East is a speech. If he has a question of privilege I should like to hear it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to restate it, and I would ask Your Honour to pay close attention to what I am saying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am objecting to what the hon. gentleman said, which was to the effect that when I was in a position of responsibility I did not raise my finger to help the unemployed in my own city.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question of privilege is this. That statement is a reflection on my conduct as a member of this house and as a member of the government of Canada at one time, and I say that I have a right to answer it. I answer it now by saying this. The hon. member knows that no one in this house has worked harder for the welfare of the people of Canada than I.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I hope you are taking note of the time the hon. member for Essex East has taken which rightfully belongs to me, I hope that I will be allowed extra time.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. member for Essex East was on the treasury benches and when unemployment in Windsor was as high as it is today and in some cases higher-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was never higher.


Michael Starr: We have figures to prove it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just like the Prime Minister's figures.


Michael Starr: When we were on the other side of the house, where he is now, and when we asked that seasonal unemployment benefits be extended to help those who were unemployed-and we had in mind the people of Windsor among others-the government took no action whatsoever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what the minister said.


Michael Starr: While the opposition criticize our efforts now, when we have sought the
188	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Starr co-operation of the provinces and of the municipalities, in putting people to work, and when the hon. member minimizes and ridicules the fact that 16,000 or 15,000, as he asserts, will be put to work-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Out of half a
million.


Michael Starr: -we are proud of the fact that we are able to put 16,000 people to work. As a matter of fact, within the next few weeks on site there will be more than 20,000 people employed. When you count those who are in industry supplying materials you can safely bring that figure to 60,000 people. That is what we are proud of, namely that we are taking action. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that as long as I am able to put one person to work I will be proud of the fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We want you to put many thousands to work.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have done that.


An hon. Member:: That is not what was promised.


Michael Starr: If we had from the members of the opposition the same co-operation and constructive and reasonable suggestions as we get from the provinces and the municipalities and organizations and individuals across this country who are endeavouring to co-operate with us to overcome and alleviate the situation, we would put thousands of people to work. But we are not getting that co-operation from the opposition. All we are getting is destructive criticism.
It is my intention today to put forward in simple and forthright terms-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the
minister would permit me to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. Does the minister wish to allow the hon. member to ask a question?


Michael Starr: I will do so, Mr. Speaker, if I am assured that the time taken up by these interruptions will be added to my regular period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The Speaker cannot change the rules, which provide for 40 minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There will be no objection from this side of the house.


Michael Starr: I would ask the hon. member to withhold his question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think in this important debate the minister should have all the time he needs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: With the consent of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put this question to the minister. Did he not receive from me a thoroughly constructive suggestion for dealing with the unemployed fishermen, and did the Prime Minister not tell us on Friday that it was still being considered? Then did the minister not tell us this week that it was no longer being considered?


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate eventually and at last made a constructive suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In October.


Michael Starr: I am surprised, because when he sat over on this side of the house he had none of these suggestions nor was anything done about the situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is no answer to my question. That is no answer to the fishermen.


Michael Starr: It is my intention to show that the action this government has taken has been effective. The attitude taken by the official opposition has been throughout, one of negative and destructive criticism. Our stand is this. We came into office on June 21, 1957. We saw the situation. We analysed it. We took immediate and positive action to deal with that situation, and our action has been effective within the limits of any action which can be undertaken by a government dealing with a situation which has worldwide ramifications and repercussions. The consensus of commentators and analysts not only in Canada but in other countries is that the action we took was wise and effective, and in this respect we came off better than the United States.
In proof of this contention I should like to read a number of sentences from Labour Research, a publication of the Canadian Labour Congress for June, July and August. First I should like to read this sentence:
The recession now seems to have hit bottom, and recovery seems to have started.
Then, after dealing with the employment situation and quoting figures comparing Canada with the United States, the article expresses the opinion, "Manifestly, Canada has come off better here." The article ends by saying, "Here again, Canada came off better."
This is the view of the Canadian Labour Congress. The opposition in the course of this debate, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, claimed that any government action so far has been one of confusion. I say that the actions we have taken compose a record of sober and positive achievement,

and I intend to show that the actions of the government have been positive and constructive in nature.
We recognized the situation in June of 1957. Unemployment was rising, there was no question about that; the figures proved it. This situation was complicated by a large volume of immigration. We took immediate steps to curb the flow of immigration in order to give us an opportunity to level off the economy so as to provide jobs for those immigrants. The action of the former government was to allow this mass of immigrants to come here and walk the streets of Canada, the land of milk and honey, without jobs.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a question?


Michael Starr: I wish the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would hold his question until I am finished.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The Minister of Labour apparently does not wish to have a question asked at this point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I have one other course, and it is to raise a question of privilege. The minister stated that the present government had stopped immigration. Well, the Minister of Justice told us, when that view did not seem to suit his argument, that this was done by the previous administration, and I want to ask the Minister of Labour if it is not true that all the government did was to confirm an order I had made in April, 1957.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I cannot see a question of privilege. May I at this time refer hon. members to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 126, which reads as follows:
If a member desires to ask a question during debate, he should first obtain the consent of the member who is speaking. If the latter ignores the request, the former cannot insist, even if he thinks he is being misrepresented. He cannot make a denial during the speech, but he must wait until the member has resumed his seat and then he may ask leave to make a statement, or he must wait until his turn comes, to address the house.


Michael Starr: Subsequently, Mr. Speaker,
legislative measures were introduced, a great number of which had as their objective the curbing of the unemployment situation. I may say, as a start, that we as a government, not in the same negative fashion as the former government, realized that unemployment was a situation concerning all Canadians. We took the responsibility. That problem, to us, is above politics. We have recognized that responsibility from the very beginning, not as the former government had
The Address-Mr. Starr done in 1955, when unemployment was as great as it is at this present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: There were 425,000 unemployed in 1955. The objective was to add to the purchasing power of the Canadian people and to create work for persons unable to find employment. In June our objective was to stimulate the Canadian economy which was suffering from a number of recessive factors, factors which we inherited at that time. In briefly reviewing these facts it is very evident that had the government not taken immediate and positive action the situation would have been much worse.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could not be much worse.


Michael Starr: Well, it could possibly be as bad as the hon. member would like to see in order to bring his prophecy into reality.
It is now evident to the unprejudiced mind that the action taken by the government was effective in blunting the sharp edge of the recession and providing the Canadian economy with a stimulus which enabled it to regain to a considerable degree the buoyancy it had been losing when this government took office. In this connection I should like to point out that the effects of the recession were much more severely felt in the United States, and I have already quoted the comments which have been made on that point by Labour Research, the publication of the Canadian Labour Congress.
Among the immediate measures which were taken were the increases in the old age security benefits and the rise in pensions for veterans and blind persons, which had the effect of adding to the income of a great number of Canadians. Would the Leader of the Opposition say there was any confusion about this? Does he think for one moment that there was confusion in the minds of those who received these increases? I think the only confusion that existed was in the minds of the opposition. Last September the government revoked section 161 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the section which imposed additional conditions for the receipt of benefits by married women. The amendment enabled married women who became unemployed to benefit to a greater degree with regard to the receipt of unemployment insurance. Was this action taken by the government an evidence of confusion? Most certainly it was not in the minds of those who benefited by it, but it was in the minds of the opposition. Then we removed the threshold under the Unemployment Assistance Act in order that participation in the benefits of that act might be made more

The Address-Mr. Starr widely available. Was this confusion? Certainly not. The only confusion was that which arose in the minds of the opposition.
Shortly after that a massive stimulus was introduced into housing construction in Canada which, over a period, meant that a total of more than $350 million was made available through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The effect of this measure in the housing field has been to produce a greater number of Canadian homes in 1958 than at any previous time. A record has been set. Would hon. members opposite claim that this action by the government was an evidence of confusion? It certainly was not to the people who were able to buy these homes or the people who were employed as a result of the construction of these homes. The only confusion, Mr. Speaker, is in the minds of the opposition. The action of this government in the housing field alone provided employment for many thousands of Canadians. Certainly in the minds of the
620,000	Canadians who have been given jobs as a result of this action there is no confusion about the steps taken by this government. The only confusion exists in the minds of the opposition.
I should like to point out also that last session Bill No. 71 was passed amending the Unemployment Insurance Act and extending seasonal benefits for a period of two months, something we had long advocated in this house. The only time confusion existed was when the opposition was sitting on this side of the chamber and would not listen to reason or help those who were unemployed. Certainly those Canadians who had the benefit of the two extra months of seasonal benefits felt no confusion about the direct action of the present government. Again the only confusion that exists is in the mind of the opposition. I sometimes wonder whether or not they approve this sort of action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you going to do it again this year?


Michael Starr: With the further object of increasing the purchasing power of Canadians the personal income tax was reduced in September and the excise tax on automobiles was also reduced.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Five per cent.


Michael Starr: Certainly I would like to see it reduced further, but the government must be aware of its financial responsibilities. I come from a constituency that is similar to that represented by the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us, you and I,
get together and talk to the Prime Minister.


Michael Starr: But we must do these things as we find ourselves able to in the light of our financial responsibilities. No confusion existed in the minds of Canadians with respect to this action, Mr. Speaker.
Last summer I called a national winter employment conference in Ottawa in order to obtain the advice of the leaders of this country in industry, in the provinces, the municipalities and national organizations with a view to seeing what could be done about helping unemployment during the winter months, and again there was no confusion in the minds of the people of this country in that respect. We called a municipal conference for the first time in the history of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That happened every year under the previous regime.


Michael Starr: We sat down with the mayors of municipalities, and as a result of that conference the municipal works incentive program was initiated. This was a suggestion of the municipalities of Canada. We were willing to co-operate to an even greater extent than was first suggested to us when they discussed this problem. As a result, on October 27, 1958 the Prime Minister announced that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the payroll costs of municipal works carried out between December and April. I shall deal with the result of that municipal program later.
Now, what has been the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition to this plan? In a borrowed phrase I might say that his reaction was "too little and too late". When he appeared on a television press conference I was amazed, when he was asked what he would suggest should have been done and when it should have been undertaken, that he replied that nothing could be done now; it should have been done in the fall of 1957. We do not subscribe to that theory. Any time is the right time to take action if the situation demands it. This government cannot condone the excuse that we cannot do anything about it because it could have been done a year ago. That is not the attitude of this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What are you going to do now?


Michael Starr: I should like to recall to the house that last January the government announced an offer to the provinces to pay 50 per cent of the cost of construction of forest access roads where construction was undertaken before June 30, and also to pay 50 per cent of the cost of construction and improvement of picnic grounds. This was welcomed by the provinces. They immediately

put thousands of men to work. Was this an action of confusion? Again I say the only confusion that exists is in the minds of the opposition; and if we had not put these things into effect I am sure that hon. members of the opposition would probably have been overcome by a sudden kindness of heart and would have suggested these measures themselves in order to get the credit for them.
The house will recall that in January of 1958, Bill No. 247 was introduced providing financial assistance to the Atlantic provinces in order to stimulate industrial development in those areas. Did this cause confusion? Were the Atlantic provinces confused when they accepted it? Most certainly not; they recognized it as a direct and positive action on the part of this government.
Once again, in May of 1958, this government took concrete, constructive action. Bill No. C-9 was passed to provide a temporary six weeks extension of seasonal benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Do hon. gentlemen in the opposition think there was confusion in the minds of those who received those benefits for an additional six weeks? Certainly not; members of the opposition were the only ones who were confused by these direct and effective measures that have been taken to alleviate the situation.


Mr. Robichaud:: Ask the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne) if there was confusion.


Michael Starr: May I also remind hon. gentlemen that an agreement was signed with the Saskatchewan government in relation to the South Saskatchewan river project. Was that confusion? Do you think for one moment that the people of Saskatchewan and surrounding provinces believe that was an evidence of confusion? They recognize that it provided employment for hundreds of people on the project. The only confusion that existed was in the minds of the Liberals, who for 16 years did not do anything about it; and they are still confused.
Let us examine the reaction of the provinces to the municipal incentive program. This has been greeted with enthusiasm by all the provinces. I am happy to say that they all approved of this plan and nine of the ten provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, are now participating. We have well over one thousand projects approved at this moment.
I sometimes wonder where certain hon. members of this house obtain the information they use in an endeavour to criticize and embarrass the government in relation to this program. I listened with interest to the program "The Nation's Business" a week or so ago and heard the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. Starr Timmins (Mr. Martin) indicate that on a project costing $100,000 a certain percentage went into the cost of material, a certain percentage went into the cost of machinery, and only $2,500 represented the cost of labour; this on a project amounting to $100,000. Are we seriously expected to believe that the labour content of municipal projects represents only 2| per cent of the cost, and that the government's share is 1J per cent? Let me inform the house that so far over 1,000 projects have been undertaken, and the percentage of labour content of all of these projects is 39 per cent. That proves how inaccurately this whole situation is being presented to the Canadian people by some hon. members of this house who choose to base their statements not on fact but only on desctructive criticism.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was discussing the municipal incentive plan, and I was informing the house of the cooperation we were receiving from the provinces and municipalities in implementing this plan in order to provide work for Canadians. But I wish to say at this time that the attitude of the opposition toward this plan has been a negative destructive approach. It has been an attitude of carping criticism; of treating lightly the fact that some 20,000 people will be employed on site and some
40,000	off site. That has been their position right along, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition the other day delivered himself at some length of an analogy relating to newly married couples, and made the statement that the honeymoon was over. But I will say that his party and his approach remind me of an old maid screaming about a man under the bed. That is all they are doing, Mr. Speaker, just screaming. There has not been one constructive, positive suggestion so far. While they have been screaming, Mr. Speaker, this government has been taking action.
What actually has been the reception accorded our program, Mr. Speaker? There have been varying reactions. I will say that for the most part reactions across Canada have been positive and constructive, and there has been a readiness, indeed in most instances an eagerness, to take part in the plan which indicates the need of this sort of program at the municipal level. At the same time I should also like to indicate that

The Address-Mr. Starr the provinces have been wholehearted in their co-operation. The plan has been in effect now, from the practical point of view, for only a little over six weeks. At the present time applications are coming in at a rate which indicates that the result over the next few months will be fruitful and positive.
What has been the reaction amongst the commentators and analysts? For the information of the house, Mr. Speaker, and with your permission I should like for a few moments to dwell upon that point. I take the liberty at this time of referring to the Toronto Daily Star of December 27. In an editorial under the heading "A Good Start" the Star commented as follows:
By paying 50 per cent of the labour costs of municipal winter work projects the federal government has so far helped to create temporary jobs for 9,400 Canadians. While this is a small number against the 361,000 Canadians who are unemployed at last report it is an encouraging start all things considered. With improvements and additions the plan could become an important remedy for winter unemployment.
The showing is not bad considering that the municipalities had little time to prepare for it.
I should also like to refer to an article in the Montreal Gazette of December 30 under the heading "Record Construction Forecast". I quote:
Volume of construction in Canada in 1959 will exceed the record total of 7,100 million in 1958 by from 3 per cent to 5 per cent, Howard J. Ball, Kitchener, Ontario, president of the Canadian Construction Association, forecasts.
Like each successive year in the post-war period Mr. Ball said 1958 was the biggest construction year in Canada on record.
With the continuance of this trend in 1959 construction will retain its position as Canada's largest industry with a direct labour force of some 620,000.
The information I have from New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, is that a record winter works program is under way there. The minister of labour in New Brunswick, Mr. Skaling, has announced more than 100 projects valued at $5 million are under way or about to be undertaken. In Nova Scotia the minister of labour, Hon. Stephen Pyke, has announced that several winter work projects amounting to $3,167,318 which will provide 127,322 man-days of work have been approved. Mr. Pyke has added that this is a direct result of efforts put forth by the federal and provincial governments to increase employment during the winter months.
In the city of Ottawa a very substantial winter work program is being undertaken, and it is pretty much the same in all major cities across Canada. In Winnipeg particularly, Mr. Speaker, the situation has assumed a very favourable appearance. From reports I have received both from the unemployment insurance commission and from the Winnipeg newspapers, the situation in

Winnipeg has greatly improved in the last year. I quote at this time from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, a journal which I might say can hardly be considered as biased in favour of the present administration. On January 8, 1959, the Winnipeg Free Press said as follows:
Winnipeg is going back to work. Employment here has improved to such an extent that the number of job seekers at the end of 1958 was nearly 3,000 less than at the end of 1957 and this in spite of the fact that the total labour force is higher.
The Winnipeg Tribune of Thursday, January 1, said in a New Year's day editorial:
Indeed in the Winnipeg area the picture is considerably brighter than at this time last year.
I should like to quote another article which appeared in Time magazine, a well-known United States publication, on January 5:
As 1958 was soon to prove the gloom sayers were wrong . . . the nation survived a difficult year without falling into the vee-sloped chasm that threatened briefly to trap the United States. A part of the reason was the rapid turn around in the United States. Much more was Canada's own doing. The natural resilience and sensible hard work of a developing nation.
It was reasonable to expect that Canada's recession would be even worse than the slump in the United States. As it developed Canada's down turn was much the milder. Aside from the winter months unemployment hit a smaller proportion of the working forces than the United States. Industrial production sagged less sharply and recovered early.
I quote further from the article in Time magazine, Mr. Speaker:
A second major difference between Canada and the United States was the way government handled recession. Unlike the Eisenhower administration which decided against large-scale priming of the economic pumps John Diefenbaker's Tory government put more spending money in wage-earners' pockets with tax cuts, it increased social welfare payments and provided $43 million for the grain growers.
The most impressive help of all went to housing. The Tories pumped $350 million into mortgage loans for housing much as the United States helped its home-builders. While the United States aid was largely a spot injection to help a particular depressed industry Canada's program was a vitamin pill for the entire economy. In the biggest boom in history 160,000 new homes were started, providing jobs directly to some 250,000 workers and touching off subsidiary booms in a dozen home supply industries. Another area where the government helped was in the outpouring of funds for defence. For Canada consumers all this and more money than ever before to save, spend or just jingle in their jeans.
I continue to quote from Time magazine:
Going into 1959 Canada still faces some knotty problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's time has expired. I believe there was some suggestion this morning that he might have more time, but was an order made?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister should be allowed to carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister has leave to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also wish to thank hon. members for allowing me to proceed. I shall continue with the quotation from Time magazine:
Unemployment will continue to be a rough winter problem. Yet, the major lesson of 1958 is that Canada's growing economy is increasingly stable and increasingly confident of managing its own affairs.
That to me, Mr. Speaker, does not indicate any confusion on the part of anyone except the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Except Time magazine.


Michael Starr: Public works expenditures for for 1958 totalled $250 million, and of this amount $145 million was for construction, which again added to the number of jobs available to Canadians. In addition, the department expended $28 million on behalf of other departments, and I should point out that in all these public works expenditures, both by the Department of Public Works and other departments, the main consideration has been that of providing employment where employment is needed. There has been no confusion.
I shall be dealing at greater length with the winter employment program, but at this point I should like to say that it has been a two-phased program dealing first of all with governmental departments and government agencies and, second, dealing with groups outside the government all across Canada where winter employment committees have been formed in most of the major cities of the country. In the government field construction work and purchasing have been to a great extent shifted to the winter months wherever this has been possible. Repairs, renovations and maintenance work all are now carried out during the winter whenever this can be done. As an example of these expenditures by the Department of Public Works, building repairs last winter were double those of the previous year. This year the program is expected to be half a million dollars more than the figure of last winter.
With respect to the matter of co-operation, I might say that there has been no confusion in the minds of those who have co-operated with us, the leaders of industry, leaders of provinces and municipalities. Surely the Leader of the Opposition did
The Address-Mr. Starr not mean that in participating with us in this direct action there is some confusion in their minds.
Last winter the employment provided through the Department of Public Works in building construction work was approximately 3,800,000 man hours, an increase of 31 per cent over the previous winter, and present indications are that this figure will be exceeded this winter. Public works highway programs will provide increased employment in many areas in Canada and are providing increased employment at the present time.
Quite recently the Minister of Public Works announced a program of small post office buildings in various communities across Canada. As of November 24 a total of 63 of these projects had advanced to the stage where tenders were being called, and in many cases contracts have been awarded. That provides jobs. Also this winter, as occurred last winter, the national winter work campaign of the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission was greatly stepped up. The slogan, "Why wait for spring, do it now" which sparked this campaign has become known across Canada. There is encouraging evidence that the extent of co-operation is becoming greater each winter, and people who are not confused are co-operating with us.
I have reviewed a number of positive actions that the government has taken to alleviate the situation. I can only say to any member of the opposition or the whole group, if that is necessary, which one of these actions that we have taken are they opposed to? Which one of them do they think is confusing? Is this part of the program about which they charge the government with being confused?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that a question you are putting to us?


Michael Starr: I should point out also that much of the impact of government action both in the fiscal field-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the minister's question?


Michael Starr: -and in the field of work provision and job creation has not yet been fully felt.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister who is speaking did ask a question, but it did not appear to be one that called for an immediate answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He did not want an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has the floor
unless he sits down.

The Address-Mr. Starr


Lionel Chevrier: He asked a question.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I can say that you also are not confused. I repeat, I should point out also that much of the impact of government action, both in the fiscal field and in the field of work provision and job creation, has not yet been fully felt. It takes considerable time for such expenditures and commitments to work their way down into the income and employment streams of the economy. I might say that this is particularly true of increased public works expenditures.
Dealing with the figures of unplaced applicants provided by the national employment service, I should like to point out that on December 24, 1958, the total of unplaced applicants was lower by 14,874 or 2.2 per cent compared with the previous year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It did not include fishermen.


Michael Starr: This was the first decrease in the N.E.S. figures on a year to year basis that has been registered since December 27, 1956. On January 8 the N.E.S. figure was 4.3 per cent below last year, and that meant a decrease of some 46,485. Because of our action to help the placement of people seeking work, I am glad to report that during the past month, December, 1958 we placed 69,571 people in jobs, the highest placement on record since 1952. These facts show that we are well on our way out of the recession.


Mr. Denis:: Who was in power in 1952?


Michael Starr: Yes, but you were also in power in 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And there was no unemployment to speak of.


Michael Starr: The responsibility in these matters is ours. We cannot depend on the opposition, because they have nothing to offer. On behalf of the government I can honestly and conscientiously say that under the present government Canadians will get a fair deal. We took action, effective action. We are now on our way out of the difficulty, and this is borne out as I have indicated by expert analysts, economists and even critics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister takes his seat, may I ask him a question? I understood him to say that unemployment was higher in 1955 than this year. Could the minister give us the D.B.S. figures, and I mean the D.B.S. figures, for December 1955 and December 1958 to prove the point?


Michael Starr: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have not those figures with me at the moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister put them on the record tomorrow?
[Mr. Speaker.!


Michael Starr: I shall consider that, Mr. Speaker.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask another question. Was I correct in understanding the minister to say there were only 13,000 fishermen eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?


Michael Starr: I said 30,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This year or last year?


Michael Starr: I said there are some 30,000 fishermen, approximately, who would be eligible for unemployment insurance.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I will take advantage of simultaneous interpretation to deliver my speech in French. I ask the interpreters to forgive me if, at times, I forget myself and speak a bit too fast. It is a matter of temperament.
First, I join the leaders of the parties and all the members who spoke before me to express my deepest sympathy to the Yacula and Lockyer families.
May I also congratulate the new members. It is a noteworthy circumstance to be granted the confidence of the people of a constituency. Therefore members for Springfield (Mr. Slogan), for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), for Trinity (the Hon. Mr. Hellyer), and for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) deserve our sincere congratulations.
May I also say to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet whom I have had the pleasure of meeting during his election campaign, that we were genuinely impressed by his speech. He has made what is, from a Conservative point of view, a discovery: the fact that the province of Quebec is part of Canada, and I am glad that he has so stated here.
I am also very happy to congratulate the hon. member for Trinity who, by his work and his conviction, has helped the people of Trinity to understand that the time has come for the Conservative party to do something, instead of always hiding behind the old Liberal administration. I congratulate him; we are very happy to see him back in this house.
As for the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas-who is not here at the moment- may I say that, in her case, the voters were probably little impressed by the Conservative or Liberal programs, but they wanted to give some recognition to her feminine charm.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the speech from the throne. Having read the speech, I think that it is perhaps time to consider certain necessary changes. It seems almost improper to me to put such fulsome

praise into the mouth of Her Majesty's representative. To me, it practically amounts to dragging the Queen's representative into politics. It seems to me that, while retaining the principle of the speech from the throne, we could ask the Queen's representative to come to parliament, welcome members in his words and pray God to guide them. The right hon. Prime Minister could move a vote of thanks, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and right after the unanimous adoption of this motion, the government could place before the house the legislative program planned for the session.
This would enable us to get to the budget speech earlier, and so that members be allowed more latitude, we could spend 15 or 16 days, instead of 8, on the budget debate. Thus, the crown would keep its prerogative of making a speech from the throne, without being forced to praise the achievements of the government, be it Liberal or Conservative.
I hope that the government will give this matter due consideration. Nor am I alone to hold this view. In the Ottawa Journal of 19 January last, I read an article, written by Mr. Norman Smith. I shall not quote from it but it was entitled:
My P.M., My Government
My Ministers-My Word!
Those are samples of the words that are being put into the mouth of the Queen's representative. I think anyone interested would find inspiration in this article, which they could read quietly at home, and which I am not going to put on record.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Pearson) for his clear, precise and informative analysis of the present situation. For many years now I have been hearing party leaders make speeches, and I think it is seldom that one can hear a statement so clearly and so pointedly made as that which was given us by the Leader of the Opposition. It gives me pleasure to tell him that the members of the Liberal party are increasingly proud to follow his directives, for they are wise and they are clear.
As far as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is concerned, I have often listened to him. He has the reputation of being an outstanding orator, yet this year, well, he has been pathetic. To my mind, his speech was the poorest he ever made in this house.
66968-9-131
The Address-Mr. Caron


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, hear.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He has kept harping on his old themes. He evaded the issue, and even tampered with the facts in an attempt to improve his case. He even denied acknowledged facts. This incidentally turned against him this morning, when the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) proved to him that he had altered the facts to bolster his case. In fact, all that can be construed from the Prime Minister's speech is this: Anything wrong that happened since the Conservatives are in power can be blamed on the Liberals, and anything right is the work of the Conservatives.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Alexis Pierre Caron: But when did he ever prove that this is so. Never. Oh, he does have a marvelous mind, he is a gifted speech maker, and he has a remarkable mimicry which allows him to express himself as do top Hollywood actors, but he has been unable to convince either the house or the press, or the Canadian people.
We have come up against problems, says he-


Douglas Scott Harkness: So you would hope, but it is not true.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Would the minister repeat that, either in French or in English so that I may understand him?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what you would like to believe, but it is not true.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not surprised at that
coming from the minister, because he is one who can also distort the facts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should withdraw that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am speaking on a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: You are not on a point of order; you have not said so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member should withdraw the statement that I distort the facts. There is no evidence at any time in this house that that has been the case. In fact the evidence is completely to the contrary.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be allowed to interrupt-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.
196	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Caron


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has raised a point of order. I shall be glad to hear any comments. The words complained of have been used previously. However, I am not averse to hearing what the hon. member for Laurier has to say.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that what the hon. member for Hull was saying was not true. Then he complains about the same language being used against him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Once more, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier has not stated what I said. What I said was this. The statement made by the hon. member was to the effect that the Prime Minister's speech was not convincing to the house. I said that he would like to think that was the case, but it was not true.


Lionel Chevrier: Let the hon. member make his own speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The objection taken was to the statement made by the hon. member for Hull about the hon. Minister of Agriculture, to the effect that he had distorted facts or was one of those capable of distorting facts, or could distort facts. If the hon. member for Hull does not wish to modify his statement I shall give my views on it.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to withdrawing what I have said: but facts are facts, let him face them as he sees fit.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The Prime Minister said: "We have faced the problems as they came up". It is precisely about this that the Leader of the Opposition chided the leader of the government and the government itself. Instead of having prepared a program, instead of having foreseen what was coming, they waited until the worse came, and then they tried to put up with the situation as best they could. It is precisely what we had against him, and the Prime Minister admitted it himself when he stated: "We faced the problems as they came up." Now there is an old principle which says that "to govern is to foresee". As the present government cannot foresee, one must conclude that it does not know how to govern. Its policy is one of drifting, a policy of doing the indefensible. That is why ministers opposite have so much trouble trying to defend this policy. And we are being told that the duty of the opposition consists, as stated by the Minister of Labour, in suggesting to the government what has to be done.


Well, if we read over the speeches made by all those who were here in the opposition before the Conservative party came to power, including those of the Minister of Agriculture, we realize that they were merely destructive in their criticism, and that they never offered any suggestion that could be of any help to the government. That is what they have done, and we had nothing against that; today we have the right to adopt the same method, the same means.
As stated by the Leader of the Opposition after the convention where he was chosen leader of his party, the role of the opposition is to fight and to criticize the government. Our attitude has been the same as the Prime Minister's at the time he was leader of the opposition. We are going to fight and criticize the government; furthermore, we are going to remind it that it is not keeping its promises. We were promised that the country's evils would be remedied. During the election campaign, we did not hear the Liberal party being reproached for what it had done in the past. We were told that the Conservatives would cure the evils that now beset this country. That is why I say to the Prime Minister, and to those around him: now is the time for action. Put up or shut up.
I have here an article or rather an excerpt from an article by Mr. MacDonald in the Canadian Commentator. It says this:
During the first few months of 1959, the eyes of Canada will be turned on Ottawa, watching the discussions of a party strong in power but wavering in principle.
That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Here is another article, this one from Le Droit, signed by the parliamentary correspondent Pierre Chaloult, to this effect:
Mr. Diefenbaker knows more than anybody in this country that the time for promises is past; that the next months will be difficult ones; there will still be unemployment; that, if there is any hope of improvement in the fall, it should be explained meanwhile why Canada's domestic and foreign trade has slowed down. There should also be some explanation as to why the Americans, the British, the French, the Canadians and others cannot agree on everything and more particularly everything that has to do with the problems of collective security, while each nation's financial responsibilities are increasing instead of diminishing.
These are statements of people who cannot be called rabid followers of this or that party.
I see in the Citizen the following article written by Mr. Swanson:
(Text):
Whatever was wrong with Canada today was the fault of the Liberals; whatever was right with it had come because of the far-sighted, statesmanlike actions of his government.

And, later:
-Mr. Diefenbaker once advocated as the main function of an opposition-to fight. If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, he said, Her Majesty's loyal opposition must fearlessly perform its functions.
(Translation):
Now, they are the ones who ask us to stop criticizing them and to offer suggestions. Well, the day has not yet come when the party in power, or the opposition, can expect the opposite party to sing its praises in parliament, and we shall have to wait a long time before this happens.
The speech from the throne refers to the visit of Her Majesty. All Canadians are happy to know that our gracious sovereign will visit us next summer, and Canadians, especially the average citizens, hope that, during her trip, Her Majesty will be given a chance to get a bit closer to the people, because this is not a totalitarian country where people's lives are in danger. The Canadian people are disciplined, they love their sovereign, and want to take a close look at her. This visit of our sovereign should not be just for the "brass hats", while people are kept 200 feet away behind ropes.
I remember that, when I was mayor of the city of Hull, the Queen Mother came to see us. At the time the Secretary of State Department had asked us, had in fact ordered the R.C.M.P. to let no one but officials and guests into the city hall. When I entered that hall and felt its chill atmosphere, well, against the wishes of the Secretary of State-I admit this remissness today -I gave instructions that the public be allowed to enter city hall. We installed ropes to prevent Her Majesty from being too pressed by the crowd. And when she went by-
Mr. Speaker, I hear laughter from the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) and every time I hear his inane laughter, I wonder how it is that a Canadian university could hire as a professor a man of this stamp. He should stand up so that all may see his silly grin.


An hon. Member:: He failed at his exams.


Alexis Pierre Caron: And when the Queen Mother went by, so close to the people, a woman held up her baby and the Queen Mother went up to the child and patted it. Imagine the feelings of this mother seeing the sovereign of Canada go up to her baby.
Now the same thing could happen again. I hope that during the visit of the Queen who, we know, loves simplicity we ourselves will be unassuming and remain within the bounds
The Address-Mr. Caron
of moderation in the matter of receptions or gifts. Indeed, I hope the gifts that will be presented to her will be typically Canadian. For instance, she could be offered volumes of folklore both in English and in French, also some sculpture; for there are many well known carvers in French or English Canada, or among Indians or Eskimos. The Queen might be given something really Canadian whieh she would enjoy taking home and be proud to show close friends who visit her at Buckingham Palace. Let us keep in mind that our people are glad to see the Queen, but that they would be sorry if expenses were unduly high, particularly when we are going through a depression like the present one.
In the speech from the throne there was a reference to Berlin and to the difficult international situation. To my mind the Prime Minister and the other ministers were right to mention it, because we are living under constant tension and difficulties, throughout the world, far from disappearing, seem to be growing instead. The main reason for this state of affairs, is, I think, that there has been steady adherence to the old principle of pagan Rome: "If you want peace, prepare for war."
Oh, I do not want to say that we should neglect our defences. There must be a modicum of defence. If only we sought to apply the golden rule to our international and domestic relations, which Christ taught us when he was among us, we could spread some of the kindness which should grace man. I believe that in time we would succeed in making this a better world, where it would no longer be necessary to spend billions and billions for the country's defence. Those billions would be earmarked for the welfare of our population, and for those peoples in the world who now are suffering from hunger and from cold.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to economic assistance to underdeveloped nations. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has always been in favour of helping under-developed countries. Yet, I recall that during a certain election campaign, our Conservative friends in the province of Quebec were shouting at the Ottawa Liberals: "Ottawa gives to foreigners." Well, since these people have been here, the federal government has increased subsidies and gifts under the Colombo plan. We have congratulated them for it and we still congratulate them. And even at the Montreal conference, I mean the commonwealth economic conference, I believe the Minister of

The Address-Mr. Caron Finance pledged himself to increase up to $700 million, over three years, the assistance we could give to under-developed countries, both within the commonwealth and in the rest of the world. And yet, not one of these gentlemen was heard criticizing what they formerly reproached the Liberals with doing. Ministers, no less than ordinary members, have kept mum on this matter. Yet, once again, we Liberals are going to approve this assistance. Liberals favour the idea because they believe that help to underdeveloped countries is a principle of Christian charity which must spread throughout the world.
Likewise increased has been assistance to universities. Did any of these gentlemen rise in further criticism of this policy as applied at the time we were in power? Oh no; silence is golden when you are in power.
We all know that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), is a charming, sweet, amiable and agreeable person, whom we all like to meet; but we also know her to be ultra-British, and to be bodily in Canada, while her mind is in England. Recently she stated that our national anthem is not "O Canada", but "God Save the Queen". The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) voiced his approval. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think when we hear "God Save the Queen", we can only look upon it as an anthem purely designed for royalty. It is not even a national anthem. It is greater than a national anthem, for it sings the glories of royalty, and it is also a religious hymn, containing an appeal to divine guidance and the Lord's protection for our sovereign, whereas "O Canada" is truly a national anthem, since it sings the greatness of our country, a country that has now come of age.
Canada has come of age. No longer is it a colony as in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, or even those of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Today we can walk alone, unassisted, without being held by the hand. Have we heard a single protest from the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), from the Secretary of State (Mr. Courtemanche), and from other members, from the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley)-he is not here at the moment-from the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), that great Conservative chieftain for the province of Quebec? Not yet. Why? It is, I believe, be-

cause the Prime Minister has chosen his Quebec ministers among the yesmen, rather than men who are able to take a stand.


Mr. Asselin:: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Please do.


Martial Asselin: Does the hon. member recall the statement made by the Minister of Defence Production regarding the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, when that statement was made?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I shall reply to that at once. The Minister of Defence Production said that he would be in a position to talk after he had consulted his colleagues in the house. He has consulted them, but has not replied yet.


Mr. Tremblay:: That is not at all what he said.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) repeat exactly what he has just said? I did not catch his remark.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: In due course.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is not intelligent enough to remember his own words.


Mr. Johnson:: Just look who is talking about intelligence!


Alexis Pierre Caron: I appreciate too that the hon. member would wish to come to the defence of the member for Roberval!


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: He is a nice chap. Could it be that you are talking like this at the instigation of the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) ?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I do not mean to whisper sweet nothings to him.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: We shall refer the matter to justice Leger. There will be another inquiry on morality.


Alexis Pierre Caron: He is a charming fellow.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: We can't say as much of you.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The Address-Mr. Caron far from being so and I am thankful for not being a Conservative, if that is Conservative policy.
He also discussed the federal government winter building program. It was not until recently that the province of Quebec authorized the use of funds originating from the federal government-


An hon. Member:: Autonomy!


Alexis Pierre Caron: And because of this famous autonomy, municipalities were unready, for it requires planning to undertake works that are normally done in the summertime. Since the funds have to be spent before April 30, what will be the position of municipalities that start such works in February or in March? They will have to bear the major part of the cost, because that situation was not foreseen, and there is no provision in the act to extend into the summer or fall the benefit of the 50 per cent contribution, to allow for completion of jobs undertaken before April 30. Still, in the face of this situation, the minister is satisfied. I have had the occasion to meet people who know about municipal affairs. Engineers have told me that the cost of winter works is 12J per cent higher than that of summer works; that the wages paid to the men for winter works, because of the increased use of machinery, represent about 25 per cent of the total costs. This means that half that percentage is also 12J per cent. If we so increase the costs of winter works, it is of no help to the municipalities. Then, there is the increased interest of between If and 2 per cent, resulting from the government's conversion loan. This means that, instead of benefiting from this program, municipalities are losing out, and yet they have at this time to shoulder the cost of public relief, they have to help those who do not qualify for unemployment insurance, and so exceed their budget. All this because the government has failed to act at the proper time. The government claims it does want to help municipalities, but it has nothing new to offer.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if this is what the government is satisfied about, I prefer to be a Liberal and not be content with a situation such as this.
Large public works were also mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I will have to shorten my remarks. I would have liked to touch upon more very interesting matters, but there is one that I do want to point out now. The speech from the throne mentions that certain civil servants should receive certain government benefits. Well, when I saw that sentence in the speech from the throne, I

wondered why it is that the civil servants have been dissatisfied ever since the Conservatives came to power.
Why were they not allowed to meet the cabinet? I wondered if this was not some planned action against the civil servants, on the part of this government; and I need no further proof than the words used by a minister of the crown on October 28, 1958, during the last election campaign. It was the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) who said:
We have not yet managed to get the Civil Service Commission boys well in hand, but we will do so; then we shall be the ones to manage this business.
And the Conservatives seem to agree to that. I was wondering whether this represented the views of the Prime Minister and whether the other ministers mean to break up the civil service commission so they could exercise shameless patronage, such as we can see in some provinces. I wondered if this was the reason behind the Prime Minister's reappointment of Mr. Heeney, chairman of the civil service commission, as ambassador to Washington, because Mr. Heeney apparently was too much in favour of granting civil servants bargaining rights. I have asked the question, but the government dares not answer. The ministers dare not answer. When will our members of the province of Quebec answer all those questions? No mention of these matters has been made by those who spoke so far.


Mr. Courlemanche:: The hon. member for Hull will not be appointed.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I hope that you will speak so as to be understood by the people of this province and of the country as well.


Henri Courtemanche: None so deaf as those who don't want to hear.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: For twenty-two years they have failed to hear.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Does the hon. member wish to raise a point?


Mr. Allard:: May I ask the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) a question?
(Translation):
In 1948 the Liberal cabinet passed an order in council which amended and ratified the military regulations of 1939 providing that when a Canadian soldier had to salute the flag, the national anthem or O Canada, or any other foreign national anthem could be played. I would ask the hon. member for Hull what meaning he gives to this Liberal order in council as to the designation of the national anthem?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should be allowed to answer the question that has been put to me. I was not here in 1948, but I am not afraid to say that if I had been, I would have opposed any order in council or any action likely, in my estimation, to be prejudicial to Canada or to French Canadians. I would have had the courage to rise, to speak and to vote against such measures.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked his question. It is not possible to prolong an hon. member's time of speaking by asking questions after he has resumed his seat. The question should be asked when the hon. member is on his feet.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I be so bold as to compliment you, not in the exact words of the poet but with a meaning somewhat similar, namely that I admire the way you keep your head while those around you are losing theirs.
To begin with, I wish to commend this government on having installed the simultaneous translation system. I had some doubts as to how it would work, but I for one am very happy to admit that I have enjoyed the simultaneous translation of speeches made by our French-speaking colleagues which I would have missed otherwise, nor would I have time to read the English translation the next day. I think it is a step that will really bring us up to date on everything that is said, and it will be understood by every one at the moment it is said.
I wish, not because it is a habit, to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He spoke as the voice of the farmer, and I have no doubt that his constituents are proud of him. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) on his maiden speech. By the way, owing to the simultaneous translation, I was able to follow it as he was speaking. His speech on unity was very timely in these days of stress and difficulty that the free world is facing. We must be united in order to be strong in Canada, and strength like charity begins at home. The place to start the principle of unity is right in this country. I congratulate the hon. member and I forecast a bright future for him in this assembly, as he has displayed eloquence, ability and far-sightedness.
I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the success he achieved on his tour of countries of the commonwealth. Regardless of the partisan feelings of some Canadians, I think we are all 66968-9-14
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk. proud of the triumphant reception that was accorded him wherever he went. I believe there is general agreement in Canada that he accomplished a great deal of good; consequently, as a result of his visits and his candid talks with the leaders of the different countries, we shall benefit. Expanding trade and markets of the world should be forthcoming to this country of ours.
I know that from some quarters criticism was directed against the Prime Minister for being out of the country, while those criticizing knew full well that a capable cabinet was left here to run the affairs of the country in his absence. Therefore, I would like, Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted, to put on the record a quotation from a foreign newspaper, shall I say, but a newspaper from across the border, namely the Christian Science Monitor, from the pen of Peter Lyne, parliamentary correspondent. The headline and article reads:
London Warmed by Diefenbaker
Climax of Mr. Diefenbaker's visit to the United Kingdom came in London on the night of November 4 when an audience of more than 6,000, including British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, packed the Albert Hall to hear one of the most fervent and inspiring speeches delivered in a long while on the theme of how the British commonwealth has a tremendous role to play in hurling back the communist attempt to destroy the free world.
Mr. Diefenbaker as a personality has aroused great interest here and great hope. Millions of Britons have seen on T.V. this handsome, dynamic figure with the blazing eyes of a revivalist. They have been warmed by fresh evidence of this man's 100 per cent enthusiasm for the commonwealth.
Mr. Diefenbaker scorned the "little faithers". He called on his audience to "banish doubts". He said, "Speaking here in London in this shrine of freedom, I believe that this commonwealth has today a greater appointment with destiny than in all her glorious history".
I quote from the same article:
When Mr. Macmillan came to speak for Britain he said that from his first meeting with Mr. Diefenbaker he realized that here was a great man.
This in spite of the fact that the opposition tries to belittle him at every opportunity in this house and outside. Mr. Macmillan said: "Great because he has the one vital thing that any great man must have-faith." This, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion expressed in the press of our neighbours across the border.
At the outset I wish also to commend the opposition for its activities throughout the country since the last session. I think Canadians did want to hear what the Tories had done to them. Canadians, of course, were mildly interested to hear that there was a new party still in the incubator and therefore unnamed which, when it hatches, will wipe the Liberals from the political field in

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk Canada. The prophets of this new party say that the Liberals have had it. Canadians were no less interested to hear the challenge accepted by the Leader of the Opposition who stated that the Liberals have not had it and that there was no room for a third party in Canada. I am inclined to agree with him if we judge the matter by the results of the general election last March when one of the splinter groups was wiped out altogether and the other was badly depleted. But the electors of Springfield apparently considered that they both had had it and we know the results. They elected as their representative a member who supports the government and I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member and the constituents of Springfield for their good judgment.
There are many projected pieces of legislation outlined in the speech from the throne. I only intend to touch on a few of them. I am happy that the speech from the throne does not neglect agriculture and that additional legislation is forecast. One does not need to be a farmer or an agricultural expert to realize that we have a farm problem. The Leader of the Opposition admits that we have a farm problem, and I should like to quote from an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of October 6, 1958 where under the headline "Pearson Has No Immediate Farm Answer" there is the following:
Liberal leader Hon. Lester B. Pearson Friday admitted that farmers, caught in a "price-cost squeeze", have a problem but offered no immediate solution. "I recognize that a problem exists. It is clear that agriculture hasn't had a fair share of the income of this country in the last 10 or 15 years."
Who was in power ten or fifteen years ago? I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition recognizes that we have a farm problem, late as this recognition comes. I continue quoting from the same article:
The former external affairs minister said a special Liberal party committee will formulate a farm policy this winter.
We are looking forward to hearing what this farm policy is. But I am proud of the fact that the government realized that we had a farm problem and realized it from the day it took office in June, 1957. I do not want to be repetitious. I do not want to set out all the emergency legislation that was passed and all that was done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and other cabinet ministers in their respective departments. But I do want to point out that this party recognized that
[Mr. Mandziuk.)
the problem existed and put price stabilization legislation on the statute books under which the government is permitted to establish forward prices on the basis of production costs and, where necessary, assist the farmers of Canada through deficiency payments in order to bridge the gap between costs and prices. While the procedure is applied to a limited degree, we have reason to believe that the board has now had time to do the necessary research on costs of production and will give further relief to the agricultural economy.
In my personal and humble opinion it is economic nonsense to expect an individual or organization to dispose of his or their product without any regard to the cost of production. If the primary producers of Canada are obliged to do that very thing and in effect subsidize the consumer, surely they have a right to expect some assistance in the process.
We realize also that continued penetration of the world market is contingent upon our remaining competitive. Losing sight of this breeds a dangerous situation for Canada, and it is high time that labour and industry matched the resourcefulness and efficiency of the farmer in cutting costs to the bone. I am not thinking of the farmers of Marquette alone; I am thinking of the farmers of Canada. Let us, their representatives, try to understand them. They have been fooled so often, they have been misled so often, that today they are impatient, suspicious and distrustful.
A farmer may not be a bookkeeper or an accountant, and even if he is he has not the time to do much bookkeeping, but the farmer realizes that in 1958 it took as much land, as much seed and as much labour to grow 1,000 bushels of wheat as it took in 1948, ten years ago. He also realizes that it cost him more in 1958 to grow 1,000 bushels of wheat than it cost him in 1948, ten years ago, because of the higher cost of labour, the higher price of machinery and the higher cost of repairs.
But he realizes also that his 1,000 bushels of wheat do not buy the same quantity of processed or manufactured goods in 1958 as they did in 1948, ten years ago. Whether these products are from the mines, forests or waters or even if they are products he produces and then repurchases after they are processed, he has to pay a higher price for them. Let us, the farmers' representatives, try to understand them. Let us realize and admit that the prices received by the farmer for wheat during the last ten years have fallen 20 per cent, that the prices of the commodities he has to buy have risen 50 per cent, as some say, or

possibly less. That is a moot point. But the point is that we have a farm problem. I am happy that we took emergency steps to alleviate the situation.
I am happy also to note that in the speech from the throne there are indications that other steps will be taken to improve the plight of the primary producers. They trusted us. They sent us here to represent them. I am happy to note that the farmers, and particularly the western farmers, are not going to go into politics. I wish to point out that at its convention last December the Manitoba farm union decided against joining this new party which is still in the making. They almost unanimously refused to tie themselves up with the socialists. I think that this is a commendable step. According to press reports many farmers in Manitoba are surrendering their memberships in the C.C.F. party.
The farmer does have his problems, but he does not leave the farm. As I said, the farmer is desperate and, like a drowning man, he will clutch at a razor in order to try to save himself.
I have said before that labour and industry should try to match the resourcefulness and efficiency of the farmer. Let them cut their costs to the bone, and I am sure we can get rid of these spectres which are causing us so much concern, namely unemployment and inflation, and which have been with us for so long. I see the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) smiling.
Western agriculture and business, of course, will be pleased to note that the government will take some action to alleviate the discriminatory effects of the recent horizontal freight rate increase. This matter has caused the farmer a lot of concern. While the cumulative effect of the recent increases granted to railway workers and the resultant general freight rate increases are still not known, I might just cite one example of the effect of these things. A piece of machinery, if delivered from an eastern factory in Ontario to Manitoba will take a freight rate of $2.69 now as compared with $2.30, and that is a full 17 per cent increase. I am very happy to note that the government is going to try to remedy the situation.
I am sure that Canadians will welcome the statement in the speech from the throne that Canada will strive toward a settlement of outstanding issues that threaten peace. Who does not want peace? We all want peace. I am sure Canadians will welcome the statement that the government is concerned over the soviet attempt to abrogate or change the interallied agreement relating to Berlin. I am sure Canadians will welcome 66968-9-14i
The Address-Mr. Mandziuk the government's determination to strengthen NATO as a deterrent against further aggression. These are serious problems which face us and they should receive serious consideration, regardless of our party politics.
This reminds me of a statement made by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek on Formosa. May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote what this gentleman said?
Our role is to be the lighthouse of freedom- That is our role on Formosa.
-a beacon of free people giving hope to those who struggle to regain their freedom in whatever country they may be. Our constant effort must be to remain free and ready so as to hold out hope to others who are in chains.
The western world has so few bastions of freedom left that we must cling to Berlin, to Formosa, to South Korea and these other places. The offensive against us is not only on the economic front but on all fronts, including the military front if necessary. Canadians must be concerned over the mounting costs of our defence department. They are concerned also about our inability to buy the most expensive defensive weapons. We must rely on our neighbour to the south to assist us in that respect.
Not more than 20 years ago we in Canada thought we were absolutely safe from any invader. We thought our front line of defence was the Maginot line and the front line of offence was the river Rhine. We thought we were absolutely safe behind our frozen north. We felt so safe we did not even bother to claim sovereignty over many of the islands to the north of Canada. Today, this situation has changed. We are scanning the skies for an invasion which we hope will never come but which may come. With the help of the United States, we have built the D.E.W. line. It was a costly affair, and it is going to be even more costly to set up more proper defences.
Now, against whom are we spending all this money? Why are we making all these sacrifices? Against whom are we preparing to defend ourselves? We might as well name the enemy we expect to attack us. We should know his habits. We should know his psychology. We should know his achievements in the past and his aims today. Let me, Mr. Speaker, take this house back a bit into history. Over 800 years ago in northeastern Europe a Slavic race was born called Muscovites. This race had the misfortune, from its birth to the present time, of never having the opportunity of learning the concepts of democracy, whether it was ruled by the autocratic, orthodox czar or whether it was ruled by the atheistic dictators of the Kremlin like Khrushchev. From the very

The Address-Mr. Mandziuk first they have applied an expansive and aggressive policy toward their neighbours, and once they conquered their neighbours they introduced a policy of persecution, oppression and political assimilation as well as economic exploitation. Out of the last 200 years the czars or atheistic dictators have devoted 128 years to aggressive wars and only 4J years to defensive wars.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from words written 400 years ago by Dr. Giles Fletcher, the British ambassador to Russia, who wrote:
They (the subjects of the czars) are kept from travelling that they may learn nothing or see the fashions of the countries abroad.
Today these people behind the iron curtain are also kept from travelling abroad.
I quote again:
You shall seldom see a Russe a traveller except he bee with some embassadour or that he makes an escape out of his countrie which he can hardly doe by reason of the borders which are watched so narrowly and the punishment for any such attempt which is death if he has been taken and confiscation of all his goods.
Mr. Speaker, this can apply today to the people behind the iron curtain. I know constituents of mine, men whose wives have been left behind the iron curtain. They cannot get their wives or their children to this country. They cannot get permission from the soviet government to bring them in. The situation is that these communist dictators sitting on the czar's throne today ruling over most of Europe and over most of Asia are the ones whose claws or clutches we are afraid of lest they may bend across the north pole and invade us.
Mr. Speaker, it is with understandable emotion that I make reference to this day of January 22. Reference to it can be made only outside the iron curtain but cannot be made in the land of my fathers. Today, January 22, is independence day of the Ukraine. On January 22, 1919, after the fall of the czar's throne, a race of 40 million people after being persecuted, exploited and assimilated for several centuries broke their chains and declared themselves to be free. On January 22, 1919, at the ancient capital of Kiev, in the golden domed cathedral of St. Sophia, through its provisional government these people declared independence. This new republic of the Ukraine was recognized by Great Britain and France at the time. If the Ukraine were free she would be celebrating her forty-first independence day. .
Her fate was that of many other peoples who were incorporated into the imperialistic designs of the man or men who succeeded to the throne of the czars. The Ukraine republican army, owing to lack of armaments

and medical supplies-whereas the bolshevists inherited all the supplies and armaments they needed from the czar's army-were defeated after a bloody struggle of almost two years; and today you know where the Ukraine is. Only in a free world like Canada can her sons celebrate the event. Only there can survivors of the great days, comrades at arms who fought in that great liberation movement, get together and simply talk about the past.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am not losing sight of the fact that when the throne of the czars fell approximately fifteen other nations arose out of the ruins of the czar's empire. I mention the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia -and I am speaking of the period right after the first world war-Lithuania and Poland. Poland with its glorious history regained its independence or declared its independence after or toward the end of the first world war. There were also white Ruthenia or Belorussia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Caucasia and others. As soon as the bolshevists had strengthened their hold on Moscow they started an aggressive war against all of the states that I have named.
I would say that only Poland and Lithuania and the Baltic states survived. The Ukraine and the others were all conquered back into the fold of a new dictator but of course not without a bloody struggle in each case. So, Mr. Speaker, Poland and Lithuania and the Baltic states survived. Czechoslovakia and Hungary rose on the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire. What have we today?
The dictators at Moscow have two classes of oppressed people. One class is those whom they want the world to call Russian peoples and those are fifteen different nations incorporated into the U.S.S.R. They want the world to know them as Russians. However, they are no more Russian people than we are in Canada. The other group are the satellites.
I am going to make a brief reference to those whom they want the world to call Russian peoples. The Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, white Ruthenia or Belorussia, and Caucasia, they want the world to know them as Russian peoples. They are people with a different language, different history, different customs and different background and are altogether different from the race that originated in northeastern Europe around their capital of Moscow. What a fallacy it is, Mr. Speaker, to call Ukrainians Russian people. It is about time the western world exploded that fallacy. I heard Mr. Mikoyan last Sunday on television. I know the Ukrainian language. I could not understand Mr. Mikoyan. Therefore my language and the language of my people and the language of the Russian people are different. We are different races. Our history is different.

The history of the Ukraine is 200 years older than is the history of Moscow. Our history is steeped in democratic tradition. Our princes intermarried with the royal houses of western Europe. The wife of Harold, who was defeated by William the Conqueror-I just do not remember the date-was a Ukrainian princess. At the same time her sister was the wife of the king of France.
Mr. Speaker, how about the Cossack republic of the Ukraine? When a hetman was elected, he could be deposed. It was a race steeped in democracy, a race that developed a different culture. We drew our religion from Constantinople, we drew our culture and our civilization from the west. What a fallacy to class Ukrainians as Russian people! I am mentioning this about the Ukraine because I am most familiar with Ukrainian history. But I have some knowledge of the history of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and same applies to them. Some may say, "What are you complaining about? The Ukraine is a member of the United Nations." That is true, Mr. Speaker, but do you know why? After the revolution of 1917-1918 even the bolshevists could not erase the name of the Ukraine from the map of Europe, something which the czars had succeeded in doing. Soviets wanted to have a few extra votes in the United Nations assembly. Some may say, "Look at the constitution of the U.S.S.R. The Ukraine can secede, can get out of the union at will." Certainly that provision is in the constitution of the U.S.S.R. The Ukraine, as well as other countries-and there are fifteen of them incorporated into the U.S.S.R.- according to the constitution every one of them should be free to secede. Hungary is a satellite with a certain amount of autonomy. She asked for her freedom, and see what happened to her in 1956. All the so-called members of the free Union of Socialist Soviet Republics are free to have diplomatic intercourse with other nations. Have you ever heard of a Ukrainian ambassador to any country in this world? Have we got one in Ottawa? Have you heard of one from Georgia, from Lithuania or from white Ruthenia or Belorussia-that is another name? No. That constitution is just on paper, just to blind the western world.
There is that other group, the satellites. One would think the satellites were a bit more free behind the iron curtain, and to a certain extent they are. These people had held on to their independence from the end of the first world war, to the second world war, but are they free? Hungary asked for freedom and any Canadian's blood still boils at the thought of all these innocent, unarmed men and harmless women and children being
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin crushed by soviet tanks. I am proud that Canada opened its doors and that Canadians opened their hearts to these Hungarian refugees.
What about Poland, that proud nation? Is Poland free? These people have a glorious history. These people were very powerful at one time. How is their church? How is it being persecuted? How free are they to secede and get out of the clutches of the soviet regime? How free is East Germany? Where are the free elections in any one of these satellites?
It is easy enough to ask the west to get out of Berlin. Is there anybody on earth who can ask Comrade Khrushchev to get out of East Germany? Is there anyone on earth powerful enough to ask him to get out of Poland, to get out of Hungary and to get out of the Ukraine? Is there? I throw out this challenge to the world. This is our potential enemy. This is why we are spending millions -to meet the insatiable greed of the dictator who has swallowed up most of Europe, most of Asia and extended his clutches towards the free democracies.
Mr. Speaker, I hope hon. members will forgive me if I was carried away. I warned them that the subject of the freedom of these peoples-a freedom which we can discuss in this free world-has certain emotional effects, more so, probably, since I am descended from a race which is 45 million strong and which is today behind the iron curtain. And the dictator wants to call them Russian people. The same applies to them all. There are 15 of them, as I have said. And the same applies to the satellites.
It is true enough that these people fought among themselves at some time or other in history, but I think they have learned their lesson and are prepared to bury the hatchet. I think they are prepared, when the time comes, to take up the call for freedom and work together. I do not hope for war. I do not want war. I do not want my son who is in the Canadian army right now to be sacrificed. But when the time comes-and God forbid it should come-I hope we are ready, I also hope that those people behind the iron curtain have not lost their will to live, because the dictator is trying to break their will and stamp out every thought of independence or freedom in their hearts or soul. I hope that they still have some of the fire for freedom burning in their hearts because they are our potential allies. If we forget that, we are lost.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron)' I am going to take advantage of the new arrangement making possible instantaneous

The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin translation. Normally I try to say a few words in the French language, but unfortunately I am still not as proficient in French as I am in English and I will therefore take advantage of this new invention and make my remarks in the English language.
I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address. I should like also to say a word about the remarks made by a couple of hon. members on the government side, in particular the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), both of whom seemed to be very aware of certain newspaper reports which emanated from the province of Manitoba recently. I remember a newspaper report which emanated from Ottawa during the March campaign in which it was said that the Ontario C.C.F. party has resigned themselves to the fact that they were going to lose the Timmins seat to the Conservatives, and I suggest there is no more credence to be placed on the reports which they are reading now than there was at that time. In fact, I think it would be much more to their advantage if they referred to newspaper reports from the province of New Brunswick, because I see that a member of their party is reported as having said in the Ottawa Journal of January 8 as far back as December that he could no longer remain a supporter of the government and watch his constituents suffering because of the government's unfulfilled employment promises. So I think the government had better watch what is happening within its own ranks.
I was also interested in the announcement, after parliament has only been sitting for about a week, that two of our major problems have already been solved. I am referring again to the hon. member for York-Scarborough who indicated that something to the tune of 300,000 new jobs had been provided in the housing field, and of course, to the hon. member for Marquette who has solved the farm problem.
With regard to the provision of 300,000 jobs in housing, I should like to compliment the government. While I do not believe the hon. member's figure-he said it was a conservative estimate but I would be more inclined to think it was a Progressive Conservative estimate-I do think that this has been the government's most successful venture. This project to create more jobs in housing has, I believe, done more good than any other project on which the government has embarked.

As far as the hon. member for Marquette is concerned and his contention that the farm problem had been solved, on the face of it there is great difficulty in disputing that fact. Certainly the people in the farming riding of Springfield were not interested in sending a farmer down here. They preferred to send a dentist so we can only assume their problems are not too great.
The program of the government which has received the most attention this fall has been the program to relieve unemployment. When we examine it carefully I am afraid we must count it as an extremely severe disappointment. It has been said that as a result of this program 10,000 people would be provided with employment and various other figures have been cited. But certainly 10,000 in the face of present day unemployment is not much of a solution to the problem.
We have heard comments tossed back and forth across this chamber about the Liberal shelf of public works projects and that when the Conservatives got there the cupboard was bare and there was no tool kit and so they could not build one of their own. The limited attempt at introducing public works projects points up clearly one essential fact and it is that public works programs are not an adequate measure of relief for unemployment in this present day. Because of the changes that have transpired in the last 25 years hastily improvised programs of this nature are a most inadequate solution. The time has come when the government of Canada must devise new answers to this old problem. With machines taking the place of manpower in public works projects such as the building of roads, sewer lines and water lines these programs do not relieve unemployment to the extent that was possible a few years ago and I would suggest that the government cast about for new ideas in its efforts to seek relief for unemployment.
I should like to compliment the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stinson) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Morton) on the courageous way they brought into this house the comparative study on education standards in Canada and the Soviet union. I agree with the hon. gentlemen that the report reveals facts that should not be concealed. These are things that must be faced and I believe the Canadian people, if jarred to consciousness, will face up to the situation. I compliment the hon. gentlemen because this is a question which has held my interest for many years. Some hon. members may recall that when I made my maiden speech in this house as reported at page 191 of Hansard of October 27, 1957, my remarks were similar to those of the hon. members

to whom I have referred although my presentation of the situation was not as well documented as were theirs.
I have grown weary, as I believe many people in Canada have, of the everlasting bombardment across the floor of this house with the Liberals blaming the Conservatives and the Conservatives blaming the Liberals for every situation with which parliament is confronted. This type of behaviour is becoming stale and certainly it is accomplishing nothing in terms of solving present problems. I do not believe that the Canadian people, with the election three or four years away, are interested in hearing disputes concerning who is to blame for the present mess. The time of parliament would be better spent finding solutions to these questions. The government should not hide behind the fact that the opposition is prophesying gloom and doom whenever hon. members of the opposition point out weaknesses in the government's policies.
I wish to turn now to an urgent question that faces us at this time. I refer, of course, to the strike at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Montreal extending over the past live or six weeks. I am convinced that this is more serious than many of us realize. While it produces English programs I am informed that the C.B.C. in Montreal is the largest producer of French language programs not just in Canada but the world. I think that many of us fail to appreciate that in producing these French programs the C.B.C. in Montreal is producing one-half of the Canadian culture in this medium. We have excellent studios in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and elsewhere but these produce only English programs, one-half of the Canadian culture in this field. After all, this is a bilingual country with a dual culture. Through the work of the C.B.C. Montreal studios Canadian television truly represents our culture in both its aspects.
This strike was not something that transpired overnight; there has been a long, steady process leading up to the present situation. Many of the producers concerned in this strike were in on the ground floor of the C.B.C. and built it up to what it is today, some of them working 16, 18 or 20 hours to make the network what it is. Slowly over the years there has also been built up on their part a sense of insecurity and frustration which is finding expression in this form. It has caused a section of management, in fact, to feel that in order to protect themselves they must organize along trade union lines.
To demonstrate that they are justified in doing so I wish to read an extract from the
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin Quebec regulations, S.R.Q. 1941, chapter 162, article 2 of section 1, which states:
Twenty persons or more, Canadian citizens, engaged in the same profession, the same employment or in similar trades, or doing correlated work having for object the establishing of a determined product, may make and sign a memorandum setting forth their intention of forming an association or professional syndicate.
That is very clear. It is also clear that the real issue in this dispute is not wages or working conditions or the normal things we generally find in disputes of this nature. The point at issue is very clearly summed up by an article taken from L'Action Catho-lique as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 21, 1959, in these words:
The paper insisted that the crux of the problem was whether the right of association should be allowed. The paper also believed that the strike would open the public's eyes to the need for revamping labour legislation which, far from protecting the right of association, restrains it and in many cases even suppresses it.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of the dispute: do they or do they not have the right of association. This strike has been honoured by many other unions involved in the membership of C.B.C. employees. I am informed that as recently as last evening one of these unions which refused to cross a picket line took a secret ballot among its members and 92 per cent still favoured not crossing the picket line and so endangering the keeping of the peace and possibly causing disturbances.
The latest move on the part of management in this case, that of intimidating the wives of these employees by sending telegrams and contacting them by telephone, is a move that is worthy of Mr. J. Y. Murdoch in his infamous strike at Murdochville but certainly is not worthy of this government or any of its crown corporations.
I would like to turn for a moment to some matters in my own riding. Again I would like to compliment the government on the fact that they left open the door this winter for the provinces to come in on a 50-50 basis with the federal government, which they did, on roads opening up new country. I am also very pleased that finally the Ontario provincial government has got around to taking advantage of this offer and at the present time roads are in process of being cut. I am thinking of the road between Foleyet and Chapleau, which will join the Porcupine goldmining area with Sault Ste. Marie and the United States across the new bridge. This is going to open up a vast new territory which will be a mecca for tourists.
At this time I should like to invite any hon. members, and particularly the hon. members on the government side, to visit my
208	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. M. W. Martin riding. Do not wait until prior to the next election before you come into my riding. You are welcome at any time. This part of the country is completely dotted with lakes, rivers and forests. It is a fishermen's paradise; it is filled with moose. Moose is one of the greatest exports we have in the north at the present time. This will also open up a loop by which American tourists can come up and visit the mining areas, and I am sure both United States and Canadian tourists will be interested in visiting the fabulous Porcupine gold-mining camp. Either this summer or the summer after will be an excellent time because the communities of South Porcupine and Porcupine will celebrate their fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the town during the summer and next year it will be followed by the town of Timmins itself.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is one blot on the present optimistic outlook for the Porcupine area and it is one that this house should not only be interested in but, in fact, has a responsibility for. I, of course, am referring to the stand of the gold mines at the present time in the labour dispute which has been going on up in that area for two years. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, and probably hon. members will recall, the efforts of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and myself last year during the passage of the bill to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. We tried in every way possible to convince the government that it should keep a few strings attached to the increase in the gold subsidy. I think the evidence I can give the house today will prove that perhaps the government should have listened a little longer to us at that time. Oh, I recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) quoted a letter as a final squelch last year to show that the government had in fact solved the problem up there. This letter is contained in Hansard of August 18, at page 3742. It includes the following resolution:
Proposed by H. Brunette
Seconded by W. Brewer
"That a letter of thanks and appreciation be sent to the Honourable Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance, and that this commission go on record on behalf of all gold mining communities of Canada in supporting the announcement of a 25 per cent increase in the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, and that this commission is vitally interested in the longevity and continued extension of the said act on a longer term basis, so that gold mining communities may have a better opportunity for long-range planning."
Again, Honourable sir, we thank you and your colleagues, the federal government, for your kind interest in alleviating in some way the problem facing the citizens of gold mining communities.
One thing the minister forgot to mention that day, Mr. Speaker, was that the mover


of this motion was the brother of the defeated Conservative candidate and the seconder, Mr. W. Brewer, was the secretary of the Timmins Conservative association. Therefore, I do not know what sort of a letter they expected from those two gentlemen, but certainly they could not expect to get a very critical one.
The last time the gold miners in the Timmins area received an increase was away back in 1954, just at the completion of a strike of about eight months. Since that time the federal government has paid over $10 million in subsidies to the nine gold mines covered by the bargaining unit in Timmins; in fact, almost $5,750,000 to the two mines of Hollinger and McIntyre alone. As I said, that is since the last increase was given to the miners. As hon. members will recall, during the last session the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act was extended for another two years and a 25 per cent increase was also given, retroactive to the first of 1958. In all fairness to the members of the government I am sure that most of them thought, as most of the municipal officials and in fact the people of the Porcupine camp thought, that in making this move to assist the gold mining industry some of it would automatically brush off on the miners. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Despite this increase, despite this extension, not one cent has been offered to the miners in those nine mines covered by union agreements. At the Hollinger mine, for example, negotiations have been going on since September, 1957. Last year, following through the normal procedure of bargaining in this province, the miners took their case to a conciliation board and that board sat in Timmins in the month of June. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they were sitting on the very day that the proposed increase was announced in this house.
This board did not make any snap decision. It weighed every factor very carefully; in fact, it sat on its report for a matter of three months. The report was not delivered until September of last year. I would like to list a few of the things recommended by the majority report of the conciliation board which was signed by the chairman and the union nominee:
X. Two-year agreement;
2.	Forty-two hour work week in the first year of the agreement and a 40-hour week incorporated in the second year of the agreement.
They are still working a 44-hour week in that area. I continue with the recommendations:
3.	Five cents per hour increase in pay and that this payment should be made retroactive.

This was to be at a time negotiated between the two parties. I continue:
And adjustments to be made upon the reduction of the work week, to guarantee no loss in pay.
4.	Four cents an hour shift differential for afternoon shift and six cents for night shift.
5.	A recommendation of six statutory holidays. With the recommendation that the holiday pay be the equivalent of 20 hours for eight hours work on such days.
6.	That there shall be an extra week vacation for a total of three for all employees with a total of 15 years or more seniority.
7.	The board recommended that a pension plan should be negotiated and to become effective on the second year of the two-year agreement.
Of course, they have no pension plan. I continue:
8.	The board recommends that the contribution to a medical plan would be on the 50-50 basis.
9.	The board recommends a check-off of union dues.
As you can very well imagine, they have no union security there. This was the recommendation of the conciliation board and it amounts to a package deal of well over 20 cents an hour. In that report the chairman had this to say:
In the opinion of many, the only real value from a report from a board of conciliation is to consider a likely, or at least possible, realm of settlement and to point out a position to which each party might come. With this in mind the only matters which have been considered in preparing this report are the ability of the company to pay and the adjustments which might be accepted by each party in an effort to decrease the discrepancies in monetary matters and working conditions which exist between these employees and those in industry in general in Ontario.
With reference to emergency gold mining assistance, when the act was originally passed it was supposed to be for the miners of the mining municipalities. That was the announced intention of the legislation. When the act was passed it was not supposed to be just for the gold mines. It has been stated on different occasions that its purpose is to assist gold mining municipalities. This is what the chairman of the board had to say:
This improvement was stated to be to promote the well-being of our northern gold mining communities. One can hardly comprehend the view of the commitment which does not also assist the employees living in the community, but only to the corporate entity which is geographically located.
The mines have just been granted a 25 per cent increase by the federal government and yet they refuse even to recognize the report of the board. They have refused even to discuss it or negotiate on the basis of it. So the union, in an effort to try to get things settled without having to go on strike again, voluntarily moved away from the report. The representatives of the union said, "All right, if you will not talk about that, what will you talk about?" A meeting was then held with
The Address-Mr. Webster the chief conciliation officer for Ontario but so far nothing has developed from the point of view of a settlement.
But here is something that has developed over these months which I think is of vital importance, particularly in view of the letter I mentioned a while ago which was put on Hansard last year by the minister. I have here a resolution passed by the Timmins town council on January 5, 1959. It was moved by McDonald and Burnette and, incidentally, Mr. Burnette is the defeated Conservative candidate. The resolution reads as follows:
That Timmins council go on record as supporting collective bargaining and suggest that management recognize collective bargaining and sit with the representatives of their employees and settle these disputes at the earliest possible date so that the uneasiness that prevails in this area at this moment be done away with.
Along the same lines, the union also had a meeting with the local member of the provincial legislature, who is minister of lands and forests in the Ontario government. From a report of the meeting in the Timmins Press of January 17, 1959, I read the following:
Lands and forests minister J. W. Spooner told a 16-man delegation of the united steelworkers of America last night he would meet with labour minister Daley and Louis Fine, chief conciliation officer, Monday, to urge them to request top management of McIntyre Porcupine Mines to negotiate with the union. Mr. Spooner referred to existing relations between the union and McIntyre. He said conditions "are not good for the workers involved or for the community". "There should be a willingness", he said, "on the part of parties involved to meet and negotiate. There should be no war of nerves."
Referring to collective bargaining, Mr. Spooner stated it is the law of the land-that should not be a question but should be understood by everyone.
That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, the miners have not received one cent of this increase that is supposed to benefit the gold mining communities. These nine mines have received over $10 million in such assistance. I say that it is the responsibility of members of the cabinet and all members of the house to use any influence they have in any way they can to see that the money which has been voted for this purpose winds up being used for the purpose for which it was intended in the first place.


Mr. A. R. Webster (St. Antoine-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, like others who have spoken before and, I am sure, like others who will follow me, I want to welcome as warmly as I can the new members who took their seats for the first time last Thursday. At least one of the new members has made a great contribution already in making the members of the house as a group easier to look at. I am
210	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Webster sure that in the months and years ahead all the new members will play a full role in the business of governing our country.
To one of them, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), has already gone the honour of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As an English speaking member from the province of Quebec, I can only agree as strongly as possible with the sentiments regarding national unity so well expressed by him. In past years much lip service has been paid to national unity, and I think most of us will agree that since the war great improvements have taken place. I am proud to be a supporter of a government which is carrying this tradition forward in practical terms that will have everlasting benefits to the Canadian nation.
I must also congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) for his able and articulate speech in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
January, as we all know, is the month both for looking forward and looking backward. Before discussing current affairs I think it only fair to congratulate the government and the house for the legislation processed during the last session. This legislation has been criticized in the past and is being criticized again during this debate. But I would remind my friends to my right and to your left, Mr. Speaker, that the people have already passed judgment on the work of the government and parliament. There have been four by-elections, and candidates who based their appeal on the policies of the Progressive Conservative party and the record of the government in its short period of office won three of the four elections. That is answer enough for the criticism but it is no reason for complacency on the part of the government or any member of the House of Commons.
The speech from the throne is evidence enough, I believe, that the government is not complacent. To my mind it is a workmanlike document. There is a lot of work ahead of us. But what impressed me most about the speech from the throne was the tone of confidence. The country and the government face many problems, many difficult decisions. But surely if the government was not confident how could it expect the people of the country to think, to work and act confidently?
Before I deal with other items, I know the people of St. Antoine-Westmount, whom I have the honour of representing in the house, would want me to express their pleasure in anticipating the visit of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip to this country for six weeks. We were pleased to note that Her Majesty is


going to be seen in areas in which no monarch has been seen before. The visit to the Yukon and Northwest Territories should be a great inspiration to the people on the Canadian frontier.
But, of course, we in Montreal were greatly gratified, despite some malicious rumours, to find that Her Majesty and Prince Philip will spend two days in our city. They will arrive and leave aboard the royal yacht Britannia, which serves to underline the great purpose of this visit and that is to open the St. Lawrence seaway. I was interested, as I am sure many Canadians were, in the suggestion of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) on Tuesday that, if necessary, there should be two official ceremonies opening the seaway. I quite agree. I recognize the necessity of co-operating with the United States in some kind of international ceremony, no doubt along the international border. However, the seaway does begin at Montreal; much of the work was done along the south shore, and the seaway was developed by Canadian initiative. I think that this initiative, and our national pride, make it imperative that Her Majesty preside at some all-Canadian ceremony in the Montreal area.
I am glad to see that such wide use is being made of the Britannia in this tour. The progress of this beautiful yacht through to Chicago and the head of the lakes will dramatize to the world that Canada has a new coastline. It will also give to many of the lakeside communities a unique opportunity to be host to the Queen and her consort prince.
The seaway has always been important to Montreal, even when that particular stretch of water was only passable by canoe bringing furs to trade. Ever since Canada decided to go ahead with the construction of a 27-foot deep waterway there has been a great debate raging in Montreal. Fears have been expressed that much of the traffic which has been the backbone of Montreal's development and prosperity would pass the city by. But these, in my opinion, are short-sighted fears. The seaway will be a great spur to the development of the entire Canadian economy, and in a stronger and growing economy Montreal will have no place to go but up.
We, in Montreal, are pleased to see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) does not share the views of the pessimists. Montreal harbour is getting new piers, new grain elevators, new storage sheds and the deeper berths and turning basins required to share fully in the benefits of the seaway. As a result of the Queen's visit and the opening

of the seaway this is going to be a great year for Montreal and for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have already heard a great deal in this debate about the state of the Canadian economy. We have heard the government damned for not doing more about unemployment and damned, in almost the same breath, for not curbing inflationary tendencies. The opposition seems to want its cake and eat it too. When this government took office unemployment was already mounting and foreign trade was dropping off. Our trade deficit was higher than it had ever been before.
This government took the necessary steps, and today we see the results. The recession is ending with far less impact on the Canadian economy than it has had on other economies, peoples and their standards of living. Recovery has reached the point where many responsible authorities are talking about the threat of inflation. This talk is positive proof of the end of the recession. Winter unemployment, while still serious and worrisome, is showing a much slower rate of increase than it did last year. Our overseas trade is picking up.
In this connection I think we should note the benefits already flowing from the Montreal conference on trade and economic affairs. Trade barriers between Canada and the United Kingdom have been reduced and similar improvement can be expected in so far as other members of the commonwealth are concerned. This government gave notice then, and has repeated it in the speech from the throne, that it intends, on Canada's behalf, to continue shouldering the responsibility for increased economic assistance to the underdeveloped nations. The long term benefits of such a program are impossible to assess. We are meeting the communist threat of expansion on its own terms, and we are building the ability of other countries to become, in the years ahead, important customers of Canadian products.
If we should continue to trade only with countries enjoying roughly the same standards of living, then there could be no hope for less fortunate countries to improve themselves to the point where they may become important markets for our surplus products. We cannot remind ourselves too often, when we think of international trade, that we cannot get rich taking in each other's washing.
There is one other paragraph in the speech from the throne to which I should like to refer. It states, and I quote:
Discussions are taking place with the government of the United States to enable Canadian industry to share in the production of equipment being procured by the United States for joint defence purposes.
The Address-Mr. Webster
I noted with interest that the delegation from this house and the other place which was in Washington recently discussed this subject with members of the United States congress. There were some suggestions at that time, again I think by the hon. member for Laurier, for a revival of the Hyde Park wartime agreement. Under this agreement, negotiated as you will remember between the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, and the then president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States placed defence orders worth close to $1,500 million during the second world war. Some of us seem to have forgotten that the principles set out in the Hyde Park agreement were carried into the post-war period of reconstruction and conversion of industry to peacetime tasks. This was accomplished through an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States in 1945.
I want to underline that this did not supersede the Hyde Park agreement, but only carried the same principles forward. Then, five years later, in 1950, Canada and the United States agreed on a statement which has become known as the principles for economic co-operation. One of these principles is, in effect, that the United States and Canada should co-ordinate their requirements, their production and their procurement, to get the best production for common defence. These principles are still in effect, Mr. Speaker. There seems to me to be no need for any new statement of principles, the negotiation of which would only take much valuable time. I commend to the government a policy of underlining to the United States, in the most forceful terms possible, this 1950 statement of principles for economic co-operation.
There have been suggestions already that the actions of this government in demanding consideration for Canadian industry are having an effect in Washington. A story last week in the Financial Post set out that the Pentagon in Washington has asked its suppliers to let Canadian firms tender on the same basis as United States companies.
In Montreal we are hopeful, of course, that the United States will make a decision to buy the CL-44 aircraft developed by Canadair. The feeling is that this four-engined long range aircraft, a leader in its type, would be ideal for use as a picket radar plane carrying the radar warning system far out over the Atlantic flank of the North American defences.
There is one other item in the defence field which I feel should be underlined. I was happy to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Webster Diefenbaker) refer on Monday night to lobbies. Too often I think Canadians, and particularly members of parliament, have been too sanctimonious. We like to think that there are not any lobbies in this country, that we are free of the odious reputation that has been attached to lobbies and their pressures on government in Washington. We all know this simply is not so. I think it is time this was made quite clear. Every one of us knows he is subjected to hard and repeated lobbying on every conceivable subject that comes before us and some that do not. We hear the excuse from the United States that powerful lobbies there would not stand for it if the Pentagon decided to order a Canadian fighter aircraft; that they influence decisions against Canadian lead and zinc producers and against Canada's gas and oil industry.
By admitting that we, too, have lobbies and pressures upon us here in Ottawa, I believe our bargaining hand with the United States will be strengthened. It is time that people both inside this country and outside it knew that there are in Canada pressure groups which must be reckoned with.
There are other topics in the throne speech with which I might deal, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to conclude with just one more thought. As members of parliament and as legislators we should find it interesting and valuable to check this speech from the throne against those of thirty years ago. Then this parliament seemed largely concerned with developing the physical assets of the country. Today we have before us a large body of legislation relating to improvements in the social welfare of our people. We are concerned too, of course, with the economic necessity of developing our natural resources to provide the strong economic base for these social welfare programs.
Canada is fortunate in its relative youth. As a result we have not had the same opportunities to waste our natural resources. Today we must be careful to see that these resources are developed, not primarily for the benefit of the few but for all the people and that they make a contribution to this country on which a better standard of living for everyone can be based.
With good planning, intelligent execution and the resources we have, Canada can remain and develop as one of the world's most prosperous nations. My hope for this session is that the work we accomplish here-the criticism heard and the defence made; the legislation discussed and passed-will contribute substantially and significantly to the achievement of this goal.


(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, rising today in this house, I join with the members who spoke before me in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Fortin). Both, by the lofty tone of their speeches, and the ideas embodied in them, have given evidence of their ability.
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne gives members of this house an opportunity to make known to the government the needs of their constituency and the living conditions of the people they represent. It is for Canadians an invaluable opportunity which allows them to give an accounting of their needs and thus to contribute to the stability and security of Canada.
We live in a troubled world where peace is constantly threatened, and the most vital need of a nation is after all, to feel that within itself and in neighbouring countries there reign the peace and the security to which they are entitled. The previous government, like this government, has indeed made it its concern to give this nation peace and security and, jointly with other nations, to ensure world peace. I hope this government will continue to pursue this policy and that its efforts will soon be rewarded.
As I said a while ago, people need and crave peace. But international peace is not enough; one must feel within himself security and inner peace. The people of Canada want full employment. They want to earn a decent living for themselves and their families.
At this time, the country faces two very serious problems, unemployment and inflation. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was making his speech, some ministers of this government asked him which of the two problems he considered the more serious. I must draw the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that it is not up to the Leader of the Opposition to dictate the government's policy because the government has been elected to administer the country's business, and to choose the necessary ways and means to remedy the prevailing uneasiness. We have known times when, under Liberal rule, there was some uneasiness affecting this country, and the government of the day took action to correct the situation.
We should keep in mind those four years, years of reconversion, when jobs had to be

provided for returning men. The Liberal government at that time administered the country's economy so that each could return to civilian life and easily find a job.
To ease unemployment, the government has suggested winter projects for which it undertakes to pay the municipalities half the wages required for such projects as sidewalks, streets, waterworks, sewers and municipal parks. Now are these projects practicable for all municipalities in Canada and, moreover, do those municipalities have the necessary funds to carry out this work?
Representing a riding of the city of Montreal, I do not hesitate to say that none of the projects listed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), in the brief he addressed to us on November 20 last, can be carried out.
The city of Montreal is now facing a problem of snow removal which absorbs all its energy and affects its budget. It is impossible to build sidewalks when there is a foot of snow on the ground. It is also impossible to lay sewers when the streets are bordered by seven foot snow banks and more snow is falling every day. It is impossible to clear park areas that have been filled with snow removed from the streets. Also, most of Quebec municipalities lack the means to undertake such work in winter because labour would be more expensive than in summer and the share put at their disposal by the federal government would be absorbed by the extra cost of labour.
The government is perfectly aware of the financial position of municipalities, and of their ability to pay, for it summoned them to a conference, here in Ottawa, last fall, to assess their needs; and nearly all of them told the government how hard-pressed they were for funds. This winter works program is but a second-rate stopgap for those who suffer, and will in no way relieve the present situation.
It is inconceivable that, in a country as rich as ours, there should still be people who have to beg for their daily bread and live in miserable conditions. In view of this alarming situation, His Eminence Cardinal Leger, Archbishop of Montreal, had really every reason to suggest the setting up of public works programs in order to alleviate the misery of those who are suffering, and to appeal to the charity of all citizens of Montreal to raise the funds required for the implementation of such projects.
This winter works program came too late for municipalities which wanted to take advantage of it to get ready for it. It was announced at the end of October by the
The Address-Mr. Meunier Prime Minister, and the municipalities got the government offer in writing only about two weeks later.
In the house, last July, when the estimates of the Minister of Labour were being voted, we pressed him with questions about his plans for the relief of unemployment during the coming winter. The hon. minister announced nothing. If he had then and there announced his program, the municipalities could have got ready and the jobs provided would have relieved the hardship now being suffered by my fellow citizens in the province of Quebec, especially in Montreal, where there are 80,000 unemployed.
The government also faces another paradoxical situation: inflation. While, on the one hand, unemployment is rife, prices are soaring and no one can tell where this dizzy rise will stop.
The government lacks a planned economy and a flexible policy to face the situation. In his annual report, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada refers to that inflation crisis in the following terms:
Last year, as in previous recession periods, when the economy was on the decline, I recommended tax and price cuts; now, instead of tax cuts which might have spurred business and lowered prices there has been an increase in government expenditures expenses.
In fact, it is to be wondered whether these government expenditures have not contributed to inflation.
Last year, during the 1957 session, the government had hundreds of millions of dollars voted for home building, believing that such expenditures would relieve unemployment and improve the standard of living of the people of Canada.
There is no doubt that this industry has achieved part of its objective, but it is none the less true that the price of land, and of materials, has increased to such an extent that the selling price of a house has become a problem for the builder. Besides, Mr. Speaker, new housing has become so expensive for the builder that he has to rent it, and cannot find a buyer because he is asking too big a price for it. Yet he has to rent it at that price if he wants to break even.
In his report on the matter the deputy minister of Public works says that the building industry has increased its production in a spectacular way. On the other hand, Mr. W. N. Shortill, chairman of the Toronto Real Estate Board, also expressed his opinion on the matter, which may be found in the Gazette of January 15 last, when he stated that it is getting harder to sell a house. Mr. Shortill claims that there will be competition in the
214	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Meunier sale of houses, because the supply is greater than the demand. He claims that there is bound to be a price war in the sale of houses, if building construction is carried on on the same basis in 1959 as it was in 1958.
All those government expenditures have caused inflation and, in my opinion, the government would have been better off in building a limited number of houses each year instead of creating surplus which we now have. In Montreal, many builders have stopped operating because they can't sell the houses they built last summer. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) will follow up the statement he made recently, to the effect that he would fight inflation by cutting down on government expenditures.
This government does not seem to be alarmed at budget deficits. Thus Monday night, I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) mention that from 1935 to 1957, while the Liberal party was in power, there had been
14	deficits. However, there are justifiable deficits, and others that give cause for alarm. Those mentioned by the Prime Minister under the Liberal administration included years of depression and years of war. At the moment, the country is in the throes of inflation, yet the government records the greatest deficit in Canada's history.
Mr. Speaker, I will only say that the speech from the throne mentions nothing that could give hope to Canadians that the present situation will be corrected.
The Prime Minister recently made a trip, but he has not said yet whether, as a result of the meetings he had during this trip, other markets will be opened to Canadian products. Canada needs an expansion policy, the opening of new markets to sell its products.
Like other members who spoke before me, Mr. Speaker, I heard and read with interest the speech from the member for Mont-magny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin). If Quebec is a province like any other, it must play its part in the confederation and co-operate to the greatness of the country.
Since the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is in a co-operative mood I am sure that he will make use of his resources to settle the thorny issues that have come up between the province of Quebec and the federal government for some
15	years.
These are matters of vital importance and they cannot be neglected indefinitely. The matter of grants to universities is an urgent


one. If we want those institutions to achieve the goal for which they were founded, the matter must be settled soon. We all know that education is a provincial matter, but it seems that a grant or aid given unconditionally for the cultural development of a nation does not infringe upon its rights and prerogatives.
The province of Quebec is also interested in the problems of health insurance. If the former federal government initiated this social measure, and if the present government has implemented it, it is because it was a good measure and because the people of Canada wanted it.
Several provinces have joined in, but the province of Quebec has not yet said what it proposes to do in this regard. The people of Quebec, like those of all other provinces, pay heavily for hospital services and provincial participation in this plan would relieve Quebec taxpayers.
The speech from the throne also tells us that further funds will be required for the completion of the trans-Canada highway. This is another question which has been eliciting a negative answer from the province of Quebec for almost 10 years. Is that highway, started by the Liberal government, and which this government is still building, of any use to this country? It is unmistakeably useful in wartime as well as in peace time, and if those amounts of money were used in the province of Quebec, they would alleviate hardship and could provide work for many jobless.
For all those nationwide projects, the Quebec taxpayer has been paying taxes and it is only fair that they should bring dividends to him in improvements which will ensure his security and welfare.
I grant that the opponents of such projects use arguments of questionable validity, but if everybody sticks to his guns and never tries to reach an agreement or an honourable compromise, the population in a province will be indefinitely deprived of invaluable advantages.
If the intention is to play politics with those issues forever, to make a political football out of them and to appeal consistently to emotion, the Quebec taxpayer will in the long run be the loser and feel cheated of his rights.
Again I submit, Mr. Speaker, that none of those matters will be settled by a negative approach, and that among people of good will you can reach an agreement without disregarding fundamental principles.

Another point I should like to mention in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the Canadian contribution to the Colombo plan.
Of course we must help underdeveloped countries to build up their economy and, later on, when their expansion is in full swing they will be able to become customers on the international market where we can dispose of our products.
This year, Canada undertook to provide $50 million under this plan. Can we really afford this expenditure, or is Canada making commitments out of all proportions to its finances?
I know that under the Liberal government, when contributions were of the order of 8, 10 and 12 million dollars, Quebec Conservatives criticized these gifts, and labelled them extravagant. I wonder what their attitude is today. Perhaps, in the light of the facts shown to them their opinion has changed, but it would be interesting to know their stand on this matter.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, another matter that I would like to take up with the house, particularly with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), and I refer to the C.B.C. producers' strike in Montreal. We know that the C.B.C. enjoys independent status but is answerable to the Minister of National Revenue. The strike has gone on since December 29, and it appears that neither party is ready to reach agreement with the other. We know that the producers want to have their right of association recognized and that the C.B.C. refuses, on the grounds that they are part of management. We cannot know who is right, because of the little information we have on the matter, but it seems that the minister could at least step in and try to settle the dispute which is crippling the network and depriving part of Quebec people of favourite TV programs.
Several previous speakers have said that the government has no coordinated and definite policy. This is causing concern to the public and besides, it seems that certain cabinet members are making irresponsible statements and spreading confusion on many matters.
Canada has made much headway these last 25 years in the field of national unity, and no one has worked harder and more sincerely to this end than the former Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent.
Now, it happened that, quite recently, two government ministers have made the statement that our national anthem is God Save
The Address-Mr. Bourdages the Queen. They know perfectly well, however, that Canada has no law nor statute to confirm this. I very much admire our gracious Queen and I like to sing her anthem when it is proper to do so, but it seems to me that when a fact is not clearly established, one must be careful not to wound feelings or create confusion in order to belittle another anthem highly considered throughout Canada and even abroad.
I say abroad because I remember the statement made by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, here in this house, on March 18, 1954, which appears in Hansard of that date, when he gave a report of his world tour. He said this:
I want to assure hon. members that everywhere I went as a representative of Canada I was received with enthusiasm and every evidence of friendliness and good will. Everywhere I went I heard "O Canada" sung, and I was always moved and touched at the feeling of pride it gave one to be there as a representative of that country for which the hymn was being sung or played.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what right the ministers of the crown have to proclaim one national hymn instead of another, when this one hymn is recognized abroad.
I would now like, Mr. Speaker, to deal briefly with the comments made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) which the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) has mentioned during his remarks. I may say to the hon. minister that the Civil Service Commission is composed of honest and competent people, and that it is playing an important part in our administration. This commission has been founded so as to prevent the civil service from becoming chaotic and a political football, and so that government employees should enjoy security in their jobs as much as it is possible. During its 22 years in power, the Liberal government created a very competent Civil Service Commission which is admired in other countries. I consider that the commission which administers this institution should not become subject to politics and become the creature or the screen of a single party.


Mr. Rodrigue Bourdages (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, during the last session, I did not have the pleasure to rise in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I preferred to listen, to learn parliamentary procedure so that I could better discuss things this session.


Azellus Denis: Including Liberal M.P.'s.
216	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Bourdages


Rodrigue Bourdages: Today I want first of all
to speak about this beautiful county of Mon-treal-Laval which I have the honour to represent. I have, Mr. Speaker, the pleasure and honour to represent one of the most beautiful counties of the land, whatever my hon. fellow members may say, which is also one of the most densely populated areas of the country, with a population of almost 250,000, comprising about 80,000 voters. The county of Montreal-Laval is situated north of the city of Montreal. It also comprises Jesus island, bound on the north by the Thousand Islands river and on the south by the Prairie river. Jesus island, Mr. Speaker, which is about 20 miles long and about 10 miles wide, is composed of 17 islands and municipalities, and also includes 22 school boards.
I need not mention that every day I receive many requests particularly from the municipal councils of those cities and municipalities. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the postal system in our county of Laval and, more particularly, the postal system we have on Jesus island. As I said, Jesus island comprises 17 towns and municipalities which have to administer a population of more than 100,000 people. There are also several towns and municipalities that are grouped together for postal delivery. There are 7 towns: St. Frangois, St. Elzear, Ste. Rose, Fa-breville, Laval West, Ste. Dorothee, and Laval Islands. We have for instance towns like Laval des Rapides which, in 1951, had a population of about 3,000 and now has more than 15,000, but has not yet its own post office.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Post Office Department will give serious consideration to the matter, so as to improve the postal system in the constituency of Laval. There are also in my beautiful constituency of Laval a good number of farmers; each year they have to face the same problems in connection with their agricultural products. Should it be possible to establish a seasonal tariff on farm products and even put an embargo on imported products, I am sure that would be of great help to the farmers, not only of the constituency of Laval, but of the whole of Canada.
There are also, Mr. Speaker, many railway crossings in my constituency. Each year, many accidents, often fatal, occur. Why? Because there are no fences nor traffic lights. The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) will assuredly want to give very special attention to the need of my constituency,


and, in that connection, I am sure he will see to it that it gets the share to which it is entitled. I should now like to deal with a matter in which I am specially interested. I refer to the deepening of the channel in the Prairie and Thousand Islands rivers to facilitate the use of pleasure craft.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Rodrigue Bourdages: These two rivers cross the constituency of Laval from end to end. If you go round Jesus island by boat, you will travel a distance of about 50 miles, and you will also note from 3,000 to 3,500 motorboats of all kinds. I believe that development of these two rivers for the benefit of pleasure boats only, has become absolutely necessary, and that, for several reasons. First of all, according to the Financial Post in 1957 the sale of pleasure boats in Canada alone increased by $30 million over the previous year. Think of the ever increasing number of pleasure boats, of the fact that these cruiser type boats are now within reach of anyone's purse, that the number of persons making a living out of the pleasure boating industry, and of the increased value it would mean for land adjacent to navigable rivers. Consider too that the navigable waterways of some lakes and rivers are the sole means of communication, and that over 90 per cent of riparian proprietors own some sort of boat. Do not forget the commercial expansion that navigation means for riparian proprietors, municipalities and cities; think of the tremendous development of aquatic sports, of their popularity, of the power and speed of outboard motors and yachts, and consider also, more especially, that our navigable waterways offer panoramic and tourist attractions unexplored until now, not to mention that, in case of emergency, navigable rivers are the only means of transportation. Let us consider too the expansion of industry, the success of enterprises and professions connected with it, such as insurance, sale of oil and gasoline, sale of boat, life saving and fire prevention equipment, of marine paints and varnishes, as well as boat and motor maintenance and repair services. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, in deepening these rivers it would make it possible to clean up their waters and would permit the development of beautiful beaches. Action on this highly important matter would benefit the entire population of the Laval constituency, which I am intent on helping.

Please be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the people place high hopes in the new administration to study and solve the many problems of my constituency.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say just a few words on unemployment.
Of course, some unemployment exists. It always has existed and always will.
In the constituency of Laval perhaps I am rather privileged, as this is a residential constituency and the majority of the people there are home owners so far and have not suffered too much from unemployment. However, I think it is important to prepare a broad plan providing for the construction of industrial and commercial buildings, and giving due consideration to available manpower in each section of the country. Under this plan, an attempt would be made to obtain advance information on the rate of construction in each area, and to ensure that at least 90 per cent of skilled workers were kept employed. An effort would be made to have new construction projects undertaken in all areas where a slowdown occurred.
I realize that the implementation of this plan would probably entail a great deal of work, but perhaps there might be created a new department, which might be called the Department of Town Planning, Construction and Housing, which would take in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the population of the constituency of Laval for their confidence and co-operation. In return, I promise them my best efforts on their behalf.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a duty this year for all members of this house, to voice the opinions of their constituents, in view of the serious situation facing all constituencies throughout the country.
I have been listening with much pleasure to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bour-dages), making his maiden speech in this house. He did quite well, and I congratulate him on this first effort. I hope we shall be hearing more of him.
Mr. Speaker, may I, as did all previous speakers, congratulate the proposer and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Messrs. Jorgenson and Fortin). I wish, particularly, to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) who, in a speech that lasted over
The Address-Mr. Dupuis two hours, drew a true picture of conditions facing Canadians under a Conservative government.
I can recall how during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, our hon. friends across the room openly criticized the Liberal government and asked people to elect a Conservative government that promised heaven on earth.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party has been in power only slightly over a year. In a matter of a few months, Mr. Speaker, we are back to the empty and dark years with which Conservative governments have always plagued this country throughout its history: the Borden government, the Bennett government, and now the Diefenbaker government.
Mr. Speaker, how often have we heard it said: "Beat the Liberals and there will be no unemployed in the country. Beat the Liberals and we will settle the problem of federal-provincial relations. Beat the Liberals, and Canada will enjoy prosperity such as it has never known." Since the beginning of this session, certain members of the right- who will come to the left very soon-have shouted at every turn, as do, for instance, the hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), for Joliette - L'Assomption - Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), who are all Union Nationale Conservatives from the province of Quebec, and who were elected because they promised in all ridings of the province of Quebec to lead Canada to the very peak of prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that, instead of interrupting the speeches of those who are discharging their duties, hon. members, and particularly the member for Roberval, described to their voters and to us the situation that existed when he won the riding in 1958, and of the situation in which the Conservative party has placed the same riding a few months after gaining power.
In regard to the Roberval constituency, for instance, this afternoon, I secured the latest statistics, and they are not at all pretty. In fact, I would be ashamed to rise in this parliament of Canada and to be part of the Conservative team that was so critical of the St. Laurent government, the government which led the country to the highest peak of achievement since confederation, and end up with the result that is experienced now since the professor of Laval University, a 100 per cent "duplessist" was elected to this house.

The Address-Mr. Dupuis
In the riding of my friend from Roberval, in May 1957, under the Liberal administration, there were 1,589 unemployed. A year after our friend's victory, in May 1958, in the same constituency of Roberval, under the leadership of the great and worthy new member, there were 3,794 unemployed, an increase of 2,205 in a year.
In June 1957, in the riding of Roberval, there were 1,186 unemployed, and since our friends took power, in June 1958, there were 2,713, an increase of 1,527 in a single year.
And, I look now at my friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) he of the serene smile, that ex-private secretary to the "duplessist" minister of labour

who also likes to sing the praises of the Conservative administration. Well, may I advise him to think of the change that can happen under a new government; I will give him the figures on his own constituency, the figures for "his village" as Mr. Duplessis would put it.
At Joliette, in May 1957, 1609 unemployed were registered at the unemployment insurance office; in May 1958, a year after the election of the devoted secretary to Mr. Duplessis' minister of labour, there were 3,410 unemployed receiving unemployment insurance benefits, an increase of 1,801.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieiie-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is mistaken. According to official figures, there is less unemployment this year in the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm constituency than at any time in the past.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville has the floor. If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm wishes to make an explanation I would appreciate it if he would reserve it until the end of the speech.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, these figures were given to me this very afternoon by the secretariat of the unemployment insurance commission; they are therefore official figures of the unemployment insurance commission.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no matter of
privilege there.


Yvon Dupuis: With pleasure.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Am I allowed a question?


Yvon Dupuis: Yes, certainly.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Who gave you those figures?


Guy Rouleau: That is not a question of privilege.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, after the statement made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), I will certainly not divulge the names of civil servants.
Mr. Speaker, I think the standing orders provide that the word of a member must be accepted when he quotes statistics and informs the house where he obtained them. If my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had better knowledge of the standing orders, he would not ask such a question.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You were only asked to give additional details.


Yvon Dupuis: Well! Now another voice is piping up. I think I have additional details also for the constituency of Chambly-Rouville.
Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate that this is not especially pleasant to my hon. friends, particularly those who represent a "duplessist" constituency, that is, a constituency where a "duplessist" minister boasts that he is giving the people all they get. You know, they have the giving habit; in fact they are always giving. As they say, "we have given and consecrated". Indeed, they have consecrated a good deal of unemployment within a few months.
Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm-I truly believe he did it because the truth always hurts-I was stating the number of unemployed in the beautiful constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. In the month of June 1957, there were 1,282 unemployed workers; that was when the Liberals were thrown out of office. However, after my hon. friend grew hoarse from making speeches in the three counties and was elected, we find that in a year, the number of unemployed rose to 2,742, an increase of 1,460. Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with the constituency of Sherbrooke, which is known as the queen or the pearl, I am not sure, of the eastern townships. There was at Sherbrooke also in 1957, a Conservative candidate who promised heaven and earth to the voters, and undertook to free the country from the evil Liberal administration. He was elected. Well,

do you know how many unemployed there were in Sherbrooke in May 1957, 3,068. A year later, in May 1958, under the Tory Conservative administration which was to save the country, there were, in this same riding, 6,048 unemployed, an increase of 3,340. This in a single Conservative constituency, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Yvon Dupuis: In the month of June 1957, Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask two questions of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. I would like to ask the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to give us the figures about the increase or decrease of unemployment from June 10, 1957 to this day, in his constituency. As a second question, I would like to know-


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order, and I would ask the hon. member to let me speak because I do not have much time left and I have much to say. However, I will answer his first question.


An hon. Member:: Do not wait for Mr. Maurice Lamontagne to answer.


Yvon Dupuis: In regard to the increases and decreases that have happened during one year, the hon. member for Sherbrooke will be able to calculate them. We find that there is much more unemployment now than under the Liberal administration.
Mr. Speaker, in June 1957, in Sherbrooke, there were 2,872 people getting unemployment insurance benefits, and please note that I give only the number of those who were entitled to these benefits. The number of unemployed is even higher. In my hon. friend's constituency of Sherbrooke, where he promised to free the province and the country of the Liberal party, there were under the Tory-Conservative administration, in June 1958, 5,002 unemployed, an increase of 2,130.
I come now to another constituency, that of my hon. friend from Lake St. John (Mr. Pari-zeau), who specializes in shouting while his colleagues are making their speeches.
In St. Joseph d'Alma-
(Text):


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be in order to ask the hon. member to speak a little louder.
The Address-Mr. Dupuis (Translation) :


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, there are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to Lake St. John constituency. I hope that the hon. members are proud of these statistics. I hope that they feel the Conservative blood running in their veins at this moment. In Lake St. John district, in May 1957, there were fewer than 1,000 persons registered with the regional unemployment insurance office, more precisely 966. But, when my hon. friends came to power, there were, one year later, in 1958, in the great constituency of Lake St. John, 2,081 unemployed, an increase of 1,115, and this, in one year only with the Conservative springtide.
In the same constituency, in June 1957, 743 people were drawing unemployment insurance benefits. One year later, in June 1958,	1,493 people were drawing those
benefits, an increase of 750 and this, again, in one year only.
Mr. Speaker, we could visit in this way the whole province, and everywhere we would find a similar situation; the province of Quebec is in a slump, like the rest of the country. However, our hon. friends praise the right hon. Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister himself praises his own deeds. I have at home, in my music shop, a French record that I will send to the right hon. Prime Minister as soon as I get back to St. Jean. That record is entitled:	"Johnny,
you're no angel". Mr. Speaker, the more I study the deeds of the present government, the more reason I find to sing this French song.
We have accurate figures concerning the city of Montreal. Do not wait for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to give them to you, because he does not seem in a hurry to do so. In Montreal, in the local office of the unemployment insurance commission in May 1957, under the Liberal government, there were 24,460 unemployed registered. One year later, in May 1958, there were 59,883, an increase of 35,423, and again, under a Tory-Conservative administration.
In June 1957, again in Montreal, there were 22,858 unemployed. A year later, in June 1958, there were 53,666, an increase of 30,808. And here again, when I give the number of unemployed, I refer only to those who draw unemployment insurance benefits.
To please my hon. friend the member for Sherbrooke, I shall say that in St. Johns, in the St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville constituency, instead of growing, the population

The Address-Mr. Dupuis has decreased. Many people are leaving St. Johns because they cannot find any work. I shall say to my hon. friend from Sherbrooke that in St. Johns, the oldest concern, the Singer Sewing Machine has laid off a very great number of its employees, men who had been working there for 15 or 16 years and who thought they were enjoying the security they had known during the 15 or 16 years of the Liberal administration, men who are now out of work and had to leave St. Johns to seek employment elsewhere. Is the hon. member for Sherbrooke satisfied with my answer?
We have found that everywhere factories are laying off employees in great numbers; Conservatives are complaining, not only in St. Johns, but also in Sherbrooke, in Lake St. John, in Beauce, in Abitibi, everywhere. Business is in a bad way and the effects are really being felt. We feel that things are really changing, but changing for the worse.
Mr. Speaker, do you think that we are happy about this distressing situation? If I had been a Conservative candidate in 1958 and I had promised my constituents everything the Conservative candidates have promised in their constituencies, I would find it very embarrassing to rise in the house to praise a government who has failed to fulfil all its promises. However, I am proud to belong to the Liberal party, a middle-of-the-road party, a party that has made Canada the beautiful country it is and has given to it the most prosperous years of its history. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to think of the names of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, William Lyon Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, and to compare them with Messrs. Borden, Bennett and the new one.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is you who have crucified Mr. St. Laurent.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, you have just heard another expression of Duplessis supporters "With the crucifix", always the crucifix.


An hon. Member:: The one you have discouraged.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, you will note that my hon. friends are angry; it pleases me to note that nothing hurts like the truth, Mr. Speaker, I wonder which one of my hon. friends-and I would ask those who are listening to me by means of the simultaneous translation system to answer me by the same system-I would ask them to tell me who, in the province of Quebec, did not, in the campaign, promise to send a delegate to the Vatican. Who did not promise, during his campaign in the province of Quebec-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I did.


Yvon Dupuis: -to be against the Colombo plan.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I asked for it, I did not promise to send a delegate to the Vatican.


Yvon Dupuis: Your brother the minister did promise it.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: He never promised it. And I defy you to find a single passage in any speech where he would have done it.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I listened personally to my hon. friend's brother. I personally heard him in the St. James riding in Montreal speak about the ambassador to the Vatican. And you were probably there, you were following him everywhere. The hon. provincial minister, brother of my hon. friend whom I have just annoyed, promised over the radio-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I am not quite sure whether the hon. member is speaking on the amendment to the amendment or on the amendment itself.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: You were very nice, Mr. Speaker, to my friends opposite and I thank you on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that our friends promised prosperity, and oddly enough throughout the years the various Conservative administrations did not change and their stand is always similar, indeed identical, and they are always the same.
Two days ago, I heard the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada reply to the magnificent speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. What did the Prime Minister say? Oh! and with his well-known effectiveness he exclaimed: But you are going to spread distrust! Those are wailings and lamentations. And our Prime Minister was definitely scandalized, the Leader of the Opposition had been bold enough to claim that there was unemployment under the new Conservative administration.
Mr. Speaker, it will be six o'clock in a couple of minutes. I promise you to come back after. Don't be too proud. We are going to have supper and I promise as a dessert to give you some evidence of how Conservative administrations never change. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No, no, there are still two minutes left.


Yvon Dupuis: I move the adjournment of the debate.

(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has said it is six o'clock; that being so, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, allow me at the opening of this sitting to raise a question of privilege. I should like to put a question to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.
What does he think of the statement made by-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had not called the house to order yet. The hon. member is a little bit previous. Has he a question of privilege? If so, I will hear the hon. member.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What does the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville think of the statement made by Maurice Carmel, manager of the local employment service of the unemployment insurance commission in Joliette, who was reported in the Etoile du Nord of December 17, 1958 as saying that there is less unemployment in Joliette this year than last year for the same period.
(Text):


Mr. Habel:: There is no question of privilege there, Mr. Speaker. After all, he is replying to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). He will have an opportunity to reply in his speech. There is no question of privilege there.


Mr. Speaker:: What question of privilege does the hon. member wish to raise?


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: None whatever.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville has made a statement which I think is not true on the employment situation in Joliette. I have an official document which proves that what he said is false. He attacked me-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) feels that some statement made by the hon. member who has the floor is not correct, he has the opportunity to make an
The Address-Mr. Dupuis explanation, if it relates to him, at the end of the speech. But if it is just a contradiction of something the hon. member has said, that is a matter of debate and not a proper point of privilege. It is simply that the hon. member does not agree with what the hon. member who has the floor has said. I will ask the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to continue.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am well pleased to see that the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) before digesting his dinner had already something to say, and that shows that my remarks have stung him deeply.
So I shall resume my remarks and I have no intention of repeating what I said before recess.
The statistical data which I gave were obtained from a reliable source and if the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is satisfied with what he reads in the newspapers, I must tell him that I went to the best official source, to the unemployment insurance head office. So the figures I mentioned were the authoritative ones.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall carry on with my remarks to fulfil the promise I made before dinner, namely of proving to you that the Conservative party, whether at Lake St. John or elsewhere is always the same.
Indeed no matter how the Conservatives change, they always remain the same. Mr. Borden was like Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett was like Mr. Borden. Now the new one looks strangely like the other two.
As I said, when the right hon. Prime Minister replied to the substantial, serious and intelligent speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) he said to this house and to the whole country that there was nothing in it but wailings which could but create an atmosphere of distrust towards Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said nothing new. He only repeated what his predecessors had said, and to prove it I can call no better witness than Hansard.
On October 10, 1932, when the prime minister was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and when the leader of the opposition was the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, the leader of the opposition pointed out to the prime minister that the unemployment situation was alarming, that the new administration was bringing about in the country a disturbing atmosphere. Do you know what the then right hon. prime minister answered? Listen carefully, Mr. HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Dupuis Speaker, and you will have the impression of listening to the head of this government. Mr. Bennett said:
When it is said that the conditions in this country are worse, when an effort is made by the jeremiads of a Jeremiah to make it appear that all is not well in this country, to paint everything in the darkest possible colours, to have the right hon. gentleman stand in his place today and minute after minute for almost half an hour paint the evils of present conditions in this country and deprecate the efforts that have been made by the government to sustain the morale of the Canadian people, 1 say it is not worthy of a great opposition or of a great party.
It is the duty and function of those who govern for the moment to endeavour by every means in their power to restore the morale of the people and to create confidence in themselves and in their country that all was and would be well.
And a little further on, in the same speech, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett referred once more to the opposition's jeremiads, real Jeremiah's lamentations.
Mr. Speaker, the extracts I have just quoted may be found on page 49 of the official record for 1932, and they indicate that the more the Conservatives change, the more the situation remains the same, and the more the old Tory guard remains what it is. In his election campaign of 1930 Mr. Bennett's slogan was: "Canada First". However, on the first occasion, he went over to England to be knighted.
In the course of his 1930 campaign, Mr. Bennett blared all over Canada: "We are going to put a stop to unemployment, we are going to increase the standard of living of Canadians, we are going to develop the country's resources". You know what happened, Mr. Speaker. History repeats itself, but the more it changes, the more it remains the same. It is with those words I have just quoted the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett replied to the then leader of the opposition. Therefore, it is clear that the present leader of the government has just said the same thing.
As in Trinity, there was, after Mr. Bennett's election in 1932, a by-election. And in that by-election, the Conservatives lost some ground. Mr. Mackenzie King pointed out the result in this house. Mr. Bennett then said that it did not mean a thing, as our friends say in Trinity. I take this opportunity to mention the arrival amongst us in this house of a minister in the former Liberal cabinet, who will certainly be one in the next Liberal cabinet which will be elected a little later.
And, as in 1932, we heard our friends opposite say that the by-election did not mean a thing. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read out what the then hon. leader of the opposition replied when it was stated that a by-election had no significance. He merely read out some verses of Kipling, which made them


think. The situation is so much alike this year, that I would regret not to read them out again.
I understand that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), has never read Kipling. He has never read anything; he is like his leader of the Union Nationale.
Here are Kipling's lines.


An hon. Member:: He reads the Devoir-
Another hon. Member: He reads Montreal-Matin-


Mr. Speaker:: Only one at a time, please.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, thank you for having spoken in French and, in order to show you our appreciation I shall now speak to you in English.
This is what Kipling said and I shall repeat it to our friends following their fiasco in Trinity. And strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, our friends opposite are in the same situation as in 1932.
(Text):
Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,
We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good.
Not on a single issue, or in one direction or twain,
But conclusively, comprehensively, and several times and again,
Were all our most holy illusions knocked higher than Gilderoy's kite.
We have had a jolly good lesson, and it serves us jolly well right!
(Translation):
This afternoon I heard the Minister of Labour-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: May I ask you a question?


Yvon Dupuis: You wish to ask me a
question?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I should like to know of the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville the reference to the text he quotes from Kipling, if he does claim to read Kipling.


Yvon Dupuis: If my friend is not well read enough to know the page, I am not here to tell him. Besides, he only has to consult the professor from Laval university, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay).
The hon. Minister of Labour stated this afternoon-or perhaps it was this morning- that many municipalities had asked for winter unemployment relief work. Well, Mr. Speaker, as was so truly said by the hon. member for Essex East-we are so used to calling him Mr. Minister, and so confident that we will be calling him again Mr. Minister, that we forget the name of his constituency-the hon. minister of national health

and welfare in the St. Laurent cabinet made a brilliant speech in this house this morning, showing point by point that the assertions made by the Prime Minister were false. It would have been the responsibility of the hon. Minister of Labour to correct the former health minister's assertions had they been untrue. However, he did not do it, because he knows the Prime Minister has juggled with the figures, and he himself, the Minister of Labour this morning wanted us to believe all was well in this country led by a Conservative government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have proven that, in the constituencies that I mentioned earlier during my speech, those of my friends from Lake St. John, Roberval, Sherbrooke, Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, etc., everything was as bad as possible, where everything was going fine at the time of their return to power.
And, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, when he brings up the matter of these winter works, makes the whole country laugh. Imagine, he has paid, in the city of Ottawa, for 8,000 unemployed, he, the great treasurer of labour, the sum of $1,500,000 for winter works.
(Text):


Mr. Monteith (Perth):: You're not up to date. (Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Do you know how many people will be able to get a job, thanks to that federal government's assistance? Steady yourself, Mr. Speaker. One hundred and fifty unemployed will get a job in the city of Ottawa, out of a total of 8,000, and the present government flatters itself with having efficiently solved the unemployment problem.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I say with the Leader of the Opposition that the present government does not deserve for one more day the confidence of the Canadian people, because all the promises it has made have been null and worthless. It has fulfilled none of its commitments, so that at the present time, the whole country is now going through a period such as we have known in the dark days when Mr. Bennett was at the head of the Canadian nation.
In my constituency of St. Jean as elsewhere unemployment has increased considerably, Mr. Speaker. In the constituency of Sorel unemployment has increased so much that sometimes some of the unemployed make off to some other districts where they are not likely to find jobs either.
Let us look with our hon. friends into the situation as it exists in Richelieu district, which our historians claim to be one
The Address-Mr. Dupuis of the richest in the province and even in the entire country. It is a fertile district watered by a clear river. We know, Mr. Speaker, that in Sorel, in Chambly-my hon. friend cannot deny it-in St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville unemployment has increased materially since our Conservative friends came to power. And, Mr. Speaker, as was so ably pointed out by the former Minister of Transport, the deepening of the Richelieu river in order to provide jobs for our workers and to find further commercial outlets between New York and Montreal immediately comes to our mind.
Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Prime Minister talks about the lamentations of a Jeremiah, I should like to read to you the statements made in 1955 by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) when the issue was merely seasonal unemployment, and the statements made by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) when the issue was merely a gap in the field of labour. Let me quote what the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) said when he spoke to the same effect, as reported on page 138 of Hansard for January 13, 1955. Here is what the present Minister of Transport said in 1955. The issue then was merely a small-scale seasonal unemployment compared with what we are experiencing today. Here is what he said when he sat on the opposition side as the private member for Broadview.
Here is what he said as reported on page 138 of Hansard for January 13, 1955. And the Prime Minister dares tell us that we are fiery, that we are spreading distrust, that we are creating an atmosphere of uncertainty. At the time unemployment was merely a drop in the bucket and was almost nil.
Here is what the Minister of Transport said at the time:
It a man or woman is willing and anxious to work, and through no fault of his or her own cannot find work during the months preceding the first of the year-
As you see, that was seasonal unemployment-
-then somebody must assume responsibility for that person and his family. The municipalities have no funds to do it; the provinces have no funds to do it. For some years past it has been the overwhelming opinion of all people who have made studies of this problem that this is a federal responsibility. They have urged the federal government to assume its responsibility in this matter. However, despite this overwhelming body of opinion, this government has continued to duck its responsibility, and I believe that by so doing it is showing a shocking lack of concern for the people for whom it has a primary responsibility.

The Address-Mr. Thomas
What could we not say today, Mr. Speaker? The present minister, who was then the member for Broadview, added this:
For two or three years past X have asked the minister to tell the country what his views are on this problem, and the minister on behalf of the government has refused. I am going to ask him again today. I hope he will give us an answer, because the country is waiting for that answer.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will give us an answer, because the country is waiting for one and none is coming from the government.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: May I call your attention to the fact that I started to speak at 18 minutes to and that I still have three minutes to go.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot allow the hon. member to contest the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation for this opportunity of taking part m the debate on the speech from the throne, and to bring up several matters of interest to my constituents. I should like to associate myself with those other hon. members who have congratulated the mover (Mr. Jorgenson) and seconder (Mr. Fortin) of the address in reply. Their speeches did credit to themselves and credit to this house. I feel the opposition should also be congratulated on the enthusiasm and even the fervour with which they carried on their duty of criticism, especially in view of the fact that they have such a weak case on which to work. As is customary in throne speech debates the opposition has seen fit to move an amendment which implies want of confidence in the government. I, of course, along with my colleagues am very much opposed to any such amendment. We feel the government has done a good job and we wish to congratulate all concerned on their administration.
While the effects of government policy bear unequally on different groups in our economy the overall results of these policies have, we believe, been good for Middlesex West and good for Canada. All government is a compromise. In our intricate present day society when one group is helped another group may be hurt. We cannot all benefit equally through government policies all of the time. Equity is an ideal that we have to strive for but which we have no hope of attaining.

Care must be exercised by government to promote equity. We believe our government has exercised such care.
All of us when considering economic propositions must remember to consider what their future effects will be as well as the present advantages of such propositions. For instance, it is folly to set farm prices at a level which will produce unmanageable surpluses. It is folly also to set up unemployment insurance plans that defeat themselves by destroying the incentive of people to work. Constant increases in wages and prices can only result in ever increasing spirals of inflation and end in financial disaster. We must remember that every time we increase our social security we must sacrifice a corresponding part of our individual freedom in the spending of our income. As a people we must give if we are to get. We cannot take from our national pool of wealth more than we put in. We submit that the caution with which our government has moved in the exercise of its functions has inspired confidence among people everywhere.
I have great faith in our Canadian people. We will stand together to maintain Canada as the best country in the world in which to live. In 1957 Canadians chose a new government which they believed would best serve Canada's needs. In 1958 they confirmed that choice by returning the government to office with the greatest majority ever given a government in this country. There are no grounds for belief that the confidence of the people in our government has weakened in the slightest degree.
Federal-provincial relationships have improved since this government took office. Never before has this country been so united as it is today. Commonwealth bonds have been strengthened by the commonwealth conference held last year and by the Prime Minister's recent visit to commonwealth countries. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and our government have clearly demonstrated their dedication to the cause of commonwealth development and their belief in the great role which the British commonwealth can play in world affairs.
Our good relationships with the United States have been maintained and improved. Our interests have been stated frankly and frankly discussed. A greater measure of mutual respect and trust has been the result. Our interests in trade and defence are so closely bound to those of our southern neighbours that the best and most cordial relationship with them are essential for our mutual benefit.
The constituency of Middlesex West, which I have the honour to represent, is a representative Canadian riding. It is both urban

and rural, industrial and agricultural. Although we are an inland area the great lakes are near enough that the future of the St. Lawrence seaway has a very significant place in our future plans. Our constituency is characterized by numerous new suburban homes, light industry and diversified agriculture. Our factories make aluminum products, tubular fittings, plumbing and heating supplies, woollen goods, furniture, drainage tile, agricultural chemicals, mobile homes and store equipment. We have plants which process meat products, poultry products, dairy products, fruits and vegetables and also plants which mill flour and feed. Our farmers produce in some quantity nearly every product of agriculture that can be produced in any part of Canada: grain and seeds, fruits and vegetables, every kind of livestock and tobacco. From our woodlots come Christmas trees and large quantities of hardwood for manufacturing.
We have ethnic problems similar to those in some other parts of the country. The first settlers in Middlesex West were almost exclusively of British descent; English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish. In recent years the character of the population has changed and in some areas nearly half the population now are new Canadians. Because we are both urban and rural, industrial and agricultural, owners and wage earners, importers and exporters, old Canadians and new Canadians, debtors and creditors, we find ourselves on both sides of nearly every social and economic argument that is taking place in Canada today.
Middlesex West welcomes the announcement that a visit to the city of London is to be included in the royal tour this summer. Since our constituency includes the western suburb of the city this announcement is of special significance to us. Our people greatly appreciate this honour and I am sure will cooperate in every possible way to prepare a royal welcome.
We are thankful to be able to say that unemployment in our area is not as serious as in some other places but we have it. Our people endorse the various policies of the government aimed at easing its effects. The extension of seasonal benefits under the unemployment insurance plan and the removal of all restrictions in connection with federal sharing of direct relief costs has been of great assistance. The government's public works program of construction, and the encouragement of special municipal programs of winter work by a federal grant of 75 per cent of the labour costs should also help to provide jobs. The "why wait until spring" and "do it now" 66968-9-15
The Address-Mr. Thomas publicity programs carried on by the Department of Labour should help in promoting winter work.
Middlesex West has enjoyed a fair share of the home building boom that has prevailed across the country since the last war. The year 1958 was a record one in our area, and the prospects look good for 1959. Our people appreciate the encouragement being given to home building. In 1957, and again in 1958, large sums were made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to bolster the building industry that had previously been slowing down for lack of funds. This home building policy serves two purposes; it provides much needed homes for our rapidly expanding population on terms that people can afford to pay and it provides jobs.
Our Post Office Department has kept abreast of our home building in Middlesex West. During 1958 several important extensions of house to house deliveries were made in the suburban area. This service was extended to 965 homes in Oakridge Acres and to 191 homes in University Heights. The Post Office Department conducts a continuous survey of suburban development with a view to extending house to house delivery service as soon as any area reaches the necessary density of development. The standard required is an average of 40 yards between delivery calls. I am advised that the Orchard Park subdivision is rapidly approaching the necessary standard for house to house service. This diligence of the Post Office Department in providing extensions of service as soon as possible is greatly appreciated.
On page 2744 of Hansard of July 26, 1958, the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) stated that house to house delivery is not provided in municipalities where delivery calls number less than 2,500. The reason behind this policy is that house to house delivery is most economical where six carriers can be used, five for regular five-day week route work, and one spare man to alternate over the five regular routes so as to furnish six-day service.
It is respectfully suggested to the minister and the government that consideration should now be given to providing house-to-house delivery in smaller towns and villages where there is sufficient work to provide full-time employment for one man. Rural free delivery is almost universal; so is house to house delivery in the large centres. It would appear that the people in the smaller towns and villages may be under a disadvantage compared with others from the standpoint of mail service. A number of extensions of rural mail routes to provide more convenient service for
226	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Thomas individuals were made in 1958 and were much appreciated. Much appreciated also is the planning of a new post office building in the town of Strathroy. We hope that the selection of a site satisfactory [DOT] to the town and to the Department of Public Works will not be unduly delayed.
The people of our constituency owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the officials of his department for assistance in several ways during the last year. Through the mediation of his department an advantageous rental agreement for the use of the C.N.R. stock pens at the village of Ailsa Craig by the farmers' co-operative was arranged. This department also aided greatly in clearing away the difficulties which delayed for a considerable time the building of the Hutton sideroad underpass in London township. Construction of this underpass is now scheduled to begin early in 1959.
We have in Middlesex West a large Indian reservation. As their representative in parliament I am most anxious to assist them in obtaining help to help themselves. I am glad to see that a new central school is to be constructed by the Indian affairs branch on this reservation. I wish to commend the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) for this action and to express to her the appreciation of our people that it has been found possible to increase the educational facilities here. I have had the privilege of visiting several of the classrooms on the reserve and watching the pupils at work and I would say, judging from what I saw, that those boys and girls on the reserve will make the best possible use of the new facilities. I have been assured that the facilities provided will be of the highest standard. I am glad of that assurance because those people deserve the best. As their representative it is a part of my responsibility to see that they get the best.
The most noticeable feature of the reserve that strikes one when driving through it is the growth of weeds and brush everywhere in evidence. This reserve has in it some very fine agricultural land. I feel that it should not be lying idle and growing up to weeds. In bygone years this land was used for growing crops, but of late years agricultural activities on the reserve have been curtailed. There are a number of reasons why this has happened.
Most reserve land is divided into small farms of fewer than 50 acres; parts of these farms have never been cultivated, so that the fields that once were cultivated would range in size from 2 to 20 acres. There are


some large fields and some large farms on the reserve that are farmed with power machinery but small farmers cannot afford modern equipment with which to carry on their agriculture, and so the fields have been abandoned and are growing up to weeds and brush.
Another reason for the abandonment of those fields is the lack of tile drainage. When horse power was used drainage was not so essential. Horses do not get stuck in mud-holes as tractors do. In our constituency tile drainage is essential for farming with power equipment. There is little hope of reviving agricultural activities on this reserve without more tile drainage. Our Indians have requested assistance in reviving agriculture on their reserve. On their behalf, therefore, I request that the government give consideration to having a tile drainage plan prepared for this reserve and that tile drainage work be undertaken.
To prevent a further deterioration of reserve land and to make it possible for small land owners to use their land to advantage while still holding jobs in industry, or after retirement, I request that farm equipment, together with trained operators, be made available on a custom work basis for the use of small land owners on the reserve.
The people of Middlesex West are seriously disturbed about the ever increasing power of labour bosses and their ability to paralyse our economy with strikes. Our people feel that the time has come when serious consideration should be given to the provision of safeguards against the abuse of union power. This suggestion implies no hostility whatsoever to the legitimate aims of labour unions.
Not only does this uneasiness prevail among non-union people but in the ranks of organized labour as well. Much is read and heard these days of the unscrupulous conduct of some labour leaders, and the seeming inability or lack of desire on the part of the unions to control or replace them. One explanation is that the rank and file of the membership in some unions have lost control through lack of interest and nonattendance at meetings and a situation develops where control cannot be regained. There are stories of hoodlum tactics being used by labour bosses to retain their power when criticism of them within a union develops.
Regardless of how their control came about, the hard fact remains that labour bosses are in a position to impose their will on essential parts of our economy. Our people feel that this should not be. We have legislation to curb improper exploitation of the public by

big business and many believe the time has come when serious consideration should be given to the imposition of safeguards against unscrupulous abuses of power by big labour.
Now that labour unions have become so powerful that they can impose their will on the country by strikes or threatened strikes which would paralyse our economy by tying up transportation or cutting off essential supplies such as fuel or electricity, without which many communities could not survive, our people say that it is time to take remedial action before the situation gets out of hand.
Labour unions were organized originally to raise the wages and improve the working conditions of the low-paid workers in industry. The trend now is to help the highest paid workers to get more. Today big labour is being used to boost ever higher and higher the wages of those already at the top of the labour scale. We are building up in this country a high-cost economy which constantly increases our difficulty in competing for world markets. We are pricing ourselves out of business. Our people feel that this problem of high-cost production must be faced and steps taken to prevent our economy getting further out of line with world markets.
The ability of big labour to dictate ever higher wages in the industries under their control is creating unrest among all groups in our society and is one of the principal contributing factors to inflation. Earners of smaller wages and salaries in industry, agriculture and the professions are demanding that they be kept in line with labour on a percentage basis. This constant pressure on the wage and salary line, this "keeping up with the Joneses" in industry is probably one of the main factors in increasing costs.
Labour is not alone to blame for our present economic instability. It is a trend of the times. Everybody is out for himself; everybody wants more. What makes big labour show up so boldly in this mad race is that they have the inside of the track and are taking full advantage of it. Some day, somehow, this mad race must end. Our people are looking hopefully to the government to provide the incentive which is necessary and which only the government has the strength to provide to guide our economy into a more stable condition. Our people believe that one incentive to stability would be to restore the control of labour unions to the rank and file of the membership and to curb the ever-increasing power of the labour bosses.
Our people will expect the government to give the most careful consideration to the
66968-9-15J
The Address-Mr. Thomas recent civil service commission recommendation that certain collective bargaining privileges be extended to civil servants. This is a new departure in Canada and requires most careful consideration on the part of all concerned. Such action might ultimately lead to the unionization of the civil service under foreign labour control. We believe that such a development would be most undesirable.
Middlesex West was endowed by nature with some of the finest agricultural land to be found in Canada. We can grow everything that will grow in any part of the country. Our agricultural products are much diversified. Some of our farmers are still labouring under the effects of an adverse cost-price squeeze but others have enjoyed a good measure of prosperity in 1958. It depends on the line of production in which they are engaged. Crops this year were good. We had record yields of grain and apples. Higher prices for cattle in 1958 have given many of our farmers a great lift.
Our wheat producers took an active part in organizing the Ontario wheat marketing board. This board got into operation just as harvesting began in 1958 and some difficulties were experienced in handling the first of the crop. As time goes on, however, the difficulties are being ironed out and this wheat marketing board should prove of great benefit to Ontario wheat producers by helping to stabilize the price. The departments of agriculture and trade and commerce have assisted in the solution of some of these Ontario wheat problems.
Ontario corn producers have been working for some months to establish a corn marketing board. We wish them success in their efforts. They have requested that corn be designated a commodity for support under the Agricultural Prices Support Act but we regret that so far no satisfactory formula for supporting corn has been found. Negotiations are still continuing.
Comments have been made in this debate about the improvement in our adverse balance of trade. We have a suggestion to make in this regard. Normally large quantities of soya beans are imported into this country. We use about 15 million bushels per year and we grow about half of our requirements. We are quite capable of producing all of our requirements of soya beans and we believe that it would be good business to encourage our farmers to increase their production.
We request that consideration be given to increasing the support price on soya beans to encourage greater production. In addition to improving our foreign trade deficit by cutting down our imports, we would take

The Address-Mr. Thomas acreage out of the production of surplus commodities such as wheat. Soya bean growers are irked because there is a $1.20 per bushel tariff against our soya beans going into the United States but United States soya beans enter Canada free. Our producers would welcome some adjustment to decrease this discrepancy.
The program of price supports under the Agricultural Prices Support Act has operated with reasonable satisfaction in our area. While our agricultural producers have argued for higher support prices, they appreciate the caution of the government and the board in setting prices. Our people agree that it is better to start low and make increases where necessary than to start too high and get into trouble with unmanageable surpluses. We subscribe to the theory that the law of supply and demand will ultimately prevail, and that while temporary support prices may be desirable to soften the efforts of sudden and drastic market changes, price supports should not be considered as permanent fixtures in regard to any commodity.
We feel that the best and soundest method of obtaining fair prices for agricultural products is the organization by the farmers themselves of commodity marketing boards and that such boards should accept the responsibility for adjusting production to market requirements.
We welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne that our present farm credit facilities are to be reviewed with the object of making it possible for farmers to obtain financial assistance in modernizing their operations. Improved credit facilities should go a long way in helping farmers out of the present cost-price squeeze by providing for necessary expansion of operation and the installation of labour saving equipment.
Again we wish to urge upon the government the advisability of bringing farm labour under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Farmers are finding it ever more difficult to get help. People tend to avoid farm jobs because they get no unemployment insurance credits. Farmers are having trouble enough in competing for labour because of high industrial wage rates. They should not be further handicapped by lack of unemployment insurance coverage. We request that the government give further consideration to this matter.
We welcome the statement in the speech from the throne that the humane slaughter bill is to be referred to the agriculture committee. It is our opinion that the agricultural representatives in the house, who are most closely associated with the production and

care of farm animals, would appreciate most keenly the necessity for promoting humane methods of slaughter.
A matter of immediate concern to our people is the extension of the current rabies epidemic into Middlesex county. Animals in several parts of the county have been diagnosed as rabid and several people have taken anti-rabies treatments. On January 6 the agriculture committee of the Middlesex county council called a meeting of county officials, federal and provincial members of parliament, health officials, conservation officers and others to discuss the situation. A resolution was passed asking that clinics be established to immunize pet animals as a safeguard against the infection of humans. We were informed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) by telegram on January 8 that the rabies situation in Middlesex county was being closely watched, that a survey of the county would be made but that present commitments prevented the immediate establishment of inoculation clinics.
A story has been circulating in our area that no more heads of animals are to be sent to the Hull laboratory for examination unless human beings have been exposed. At the same time the story states that until there is more evidence of an increase in the incidence of the disease, clinics will not be established. Our people are wondering how we are to find out whether the disease is increasing when no more heads of animals are to be examined.
I have been informed by departmental officials and by the minister that the intentions of the health of animals branch are very much misunderstood in this regard. In areas such as Middlesex West where the disease has only recently made its appearance the laboratory is examining as many heads as they can get in order to keep track of developments. But in areas such as Grey county and the counties in the northern part of the province where the disease has been established for a considerable time and has probably reached a maximum of intensity, it is a waste of time to continue to examine animal heads unless for a specific purpose such as to determine whether or not a person has been exposed to infection by a rabid animal.
Our health officials favour setting up the clinics at the time when they are most likely to exert the maximum deterrent effect on the spread of the disease. They are watching Middlesex county closely with this fact in mind and as soon as the time is ripe for action clinics will be established.
We have a woollen industry in our constituency. It is not a large industry, but it

is important to many of our people. This industry is having serious difficulty in meeting the competition of imported goods from low cost countries. They contend that tariff protection alone cannot solve their problem. They request control of imports by quota so that a fair share of the Canadian market may be retained for Canadian manufacturers.
Because of the relative size of the markets in the United States as compared to the size of the markets in Canada, the unit cost of tooling up for production is lower in the United States than it is in Canada. Our manufacturing industry needs protection because of this and probably will continue to need protection for a long time to come. Some Canadian industries, such as the farm implement companies, may have grown to a size where their volume permits them to compete on equal terms with United States industry, but this is generally not the case. Our smaller industries especially are in need of special consideration if Canadian industry as a whole is to survive and prosper.
I wish to express our appreciation to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) for a very interesting and educational tour with him through the fisheries research laboratory in London. I was much surprised at the magnitude of its operation. This laboratory carries on the departmental research program for all fresh water fisheries in Canada. We of Middlesex West appreciate the location of this fine institution in our area.
The new national hospitalization plan, as it applies in Ontario since January 1 of this year, has been well received. More than 91 per cent of the people of Ontario are now covered. This exceeds expectations. Individuals are included in the plan on a voluntary basis, and people have signed up faster than was expected. This is a good indication that the plan fills a need in our economy. The plan will assist municipalities by eliminating much of the need for indigent hospital care. Because the plan permits hospitals to increase their rates to cover costs, hospital deficits which municipalities have been compelled to carry heretofore should disappear. Relief from this indigent hospital care and these hospital deficits should provide substantial assistance in the preparation of municipal budgets. Our government is entitled to much credit for speeding up the establishment of this new social service.
Nothing in the government's record of accomplishments since they took office has brought more satisfaction to our people than the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The people of Middlesex West, together with the people in all parts of
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard Canada, will stand firmly behind the government in providing a fair deal for our veterans. All proposals and recommendations made by the Canadian Legion for improving the legislation and regulations in connection with veterans affairs have been given sympathetic consideration and, when possible, put into effect.
I have heard much recently about repeal of section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act. I believe that this proposal involves fundamental rights of individuals as well as fundamental rights of the public. Before a decision is made I would suggest that this matter be referred to a competent independent tribunal for investigation and recommendation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the record of our government and the confidence which they enjoy amongst the people in all parts of Canada, constitutes abundant reason why these amendments now before us should be voted down.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, we usually see in the chair the Speaker of this house and we take pleasure in telling him how we appreciate his work among us. Tonight I am happy to see the Acting Speaker occupy the chair as this gives me the opportunity to pay him a tribute for his sense of fairness and also for his sense of humour, although the occasion to show the latter seldom arises.
I would beg the Acting Speaker to be kind enough to convey to the Speaker the following message. I too have great pleasure in seeing again this year the Speaker of the house preside over the sometimes stormy proceedings of this assembly. Even though we are all aware that in view of the deeply human phase of his training, his extensive knowledge and his culture he is destined to still higher functions, if possible, we will be sorry to see the day when we are deprived of the pleasure of appreciating daily his sense of fairness and also, as in your case, Mr. Acting Speaker, his sense of humour which makes things so much easier in the heat of the debates.
Like the previous speakers, I congratulate the movers of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Jorgenson and Mr. Fortin).
Both were a credit to their party and to their constituencies by the way in which they fulfilled the difficult and challenging task given to them by the right hon. Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Diefenbaker).

The Address-Mr. A. Brassard
I will no doubt have the indulgence of the house if I am a bit more personal in my remarks in regard to the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, not because I failed to convince his constituents to elect another representative, not because he tried himself to convince my constituents that they should vote for someone else, but rather because I have known him since my college years, as well as several members of his family.
Let me say that his distinguished brother Andre and I were fellow students. This brother is now a Catholic chaplain with our army. I also know other members of his family, and I can say with every sincerity and honesty that every one of them is a credit to their distinguished parents.
However, I would not want the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet to infer from these remarks that I wholly endorse the actions and policies of the new Conservative government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, first I wish to thank the Conservative government for having provided this house with simultaneous translation. I do not believe that there is anything humiliating nor degrading for any one to recognize the good one finds in his opponent, and it is for this reason that I will rather speak in French, thus breaking away from a tradition which I used to observe, that is to speak at least fifteen minutes in English and fifteen minutes in French when delivering a speech in this house.
Mr. Speaker, what I should like to establish in my speech, is that there is a lack of cohesion among the ministers who lay down the general policy or administer our national affairs.
Let us examine for instance the field of agriculture, for one. I do not need to remind the hon. members that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) who, fortunately, is in his seat tonight, addressed the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union not so long ago. He then expressed before the members of that group his personal ideas on agriculture in our country. The press made much of his speech and did not fail to recall what the right hon. Prime Minister had said on the same subject on another occasion. If the house will permit I will quote the Western Producer of December 18, 1958 in order to show to what extent the Minister of Agriculture and the right hon. Prime Minister are in perfect agreement on Canadian agricultural policy. I will put on the record part of the report in the Western Producer of December 18, 1958. I quote:

(Text):
In his address to the annual convention of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union Mr. Harkness, the Minister of Agriculture, touched on the question of reducing production. He was throwing out a strong hint when he said: "I feel that some voluntary reduction of wheat acreage in favour of diversification should be undertaken to relieve congestion in the wheat trade." Arguing in favour of this suggestion he went on to state: "In these days of a semi-controlled economy it seems natural to suggest that control be exercised at the producing level as well as at the marketing level, for it is at the production level that alternatives exist."
Mr. Harkness has been giving air to these similar sentiments off and on for some time. It is no exaggeration on our part when we say that we see in this an appalling state of affairs. It indicates a total lack of understanding of world conditions as they exist now. This in a minister of the crown, a leading member of the Diefenbaker cabinet, is a very serious matter.
One wonders whether Mr. Harkness realizes that he is taking direct issue with his own leader when he proposes restricting production? Perhaps it will refresh his memory if we quote again the remarks made by Mr. Diefenbaker when he opened the Saskatoon exhibition after his first victory at the polls last year. The new Prime Minister then said:
"To those who think that in agriculture we have arrived at a point where we need no longer expand I say to you this:"-
And you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is a very good orator.
"-I learned one lesson at the commonwealth conference in London. We must expand our agricultural development.
With one quarter of the world's population going to bed hungry at night methods must be found to enable the distribution of our surpluses to the end that happiness will come to the peoples of the world.
"Together we must preserve the peace of the world and hold ourselves through agriculture as a bulwark against communism."
Who speaks for the government, Mr. Harkness arguing for restriction or Mr. Diefenbaker advocating expansion?-
Yet Mr. Harkness talks of restriction. Let him read these further words of his leader. Speaking in New York on the eve of his departure on his world tour Mr. Diefenbaker said:
"The great triangle of nations-Great Britain, the United States and Canada-must join with others of like mind in a common effort to assure new hope for the betterment of peoples who have been disfranchised from the bounties of providence.
"It is a primary duty to be our brother's keeper to those underdeveloped areas of the world and to give aid, both economic and technical, so that the gulf between their living standards and ours shall become narrower.
"Since we in North America are blest with more than our share of the good things of life we have an overriding mandate m that we must help those who have less."-
And Mr. Harkness wants to reduce production! How can he win with plenty if he deliberately promotes scarcity? How can he eradicate want in needy countries unless he can devise acceptable methods of distributing food to those who haven't ready cash? Mr. Harkness and his colleagues have a lot to learn before they catch up with and fully understand the policies enunciated by their leader.

The Address-Mr. A. Brassard
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we fully support the policy advocated by the right hon. Prime Minister when he said he wanted to assist underdeveloped countries where people by the thousands die of starvation. I wonder however, if we will ever hear in this house some members from the province of Quebec- and I say this without bias or malice-speak in support of this policy of assisting within our means the underdeveloped countries.
In the province of Quebec there are many people-I will not mention any of them- who speak against communism. In my opinion, one of the most effective measures to fight communism is to close the door to communist countries with regard to their possible influence in the countries which are not yet open to that influence.
I hope that the members from the province of Quebec who will speak after us in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne will clearly express their views on the matter.
May I be allowed also to say a few words about dominion-provincial relations. I followed quite closely, and you will easily understand why, Mr. Speaker, the electoral campaign of 1957. Shortly after the people of Canada had clearly expressed their opinion about the government they wanted, an outstanding member of the Liberal party compiled the promises made by the right hon. Prime Minister throughout the country when he was touring the ten provinces to canvass for the votes of the Canadians at the election of June 10. He spoke with eloquence-everybody knows it-in the ten provinces of this country. He dealt with every subject. He committed himself. He committed himself, I repeat, in many fields. He staked his name. He even committed the future Prime Minister of this country-of course he did not know at the time who it would be, otherwise he would not have spoken so much. He committed the future Prime Minister of this country in many fields of politics. He spoke especially and repeatedly about dominion-provincial relations.
I should like to quote, for instance, what he said in April 1957-on the 25th to be more precise-in Toronto. His speech was published in the Montreal Star of April 26, 1957. According to the Montreal Star he said:
(Text):
There could not be national unity if the provinces were handcuffed by inadequate sources of revenue, with several of the provinces unable to discharge their constitutional responsibilities and promote the development of natural resources. A Conservative-organized dominion-provincial conference would settle this problem in a spirit of unity, amity, and with good will, tolerance and respect.
(Translation):
He has travelled throughout the country. His colleagues have also travelled in many provinces assuring that if a Conservative government came into power, the matter of federal-provincial relations would be settled once and for all. What happened after the elections? I must admit that a federal-provincial conference was convened. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) was there; I don't know whether he was tired, but he was there. The Prime Minister was there. They listened to the claims of the various provinces and what did the Minister of Finance have to say after hearing the claims of premiers. He said: You ask an enormous increase in the amount you are getting. You are to go back home, we are going to study your suggestions, and we shall call another federal-provincial conference for the beginning of 1958.
What happened. Oh, in the very first months of 1958, the Minister of Finance sent a telegram to all provincial treasurers, outlining the terms offered by the federal government to the provinces regarding fiscal matters. There has been no other federal-provincial conference, yet the Minister of Finance had definitely promised that there would be another one at the beginning of
1958.	The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, as well as all their colleagues, were secretly plotting something else. They were plotting another election.
I am not blaming them because they did not have a sufficient majority to speak with authority in the house. But why not say so to the people, why make promises when you know beforehand that you cannot fulfill them? I realize that the Conservative government was not able to keep its promises. What I do not understand as easily is that at the present time, it does not even think of convening the representatives of the provinces to discuss fiscal problems. It could also take this opportunity to discuss unemployment.
The speech from the throne dashed all our hopes in that respect. The provinces were asked to show understanding in fiscal matters. The Prime Minister informed us that he had written to the provincial premiers to tell them that they had to co-operate in the study of that problem. Such a request is contained in the last speech from the throne. And I am positive that there will be legislation laid before the house to ask us to approve of the ideas of the cabinet concerning the extension for a further year of the dominion-provincial agreements. But why doesn't the cabinet or

The Address-Mr. A. Brassard the government simply tell us the plain truth about it? They do not specify why they do not intend to call a meeting of representatives of the provinces in Ottawa this year. And if the Prime Minister intends to call such a meeting, being so jealous personally of the prerogatives and rights of parliament in every field, why does he not say so? It is a fact that the Prime Minister, with his strong voice, his gestures and his personality, has convinced the Canadian people that the Liberal government had not done justice to the opposition when the Conservatives were sitting on this side. Why does the Conservative government not give the example today by saying why it has no intention of asking provincial governments to examine our problems? He could also call a conference to look into the matter of unemployment. I do not wish to play politics with unemployment. Too many members in this house use this calamity to play politics.
Mr. Speaker, I hear our hon. opponents applaud my statement that too many members in the house try to play politics with unemployment. I believe-and you can applaud again-I believe that we should consider the question of unemployment from a human point of view and try to find a solution.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) when he spoke today. He is a man I admire and for whom I have great regard. He tries to consider the problem and find a solution, but at the same time he blames the opposition for not offering any suggestion. But, is the Conservative cabinet made up of a group of ministers who work only on suggestions from the opposition? They are there precisely to work and to find solutions. The Diefenbaker cabinet is responsible for the administration of our country's affairs. They are the ones who went to the people and said: "We have problems in this country; you elect us and we shall solve them". Once in office, the Conservatives want the opposition to find every solution for them. To be honest I must say that the Minister of Labour and a few of his colleagues did try in vain to find solutions, but they did not solve the problem. Unemployment is still here and I believe we should find a solution to the unemployment situation in Canada. There is such a thing as the dominion bureau of statistics, the D.B.S. There is a big difference between figures released by the D.B.S. and those provided by employment offices throughout the country. I know from experience-I have never been Minister of Labour and I shall never be,

thank heaven for our people-but I know from experience that the Minister of Labour is in possession of statistics which are much higher than those given by the dominion bureau of statistics. I was a civil servant before becoming a lowly member of parliament, and I know that those statistics are much more alarming than those published by the dominion bureau of statistics. I shall not quote any figure, though the figure is known to me. But when one looks at the number of persons without jobs or looking for one throughout the country, it is something appalling, something pitiful. There are not only people seekings jobs, not only thousands of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits, not to mention the few thousands who are not even receiving such benefits, but there are all those who are depending on their father or mother, and who are receiving absolutely nothing. At this stage, I might as well add a word about my constituency. The Aluminum Company of Canada, whose main plant is in Arvida, has twice reduced its working staff by 10 per cent. There are also, in my constituency, two mills operated by Price Brothers. They have now reduced the work week to between 24 and 32 hours.
Those are the only two basic industries in the constituency of Lapointe. We have lost part of the British market and part of the French market for aluminum. England, which I deeply respect as a country, is the mother country of a great number of my fellow-citizens as France is the mother country of a great number of my fellow-citizens too. England is part of the commonwealth, but it buys part of its aluminum from Russia, which doubtlessly is also part of the commonwealth of nations. I find this situation painful. I am all for helping our two mother countries, France and England. We are making sacrifices to help other nations in many fields, and I would mention NATO as only one example. But why, when the time comes to reciprocate, why is no consideration given to the sacrifices we have made?
Mr. Speaker, having been myself a civil servant under the former Liberal administration-it is perhaps for that reason that we were defeated-I am fully aware of the sacrifices that Canada has made for England and France. As I said a moment ago, these two countries are our mother countries, and I know that we must help them. But why do they not take into account what we have done for them? If cuts in personnel had to be made in the Arvida aluminum company, I think it is due to the fact that we have lost a great part of our external trade with the English and the French.

The same situation obtains with regard to paper. We used to sell much of our paper to the United States, but thanks to the very friendly policy of the Conservatives towards the United States, we lost a part of our U.S. paper market.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are logical people-I do not ask you to applaud, because you will be disappointed if you do- they are a tremendously logical lot!
In the field of trade, for instance-and I said it here myself last year-in the course of the last election campaign, the Conservatives, led by the Prime Minister, kicked the American government-and I hope that this time the Canadian Press will not mistranslate words.
What have the Conservatives done in the field of defence? After kicking Americans in the pants, they kissed them on both cheeks. They entrusted to an American citizen the integrated defence of Canada and the United States. I am not criticizing the fact that we have entrusted our integrated defence to General Partridge. I am only blaming the inconsistency of their conduct. In the field of trade, we kick them in the pants and in the field of defence we kiss them on both cheeks. That is a typical example of the tremendous logic of the Conservative government which is governing or perhaps I should say ruling us at this time.
Not only in this field have the Conservatives given us a truly magnificent show of consistency. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the speeches made in 1957 by the right hon. Prime Minister and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). I note that the latter is now using his interpretation earphone. You will recall that the Minister of National Defence promised to cut down the defence appropriation by $500 million. That department, in his view, was running into staggering expenditures that were not justified. That was his position before the elections. What happened after June 10? There was a conference in London, and my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence attended	this	conference	with	the PrimeMinister.	No	sooner	had	he	returned toOttawa than	press	reporters,	who quitenaturally	are	always on	the	look-out for
news, hastened to query our distinguished Minister of National Defence. He was asked then if he intended to implement the promise that was made of reducing defence ex-66968-9-16
The Address-Mr. Slogan penditures by $500 million. The minister, who was arriving from London, replied that this was impossible. He excused himself on the grounds that the blame must always be put on the Liberals-that he never had enough information when he sat on this side of the house and that the promise that had been made was due in part-he did not use the word ignorance, but it looked like that-to a lack of information. Consequently, taxes were reduced by $225 million, instead of the promised $500 million.
Mr. Speaker, it is by making promises of this kind to the people, and by not implementing them, that one convinces people that politicians are all birds of a feather, whether they are "blue" or "red", that they are men who say one thing during the election campaign and who act differently once they sit on the government side.
I wanted to direct some remarks to another hon. gentleman but, unfortunately, he is not here at the moment. I refer to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton). Before I became a member of parliament, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I used to sit-
(Text):


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound feeling of humility that I take my seat in the House of Commons. I have hardly thawed out as yet from the deep freeze by-election. I am rising in this great council of Canada for the first time and I should like to extend to you, sir, and to all members in this house the sincere best wishes and greetings of all the people of Springfield. You, sir, execute your duties in that manner of impartiality and restraint that adds dignity to your high office and inspires respect from both sides of this house.
I should also like to express my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson); my neighbouring constituency; and to my neighbour in the house, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Fortin). Both of these hon. gentlemen made masterly speeches in moving and seconding the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should also like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man) and to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) on their victories.
I should also like to join with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), who

The Address-Mr. Slogan drew to the attention of the house today the fact that this is the fortieth anniversary of the declaration of independence by the Ukraine. As you know, sir, my forebears came from that country and it is indeed fitting that I should make my debut in the house on this day.
I am here only as the medium through which the people of Springfield expressed their confidence in our great leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and in the policies which this government has implemented, especially the agricultural policies. Therefore, I should like to express my gratitude to the people of Springfield for placing their trust in this government. Those people of all nationalities, religions, political affiliations and stations in life now place their faith in me to present their cause in this house and to offer leadership on their behalf. My only hope is that both in and out of this house I may justify that trust and earn that respect that is accorded to all members of parliament who dedicate themselves humbly and sincerely to the service of the principles of democracy.
In those principles we have a rich heritage. It took men of vision, courage and conviction to crystallize that heritage; it took statesmanship, diplomacy, and years of struggle. By that struggle our fathers of confederation conceived a new nation, uniting two languages and two creeds, and dedicated to the principles of unity, equality, opportunity and freedom. Today the familiar words of those men and of those who passed before them and their deeds are seldom heard and even less appreciated.
Springfield is a relatively new constituency, Mr. Speaker, having been created in 1914 and altered in 1924. It boasted only one Conservative representative in its history, Tom Hay, who was first elected in 1925, until our late member, Val Yacula, won it in 1958. Mr. Yacula was a quiet man who did a good job. In his memory I wish merely to quote a few words by Lord Baldwin:
A few years, and the voices of those addressing the house today will be silent, too. A few more years and their voices will be forgotten. But the character and the spirit remain to fortify the coming generations and to illuminate their paths.
I am proud to represent Springfield, because Springfield is a large, diversified and cosmopolitan constituency. Our people range from native Indians and metis, to the descendants of the Selkirk settlers. But the
majority are the colourful people of European descent who colonized the area at the turn of the century. I say "colonized" deliberately, because still today we have villages that are distinctly Ukrainian, Polish, French and German and others. Today, as time marches on and new generations are conceived, there is emerging by interaction and intermarriage that brand of distinct Canadianism, tolerant and stable of character, of which we are all so proud, each with a different and distinct background, each with a common dedication of loyalty and devotion to this country.
As I pass among the pioneers of Springfield, I see that time takes its toll. I see less and less of those gnarled hands, those deeply etched faces, those stooped backs of those hardy people, often illiterate, who were dumped off the C.P.R. at East Selkirk in their sheepskin coats, with nothing but their love of the land and enthusiasm for hard work. They did not think of themselves; they thought of the future. They were not ambitious for themselves but for the future generations. They carved a civilization out of the wilderness. But, more important still, they carved their brand, that sterling character of pioneering Canadianism that was instilled in their children and has carried them to respected positions of leadership on the broad frontiers of the world today. That inherent quality is emerging from an amorphous mass and crystallizing into a distinct Canadianism. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that those pious pioneers will find in their afterlife the peace and rewards that were never theirs on earth.
Springfield stretches from the metropolis of Winnipeg to the barren and inaccessible expanse of the pre-Cambrian shield in the north. In the bosom of these rocks lies the great wealth of gold, chrome, beryllium, nickel and other metals. We in Springfield share the vision of the north. We have placed our faith in men like our Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), a hard-working minister whose efforts are often unrecognized and even less appreciated. At Bissett we have a thriving gold-mining community. In those northern areas there are also many trappers. Along lake Winnipeg we have a large commercial fishing industry which is being faced with grave and trying times by conditions in the lake and problems of marketing. I am

sure all hon. members know of and have tasted the famous lake Winnipeg goldeye.
At Victoria Beach and Bird's Hill and at other areas we have a multi-million dollar mink-farming industry. At Pine Falls we have a pulp and paper industry which employs 550 people and whose payroll is $2,500,000 annually. Nearly all the power generated in Manitoba is generated within Springfield along the Winnipeg river. At the present time we are constructing a great steam power plant in the town of East Selkirk, which will be converted to an atomic power plant as soon as it is feasible. We have at Lac Du Bonnet, our gateway to the north, an aeroplane and seaplane base. This town has an annual retail sales turnover of over $2 million. It has seven small industries in its vicinity, including the wild rice industry and granite quarries. We have the famous limestone quarries at Tyndall and Garson. Just east of these towns we have Beause-jour, which is the principal town in the constituency.
At Molson we have a big peat moss industry. In Springfield lies a great part of Manitoba's playgrounds. At Grand Beach we have beautiful white sand hills and in the Whiteshell area we have numerous resorts. We have hundreds of lakes and streams where sportsmen can enjoy the thrill of game fish and there is good hunting in our forests. We have a large oil refinery at East St. Paul, and we have numerous small industries and businesses.
But the welfare of Springfield as a whole depends upon agriculture. We have market gardening, mixed farming and grain growing, and the problems of agriculture are particularly pressing in my constituency because the farms are relatively small and therefore the cost-price squeeze bears more heavily upon us.
May I say that now we are going through the throes of an agricultural revolution very similar to the industrial revolution that other countries went through earlier. We appreciate the actions of the government with regard to agriculture. For the first time in history a policy of bumbling and fumbling has been replaced with a national policy for agriculture. We recognize the problem of the cost-price squeeze, the variability of crops from year to year due to weather conditions and fluctuations of price due to world markets and world conditions.
Our policy is a practical and workable one. Already the government has brought in the price stabilization act, increased farm credit, introduced cash advances, which C. D. Howe said would wreck the wheat board, amended 66968-9-16i
The Address-Mr. Slogan the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, initiated higher rates of compensation for cattle slaughtered due to contagious diseases and commenced the South Saskatchewan river dam after years of promises by the Liberals.
In this session we are looking with anticipation to the legislation on farm credit and crop insurance. But there are a few matters that are of grave concern to my constituents and there are some things which I should like to commend to the attention of the ministers. To the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) I wish to commend the extension to Manitoba and the western provinces of import controls which have been implemented in the maritimes against United States potatoes. To the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) I wish to commend the initiation of payment for farm storage of grain. It is only fair that in a time of surplus the farmer be paid for storing his grain rather than having the money go to warehouses and elevators at a cost of some one cent per bushel every thirty-five days.
I recommend that the farmers be allowed to load their own grain directly into box cars rather than having it go through an elevator at a cost of some four and a half cents per bushel to the farmer. These are not new ideas as they were first adopted by Dr. Manion and the Conservative party in the Regina manifesto of 1940. However, I shall present my arguments on these matters at a more appropriate time.
I have visited the various areas of Springfield. I have listened to the many problems of my constituents and my duty now is to do my utmost on their behalf. This I shall do, Mr. Speaker, through the proper channels as, unlike one of our former members, I do not want to be charged with talking my way right out of parliament in the same way, indeed, as the C.C.F. talked themselves out of the by-election in my constituency.
I feel very much at home in this chamber and this building because I have only to look at the walls about me to notice that distinctive and beautiful Tyndall stone that comes from Springfield. Indeed, in walking through the hall of honour and the hall of confederation I have noted that the main pillar which symbolizes the unity of confederation and the strength of Canada is constructed of that stone. I owe some thanks for my election to Tyndall stone. I did not allow the Liberals to forget that they had wasted a lot of money on the public printing bureau and, indeed, they had wasted a great deal of money on importing stone all the way from Virginia for that building, when they could have used the finest building stone on

The Address-Mr. Slogan the continent, Tyndall stone from Springfield. Yet the Liberals wonder why imports from the United States are going down. It must inspire a sense of guilt in the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition each time they look at the walls of this chamber and each time the Liberals come into Springfield in the future and lament their attitudes, platitudes, and beatitudes, to the good people of Springfield I am sure they will blush a little for their betrayal of the people of Springfield and for having so little pride in the products of Canada. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I must also commend Tyndall stone to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green).
I come now to the opposition. I commend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for a fighting speech and, of course, no member from Springfield ever shirked a fight. I have watched the members of the opposition very carefully, and there is at least one member of that group who qualifies to be called a politician. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a politician is a person who approaches every situation with an open mouth. Indeed, this member seems to have contracted foot-and-mouth disease as well.
I should like at this time to make a few observations regarding the by-election in Springfield. I recall the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson) finding himself one night upside down in a ditch and, indeed, the Liberal party took an inverted position throughout the by-election. I am sure it brings no comfort to the Leader of the Opposition to know that one of their former Liberal members of parliament contested the Conservative nomination.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can have him.


Joseph Slogan: I am sure that the former
Liberal premier of Manitoba, who spent most of his time during the election repairing political fences in Springfield when he was not in the ditch himself, found no comfort when he saw that one of the former Liberal members of the legislature was also on our side in the campaign. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition gets little comfort from reading such articles as the Canadian Press dispatch of February 27, 1958, which reported that Mr. Ben Nobleman, vicepresident of Trinity riding association, had resigned from the Liberal party and would support the Conservatives. I should like to quote the following from the dispatch:
He said he attended the Liberal convention in the hope that grass roots opinion would be heard but "came back greatly disappointed".
"Since returning from Ottawa I have been given the deep freeze apparently for daring to express my opinions. My role as first vice-president is rather farcical for I have not been consulted on any matters for the past month."


Mr. Hellyer:: I am sure the hon. member would like to know that the poor disillusioned man would now like to come back to us.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Is that your maiden speech?


Joseph Slogan: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would like to know that several young Liberals have spoken to me and expressed their envy of the young Conservatives because they say that they do not have the same freedom of expression which we seem to have. I think it is this attitude on the part of young people all across Canada which has contributed to the large number of young members on this side of the house. I have been very active myself in the young Conservative organization and also as national president of the Progressive Conservative Student Federation. I have only mentioned this matter to ask the Leader of the Opposition to give the young people of his party a chance.
Earlier in the debate the Leader of the Opposition said that in some respects the Liberals and the C.C.F. may find themselves in some measure of agreement. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the position of both parties is so weak that they may find themselves soon in a position of more than agreement. I should like to quote from an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 27, 1958. The article is headed, "Speakers Link C.C.F. With Tyranny." The dispatch comes from Regina and reads in part as follows:
Two speakers finked the C.C.F. with communism Tuesday as the throne speech debate continued in the Saskatchewan legislature.
Both these speakers were Liberal members of the legislature. The article goes on to say:
Mr. Barrie said no one admires what has gone on behind the iron curtain and under Hitler and Mussolini, "but we have had it in Saskatchewan and Canada for 25 years-they are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the C.C.F. this year".
Since its formation the C.C.F. had used the same methods of infiltration to gain control, including infiltration of non-political bodies.
Look at school boards, municipal councils, cooperatives and even church organizations.
Let me go back to the young people of Canada to see what is prevailing in the other political parties. I should like to quote an article appearing on the front page of the Winnipeg Free Press of December 13. I hesitate to bring this matter up because it concerns my own alma mater, and a matter that has recently been settled, in some measure, due to the good offices of our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). This article is headed 'Young C.C.F.er Charges Cynical Group Engineered Crowe Issue". It reads:

The Address-Mr. Slogan
A leader in the C.C.F. youth movement says a ''phony issue" has been created out of the case of Professor Harry Crowe because a small group wants to gain control of United college.
The Crowe affair, says Stuart Barber in a letter to C.C.F. provincial leader Lloyd Stinson, has been used as a "cloak" by this group to cover its "own brand of cynical bitter socialism".
The letter urges the C.C.F. party publicly dissociate itself from "the activities of some C.C.F. supporters" at the college.
Mr. Barber, a fourth year law student at the University of Manitoba, is a former leader of the university C.C.F. group and a graduate of United. He was this year's speaker of the university mock parliament.
I should like to quote a few lines from his letter because I think it demonstrates the sincerity of his belief in that party:
As you know, I believe that true democratic socialism can bring the greatest measure of happiness and justice to the people of Canada and the world. Indeed, I hope to devote some part of my life in working for the objectives of the C.C.F. movement.
What did the leader of the C.C.F. say after he received this letter? He disowned this sincere and critical young man by saying that Mr. Barbour did not have a membership card in the C.C.F. party. Well, sir, things are pretty tough for young people in these parties.
I should like to quote a few words from what Stanley Knowles said of the Liberals on December 17 just after the Springfield by-election. He said:
The Liberals are dead but they won't lie down. They can gasp a few more times before they finally die.
In the Winnipeg Tribune of December 8, 1958 the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is reported as having said this:
The C.C.F. is a party which is not going to be in existence in a year and a half. By its own admission it is a dying, if not already dead, party.
At least, Mr. Speaker, these two parties think alike. Both of these tired old parties, which revel in the past and depression, conjured up the ghost of R. B. Bennett. They went about Springfield haunting the people, as indeed some members have been haunting the chamber today. However, they found the people of Springfield do not frighten easily. Indeed, the only ghosts about today are the ghosts of those members of the opposition whom the people of Canada have sent to a happier haunting ground. In fact, we have one lone member of the opposition from the three prairie provinces.
I merely bring these facts out to indicate to the opposition parties that we are aware of their plight and that we sympathize with them.


Mr. Mitchell:: You are funny; you should be with Wayne and Shuster.


Joseph Slogan: Coming back to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, I should say I enjoyed listening to him talk for the speech was subtle in substance and fickle in fact. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) attacked our policy of positives with a nattering of negatives. Both these hon. members showed an obsession with recession and opposition without proposition. It is obvious from the speech from the throne that the motto of this government is progress not perdition, initiation not procrastination, legislation not agitation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope that anything I have said will in no way be taken as a personal reflection upon any member, as it was not meant to be such.
I should like now to make some further observations. As I stand here, I cannot help but realize how great and diversified a country we represent. I realize that no matter how cosmopolitan we try to be, we feel a duty to defend our own provincial cause. But more than anything else in this chamber we learn to appreciate each other's point of view, for we can see the underlying unity in our diversity. As we meet today, we stand on the threshold of new frontiers, the frontier of the north, the frontier of the shrinking world and the frontier of outer space. Sir Winston Churchill said, in accepting the Nobel prize a few years ago, and I quote:
Today more than ever in history, events have dwarfed personalities.
Mr. Speaker, the destiny of nations lies in the personality of men. Today we are living through the pages of history. Today demand for leadership is as great as it ever was. Today, more than ever before, we need men of vision, of courage, conviction and perseverance like the father of the fathers of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald. It was a Conservative government that bound this country together with the iron ties of he Canadian Pacific Railway against a defeatist opposition that ridiculed our policy as wigwam to wigwam. What Sir John A. Macdonald bound together no man has yet been able to pull asunder. The Conservative party has written the brightest pages of Canada's history in the past. The Conservative party will write the brightest pages of Canada's history in the future because it is to this task that our leader and our members are dedicated, as indeed all members of this house are dedicated.
The hour of 10 o'clock having arrived, Mr. Speaker, I should like to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Mr. Slogan, the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At 10 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	What were the expenditures from the railway grade crossing fund from and including April 1. 1958 to December 31, 1958 inclusive?
2.	What were the commitments of the railway grade crossing fund outstanding at 31st December, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	$3,165,399.34.
2.	$19,118,405.01.

Friday, January 23, 1959