1960-01-27

FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Tariff Board Report on Textiles changers, about a week ago, I can assure the house that the board's recommendations contained in the present report will receive most careful consideration by the government. I should add, however, that some of the items included in this report are closely related to other textile items which are still to be reported on, and there may be merit in dealing with these and the remaining items as a group in formulating government policy with respect thereto.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would not clarify our understanding of the rules and procedure in the house in connection with the statement just made by the minister. There seems to be growing up here a practice of reading lengthy statements arising out of reports from boards or commissions. This was not a ministerial statement. A ministerial statement is one which any member of the government has, of course, the right to make and on which we from time to time have the right to comment. But this was a summary of what is contained in the report on a textile reference sent to the board, and in that respect I think it is objectionable. I ask Your Honour for a ruling on the matter so that we may know how to proceed in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Does any member wish to comment on the point raised by the hon. member for Laurier?
Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon: May I say this on the point raised by the hon. gentleman. He says that a practice is growing up. I think he has overlooked the fact that in this respect I have simply inherited and carried on a practice that was established before me. If the house does not wish these statements on tariff board references, believe me I shall be only too happy to be relieved of any necessity for stating to the house the gist of these reports. I understand these reports have been regarded by the house as having some value, and it has been the practice to give the house the gist or summary in brief form, as I have done today, of the reports. But if the house does not want these reports brought to the house, believe me I shall be only too happy to be relieved of this responsibility. However, I hope there will not be complaints afterwards about these matters not being brought to the attention of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just add this word in connection with what the minister has said concerning the practice that developed earlier, when we were on the other side of the house. I can speak only for myself, of course; but I know that on no occasion when I tabled a report did I do other than table the report without any comment on it. I

doubt very much whether any of my colleagues who were in the government then did otherwise. In that respect I think the minister is in error. In any event, in the statement he has made the minister has by inference recognized the fact that the practice he has established is contrary to the rules.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just to clarify the point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was not referring to the practice established by the hon. gentleman. I was referring to the practice established by my predecessors in relation to tariff board reports.


Mr. Pearson:: On that point may I just say this. Your Honour can look up the precedents and the facts, but I think you will find that in respect of reports of the tariff board which were tabled and which involved recommendations and policy decisions, perhaps short ministerial statements were made; but with regard to reports tabled which did not have those consequences, statements were not made.


Mr. Speaker:: There may perhaps be some difficulty from time to time in determining what matters contained in a report should be brought to the attention of parliament. It is perhaps not an easy decision for a minister to make, because he may feel that if he does not bring the matter before the house, complaint may be made on that score. But I think it should be fairly easy to determine what are matters of policy to be announced, and what are documents of another kind which need no explanation. It seems to me that a report by a board which is tabled stands on its own feet, and if no policy is being announced it should not take up the time of the house on routine proceedings.
I am not saying that the minister was not justified in thinking that he was acting in accordance with the previous practice, but I do say that the house should be jealous of its use of this time. It should not be used for the making of statements which are not of immediate importance by reason of the fact that they announce important policy or something of urgent public interest, nor for the asking of questions which are not within the customary limits.
It is my own view that statements should be introduced sparingly, that they should be of importance and should contain some decision of the government which it wishes to announce.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the

following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the act from four billion dollars to six billion dollars; and to increase from one billion dollars to one and a half billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Pontiae-Temiscamingue, when he made certain constitutional proposals in this house on Monday last including one for the incorporation of the proposed bill of rights in our constitution, was speaking with the approval of the Prime Minister, to whom he is parliamentary secretary?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in question is unavoidably absent today keeping an appointment made some time ago. However, the hon. gentleman has asked me a question and I wish to answer it in unequivocal language.
The speech made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue was his own in content and thinking; and lest there be any misunderstanding I want to say without there being any question, that the expression of his views on the matters dealt with by him has never been discussed between him and me, either directly or indirectly. I make that very clear, and I thank the hon. member for giving me that opportunity.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister feel that there is any difference between a parliamentary secretary and other private members in respect of proposals made on matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the minister and the department with which the parliamentary secretary is associated?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, in so far as members of the cabinet are concerned, there are recognized constitutional limitations; but any examination which I made prior to introducing the legislation relating to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries gave no indication that such limitations applied to those occupying the position either cf parliamentary assistant or parliamentary 79951-0-254
Inquiries of the Ministry secretary. Indeed, my recollection-and I have nothing before me to support it, because I naturally did not expect a constitutional discussion on the orders of the day-is that this has been generally recognized throughout.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Prime Minister not recall that he insisted on these limitations when he sat on this side of the house?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman regards some of the interrogatories which I made at one time as worthy of the consideration of this house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether the government has under consideration the disallowance of the controversial labour legislation passed by the government of Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: I think, as a question of order, that we dealt with that matter during the last session. It is irregular for inquiry to be made of the government with respect to disallowance until after the period for disallowance has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I think that if you refer to Hansard of last year you will find that this question was raised on a number of occasions and that an answer was given. It was ruled, however, that in a general debate we could not speak at length on this particular point. But the question was raised-and I could quote chapter and verse-as to whether the matter was still under consideration and when the government would come to a decision. Since the government has only till about March 6 in which to reach a decision, I think it is in order to ask whether or not this matter is still under consideration and when a decision may be made.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like that question to stand because I am quite clearly of the view that it is not in order during the disallowance period for parliament to inquire into the exercise of the prerogative of disallowance. Perhaps I could give the hon. member the reference at the present time. I refer to citation 161 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition:
Disallowance of provincial laws is not one of the functions of the dominion parliament. The fact that this subject is dealt with in section 90 of the British North America Act and not in section 91 shows clearly that the legislator did not intend to include it with the residue of powers vested in the dominion parliament. The only authority that
388	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry can disallow provincial laws is the governor in council. As the governor in council is responsible to parliament, the House of Commons may criticize the action taken by the cabinet in cases of proposed disallowances, but a member cannot raise a debate on a provincial act on the motion to go into supply-
When the year within which disallowance may take place has expired, the government's action or inaction may be discussed in the House of Commons. The practice usually followed has been to wait until the question of disallowance has been decided upon by the government and then to move for the production of papers relating thereto.
I should think it would be in order to ask the government whether it had or had not disallowed the legislation, but not to discuss the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: My point in raising this matter was merely to inquire whether the government still had disallowance under consideration or whether a decision had been made; and, with great respect, not to endeavour to initiate-which would be clearly out of order-a debate on this question at this stage.


John George Diefenbaker: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that there is a period of over a month yet in which the decision of the government can be announced, if so advised.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of what he said in this house on Monday last and on several other occasions regarding the decision taken by the St. Laurent government on the Suez crisis, has he any comment to make on Sir Anthony Eden's statement in his recent book, as reported on page 1 of today's Globe and Mail-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is about to quote the book in question it seems to me he would have to justify such a course on the orders of the day, because a discussion of that kind cannot properly be opened up by a simple inquiry for information, nor could a simple answer be given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for an explanation. I am only asking the Prime Minister if he would on the orders of the day comment on a statement made in today's Globe and Mail and attributed to the former prime minister of Great Britain, with regard to a matter discussed by the Prime Minister
(Mr. Speaker.]

on Monday last and on several other occasions, a matter of very great concern to this parliament and to this nation and one that was commented upon yesterday by the President of the United States. Surely in this parliament, on a matter that invited such controversy and such differences of opinion we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister of Canada if the statement of the former British prime minister is correct or whether the statement of the Prime Minister of Canada is correct. I should not think there would be any doubt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry I cannot agree with the learned hon. member for Essex East, but to follow the course he suggests would be to introduce a discussion of history at this period of the proceedings which, it seems to me, would not be conducive to the purposes for which these questions are allowed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I say to you that this matter or a similar one came up for discussion the other day when a question was asked by someone on his side, and I believe Your Honour ruled on that occasion that it was perfectly in order to ask a member of the cabinet a question in which he was asked for his comment. In effect that is the purpose and the gist of the question of my friend the hon. member for Essex East. He is asking the Prime Minister to comment on a statement that is to be found in the Globe and Mail. Of course the Prime Minister is free to comment or not as he wishes, but that will be up to him to determine. I think, in view of the ruling Your Honour gave earlier, the Prime Minister should be allowed to comment on it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that both hon. gentlemen, keeping strictly within parliamentary rules, appeared to have their tongues in their cheeks when they suggested that a matter such as this, which has been debated in the last few days and can still be debated, should be discussed on the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of such importance that I would ask Your Honour to allow me to phrase the question in another way.
Has the Prime Minister seen the statement attributed to Sir Anthony Eden this morning with regard to the positions taken by the United States on the Suez crisis, and what comment does the Prime Minister have to make with regard to the statement which said that the course of history-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not rephrased the question in my view. What, in effect, he is asking the Prime Minister to do is to comment on what someone said about an event that happened over two years ago. If we allowed such a course to be followed there would be no end to the questions that the ministry might be asked to comment upon. I think it was another administration that was responsible for the actions of the department concerned at that time, and it does not appear to me that it is in order at this stage of the proceedings to attribute as part of the administrative responsibilities of the Prime Minister something that happened as long ago as that. Therefore I rule both questions-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before you rule, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to consider this point. This was not a statement made by one who is not a Canadian on an academic matter. This was a statement made by one who was in office in Britain at the time commenting on policy in Canada. Surely in this house we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister of Canada whether in the light of this comment he now wishes to revise the statement which he so unnecessarily made in the house the other day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asserts his viewpoint with some vigour and insistance, but I see no ground on which I could admit questions of that order. I must therefore rule them out of order.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has taken any steps to establish official and continuing relations with the European common market along the lines considered by the government of Australia.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the growing importance of the institutions of the communities and of our relations with these six-nation arrangements, the Canadian government has now decided to seek accreditation of our ambassador in Brussels as the Canadian representative to the three communities. The Canadian request was submitted some weeks ago, and in accordance with the usual procedure a formal reply is expected within the next few weeks. It was our intention to make a joint announcement in Ottawa and in Brussels when these procedures were completed.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The accreditation of a Canadian representative will not involve the opening of a new mission, and it involves no changes or commitments with respect to Canada's relations with these communities. It is an indication of our interest in these European arrangements, and is intended to facilitate the work of our mission in Brussels in keeping informed of community developments and in making the Canadian view on particular problems known whenever appropriate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. In view of the acknowledged importance of the common market in relation to Canadian trade, does the minister think the situation is one that calls for a different kind of representation, a representation which would be devoted exclusively to this matter?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have given that plan some thought, but we believe the situation can best be handled through our ambassador in Brussels.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I ask a supplementary question on this point of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Did the government give any consideration to applying for affiliation with the European common market, rather than appointing an ambassador?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Six have formed their own association under the Rome treaty, and we have taken no steps, nor has any such suggestion been made, to follow the course proposed by my hon. friend.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to proceed at this session of parliament with the proposal he made at a Conservative meeting in Ottawa on December 2 to the effect that a parliamentary committee should be set up, as reported in the press, to "comb through the laws and regulations of the land in search of provisions that contravene fundamental freedoms or deny equality under the law"?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gave me no notice of this question, and of course he is not required to do so. I was referring in particular to those matters, and I am not going into them on the orders of the day, which shocked the conscience of Canadians during the period of time when the party opposite formed the government of the

Inquiries of the Ministry day. I felt and I still feel that one matter that might well be brought before the house would be the setting up of a committee similar to that in the British House of Commons known as the scrutiny committee. It would examine legislation being passed by parliament and already on the statute books, and would examine orders in council, which are not passed by parliament directly, to the end that anything in the nature of a contravention of fundamental freedoms would be brought to the attention of the house as a whole.
It has worked out very well in the United Kingdom, where it has brought about the removal and excision from various orders in council of sections which otherwise would have remained in effect. It is an interparty group designed to make parliament more effective and more assuredly the custodian of the rights of the people. I am prepared to discuss that matter with the hon. gentleman if it appeals to him, because naturally it would require a degree of co-operation on the part of members of all parties in the house. Knowing his desire to make parliament more effective, I would think that an examination of the activities of that committee in the British House of Commons would commend itself to his attention. [Later:]


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Eonavisia-Twil-lingale):: In view of the answer given earlier by the Prime Minister I should like to ask him whether, after two and a half years in office, there are still in force orders in council which the Prime Minister considers to be shocking to his conscience. If so, why have they not been rescinded?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as this government is concerned it made an examination to find that out. The hon. gentleman seems to doubt that there were in the past those that shocked. I would remind him of the order in council that exiled Canadians because of their colour, and for no other reason.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does he recall the protest against that order in council made by the hon. member who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green)?


An hon. Member:: No comment.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement the


Prime Minister made about people's consciences being shocked, and the report tabled by the Minister of Finance concerning the reference on textiles, is the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance aware that the last of three textile mills in the city of Cornwall closed last month putting out of work approximately 2,000 people? What does the government contemplate by way of measures to assist the textile industry and its workers in that region?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, what has happened there, if the fact be as stated by the hon. gentleman, is the outcome of years of neglect by the government that preceded us; and his belated concern with this subject, Mr. Speaker, contrasts interesting enough with what happened earlier this afternoon, when he did not want the house to hear a report from the tariff board about something that might be done.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Notwithstanding what he has said, is he aware that two of these industries closed down within the last 12 months, and what are the minister and the Prime Minister going to do about it in the light of the promise made by the Prime Minister in that area that there would be no suffering by workers of the textile industry because of anything done by this government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure at least other members of the house are well aware, the government has taken important measures to see that justice is done to the textile industry, measures that would have been much more effective had they been taken earlier when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What are they?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What measures?


Donald Methuen Fleming: When we asked the house to legislate for the purpose of excluding textile goods that were bound for this country or to give us power to deal by proper valuation methods with goods from countries where they were produced by labour under conditions that are not free, we got nothing but abuse from the hon. gentleman and his party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the minister is departing from the question. I agree that the question itself was somewhat argumentative, and I think we should drop the matter there.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE	NORTHERN AFFAIRS



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on the proposed relaxation of restrictions on dollar imports by the United Kingdom, as reported in today's Gazette?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I think everyone was pleased yesterday when the president of the board of trade of Great Britain, Right Hon. Reginald Maudling, announced a further relaxation of the restrictions that have been imposed on imports into that country since the war. This is one in a series of steps that the United Kingdom government has taken to remove these restrictions on trade, and they are now close to the point where all quota restrictions on trade, which have prevented the entry into the United Kingdom of various Canadian goods, will be removed. We welcome his announcement very much, and we hope that the remaining trade barriers will be removed very soon.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oiiawa Wesi):: I should like to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the minister's answer, an answer that I think we were all very glad to hear. I am unable to see any difference between the form of the question put by the hon. member to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the form of the question put by the hon. member for Essex East. One asked for comment on a statement in the Montreal Gazette and the other asked for comment on a statement in the Toronto Globe and Mail, both published today. The form of the question in each case seems to be identical. What is the difference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. Can he tell the house whether the government discussed with the president of the board of trade yesterday the United Kingdom free trade offer, which I understand is still open?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We discussed with the president of the board of trade a great many matters pertaining to trade between the United Kingdom and Canada.



ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources-


An hon. Member:: There isn't one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -or the minister concerned with wildlife today. This is a question strictly for the birds. Will the minister inform the house whether he is aware of the fact that thousands of ducks that should have gone south long ago still linger in Alberta, some crippled by shotgun pellets and others with immature feathers? Does the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources accept any responsibility for rendering assistance in this type of situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member
would recognize that in his preliminary remarks to the question he said that the ducks were in Alberta. I am not sure whether the minister assumes administrative responsibility over such ducks. I would think, as the question stands, it is not one within the administrative responsibility of the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The matter comes under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, and that is why I asked the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think when the ducks get back to the Northwest Territories it will be time enough to ask the question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees ((Minister of Transport):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for York-Scarborough asked a question regarding the route of the access line to the proposed Canadian National marshalling yard in the Toronto area. As the house knows, the matter of constructing a new freight marshalling yard and access line has been under examination by the railway for several years. The management advise that during this time various alternatives were studied, and the present location was decided upon after a lengthy final study in which a well known firm of consulting engineers participated.
The management have always recognized that in the location of the access line across the area concerned there would be difficulties, and because of this several alternatives were investigated. After studying the various alternatives proposed the management reached the

Inquiries of the Ministry conclusion that the route originally publicized was the one it had to advocate. The Toronto metropolitan planning board has considered the route of this line at meetings on March 11, August 19, September 23, December 16, 1959, and as recently as January 20 of this year, and has endorsed all portions of it at least twice.
I should like to assure the hon. member that the many representations he has made have been very carefully considered.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Can the
minister tell us if he has considered whether he has authority to instruct Canadian National Railways to provide interested parties, such as members of parliament or ratepayers, with copies of the DeLeuw-Cather report on the bypass?


George Harris Hees: I do not remember instructing the Canadian National to do anything of the kind. I may have asked them if they would.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has he authority to instruct the Canadian National to provide the public with copies of this report?


George Harris Hees: I would say no, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes, you have.


George Harris Hees: I would say if I were to request them to do so they probably would, but I would not instruct them to do so.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the mean and malicious attack made in a radio address over station CJEM, Edmundston, New Brunswick, on December 30 last by a member of the New Brunswick government against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, also expressing complete disregard for existing authority, can the minister advise what action he is going to take to protect and safeguard the good name and reputation of this police force?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: The hon. member bases his question on an incident which took place on December 30, and it hardly seems to me that it is a matter now, on January 27, of such urgency as to form a proper basis for a question and answer on orders of the day. I do not mean to imply that I am not concerned about the incident. Indeed, I have had it under consideration, but I do think it would take rather longer than it would be appropriate


for me to take at this time to tell the hon. gentleman all I know about it. I am still awaiting certain further information.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. Is it necessary, in order to obtain deficiency payments for hogs, to have the hogs inspected by a federal government inspector?


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I did not hear
the member's question very clearly, so I will take it as notice and have it answered later.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister give us any information as to the failure of Speckert and Morris, the contractors, to get under way the fill stage of the lakehead terminal contract?


David James Walker: Having received notice of this question at 2.33 today, would my friend be kind enough to accept my suggestion that I take this as notice?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Are there any negotiations going on between British Overseas Airways and Trans-Canada Air Lines with a view to pooling their facilities? If such a pooling arrangement became effective, would T.C.A. overseas flights be reduced?


George Harris Hees: I found it very difficult, because of the noise, to hear clearly what the hon. member said. Would he mind asking his question again?


Hubert Badanai: I have sent the minister notice of my intention to ask this question. However, I shall repeat my question. Are any negotiations going on between the British Overseas Airways and Trans-Canada Air

Lines with a view to pooling their facilities? If such a pooling arrangement became effective, would T.C.A. overseas flights be reduced?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of reducing T.C.A. flights, but there is an arrangement that has been worked out, a very satisfactory arrangement, between B.O.A.C. and Trans-Canada Air Lines on flights between Canada and London so that the most efficient use of the seating capacities of the airplanes of both air lines can be made, thereby making it unnecessary to use extra flights as often as possible.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a
supplementary question. Is the minister aware that this pooling arrangement between B.O.A.C. and T.C.A. is going to mean the loss of a number of jobs in the Toronto area?


George Harris Hees: I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very sensible, economic arrangement whereby unnecessary losses will not be incurred by Canada's national air line, Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister be good enough to answer the question I put to him, as to whether or not it is a fact that there will be a loss of Canadian employment because of the pooling?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any such loss, and I very much doubt if there will be any.


Lionel Chevrier: May I bring to the minister's attention-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to read a telegram and ask the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to read a telegram as a supplementary question, and then ask the minister whether or not it is a fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is a well established and understood rule that it is not in order to read telegrams or letters as a basis for asking questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I am more concerned with the answer that has already been given. This is a supplementary question, and the minister has said he has no knowledge of the question which the hon. member for Laurier has asked him. If it is pursued, it seems to me it then becomes a matter of debate or argument and cross-examination.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say this on the point of order. In the first place I should like to 79951-0-26
Inquiries of the Ministry tell the Minister of Justice, respectfully, that I believe he is not correct in his statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I refer the hon. member to citation 177.


Lionel Chevrier: I will look at the citation in a moment.


An hon. Member:: For the first time.


Lionel Chevrier: The question I wish to ask is based on a telegram which is just the exact opposite of what the minister has said. I should like to put on record as a supplementary question whether or not the minister has taken cognizance of a telegram which comes from the president of the united automobile workers, stating that there will be a substantial loss in the number of employees.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that the hon. member for Laurier does not accept the minister's answer. That may well be the situation. However, the rule is that the absence of an answer is not to be commented on. It is also the rule in these proceedings that cross-examination in order to try to elicit another answer is not permissible. If the hon. member has evidence that the answer given is not correct, he is perfectly at liberty to use it at the proper time. I do not see how he can ask a supplementary question on this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Are you ruling now, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in order in asking the minister to comment on a statement which is found in a telegram? That is the question I asked.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I am not ruling that.


Lionel Chevrier: If Your Honour is not ruling that, I now ask the minister if he is not aware of the fact that in the Toronto area a number of T.C.A. employees are going to lose their jobs because of the pooling arrangements that have just been referred to by the member for Fort William.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now doing exactly what I thought he was about to do. He has the minister's answer saying that he does not know that unemployment or less employment will be a consequence of the arrangement between the two companies. Now the hon. member for Laurier, it seems to me, is cross-examining him.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask the minister if he has received a telegram from the president of local 698 of the united automobile workers about this pooling arrangement.

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: No, I have not. I should like to ask the hon. member a question with regard to what took place when he was minister of transport. During that time I believe pooling arrangements took place.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 suggest a private meeting.



CLOSURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and you may wish to rule it out of order because it all revolves around the question of urgency. The question I should like to ask the Prime Minister is this. Is there any sense of urgency in the consideration being given by the government to the parliamentary device called closure?


John George Diefenbaker: Anyone who has been in this house for the last two and a half years has realized that this government's attitude has been to allow the freest discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Therefore as long as we maintain that tradition-as was not the case when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power -it is not a matter of immediate urgency.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of his statement, is it the intention of the government to introduce the necessary measure to allow parliament to express itself about this 50-50 payment to the farmers in western Canada before all the money has been spent?


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the hon.
gentleman must have been away when the discussions were taking place on this matter, because it was made perfectly clear that no action would be taken by the government of Canada until parliament had acted.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the abolition of closure, to which the government is formally committed, is to be referred to a special committee or to one of the seven or so committees which have already been promised.


John George Diefenbaker: I think my previous answer covers the situation clearly and definitely.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that another important robbery occurred two days ago at Shawbridge, involving a sum of over $40,000, does the minister intend to take steps in order to protect in a better way public moneys put into the hands of his departmental offices?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: During the last two and a half years substantial changes have taken place in that regard, and the funds and other postal values in the possession of the post office are protected in a way which we now consider is more adequate. Unfortunately, even under these circumstances it is quite impossible to avoid every possibility of theft or highway robbery, as in this particular instance.


Azellus Denis: I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the recent robbery involving an amount of over $40,000 seems to have taken place in an ordinary mail truck, will the minister consider the advisability of protecting in a better way those mail trucks carrying large amounts of money?


William McLean Hamilton: think my previous answer applies in this particular case as well, namely that it is quite impossible, when you are handling 10 million pieces of mail a day and travelling hundreds of thousands of miles on the highways and the railways of this country, to avoid every case of theft and every instance of highway robbery.


An hon. Member:: That is not what you used to say.


Azellus Denis: According to the newspaper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I allow another supplementary question I fear that the hon. member will think that he is entitled to rise every time there has been a robbery.


Azellus Denis: I am not a robber, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is entitled to bring robberies to the attention of the government if they are something new or unusual, but according to my recollection they have been going on ever since the post office was invented.


Azellus Denis: All I wish to do is to see that public money is protected. When he was sitting on this side of the house the minister

said that if he were over there on the government side he would protect the public money. However, it looks as though he is not doing so. According to the newspaper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a bona fide supplementary question I should be glad to hear it. However, I do not want him to go reading newspapers.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I always have a bona fide supplementary question. According to the newspaper the thief is supposed to have been tipped off, according to the director of post office. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to make an inquiry as to the truth of this report?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, unlike the somewhat sloppy practices indulged in by the previous administration, the hon. member can be quite sure that in every instance of this type we investigate most thoroughly and make the most adequate possible inquiries in order to bring the malefactor to justice. May I remind the hon. member of the case referred to last week concerning a theft of a large amount in Montreal, where a man was convicted and a sentence of five years was imposed. I would hope that we might meet with similar success in this case.



UNDERTAKING TO PROVINCES RESPECTING UNTHRESHED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether the government gave any undertaking, written or verbal, to any of the three prairie provinces with respect to sharing the cost of the payments to farmers for unthreshed grain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when this matter comes up for discussion, that will be the proper occasion to go into this matter fully, and every question asked will be answered.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette 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.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last evening I was discussing the government's mixed up policy on North 79951-0-26i
The Address-Mr. Hellyer American air defence. I said that the government subscribed to the theory of defence in depth, but does not back its belief with action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member might give a minute for the house to settle down so that we can hear his address.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Secretary Gates referred to the family of weapons, the mix. This includes the manned interceptor as the first line of defence, the Bomarc anti-aircraft missile as the second line or area defence, and the Nike as the third or spot defence.
The Bomarc is not a weapon by itself apart from its family. General Kuter explained the position clearly at the NATO parliamentary conference in Washington on Wednesday, November 18 last. In reply to a question by Senator Wylie of the United States, which I will quote, he said:
Senator Wylie: Is the Bomarc the answer to the bomber?
General Kuter:	No, sir. There is no single
answer to the bomber. The bomber or the air-to-surface missile requires now, will require as far into the future as I can see, the longer range aircraft to force the bomber to use his defence tactics or to employ his decoys to force him into effective methods of approach and tactics. The Bomarc follows closely behind that long-range fighter at very high kill capability, and requires behind it a more intensive defence of the local area. I believe we will always require the family of weapons that gives us all of those technical and tactical advantages.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the Bomarc is not a weapon to be used by itself.
Canada has no policy; we are half and half. We are neither in nor out. We are like a bather knee deep in frigid water who, fearing the depth, cannot decide whether to plunge in and swim to yonder shore or to beat a hasty retreat to the point of origin.
I have reread Hansard of February 23 last year, and I am saddened to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) deceived the house and the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He clearly gave the impression that the Bomarc was a substitute for -


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the people of Canada, and I ask that that remark be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: As I heard the hon. member, he did not say "misled" but "deceived". I think perhaps, on reflection, the hon. member would like to modify that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did not say deliberately deceived. I do not say it was intentional, but "misled" is quite satisfactory

The Address-Mr. Hellyer as far as I am concerned. The Prime Minister clearly gave the impression that the Bomarc was a substitute for the manned interceptor rather than a complementary weapon. At page 1302 of Hansard for February 23 last, he is reported as saying:
On the other hand, we have available to us the Bomarc, whose area of defence and defensive action is not far removed from that of the CF-105, but the difference in expenditure has been clearly set out. The cost of the Bomarc missile to Canada, as compared to the $781 million of the CF-105, is approximately $110.8 million. That represents something that must be taken into consideration, all things being equal, and the defensive properties of each being about the same.
Well, all things are not equal, and this misleading impression was not just one which I alone obtained, it was taken up by a number of other people and quoted in an editorial in the Globe and Mail some time after the Prime Minister's statement. It is most unfortunate that he created this impression which is not in accordance with the facts.
A week ago last Monday he congratulated himself and his government for the decision taken last February to cancel the Avro Arrow. Yet at the same time the United States is asking us now to go ahead with the re-equipping of our air defence squadrons and accept United States aircraft not clearly comparable to the great Canadian plane which was cut up with acetylene torches.


George Randolph Pearkes: But the statement that the United States have asked Canada to do that is quite wrong, for it was an officer of the United States air force who raised the question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Minister of National Defence can make his speech later. He has just told us that the responsible officer of the United States air force, General Kuter, the
man who was in command of North American air defence, has asked that we replace this type of aircraft with supersonic aircraft. If that is not a request from the United States, what is?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a field commander asking; not the United States.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are told that the matter of replacement for the CF-100 for home defence is under active consideration by the R.C.A.F. and by the government.


Mr. Best:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As soon as I have finished. Secretary Gates warns us that in the light of re-appraisal it may be necessary to put greater reliance on manned interceptors because of their greater flexibility.

It is not my intention to thresh old straw, but the Prime Minister made one other reference, to be found on page 14 of Hansard, which I should like to mention. He said the decision to cancel the Avro Arrow was not his but was a cabinet decision. There is no doubt that that is true in the technical sense under our system of cabinet responsibility, but it is also true that the Prime Minister did decide to cancel the Arrow on or before January 1, 1959, weeks before he had told the cabinet anything about it. Some weeks and a few million dollars later he let the cabinet and the country in on his secret. The Prime Minister does not need to be so modest in sharing the responsibility. Now, of course, he takes pride in the decision. I just wish to take this opportunity to record one dissenting voice.
Had the decision been taken in the fall of 1957 soon after the first Sputnik was placed in orbit, on the basis that further effort to defend this country against the manned bomber was futile, it would have been defensible. It must be assumed that in such an event the productive capacity would have been transferred to some new project. In February, 1959, however, with no alternative in sight and with no jobs available for the displaced workers, the decision fails on economic ground's alone. After taking into consideration the increased gross national product that would have been generated by continuing the program, the net cost to the Canadian taxpayers on current account would not have been too great. If one adds to the balance sheet the human capital which has been lost by Canada to the United States and the United Kingdom and the far-reaching effect on immigration of skilled people to this country the total loss to the Canadian nation is staggering.
Now, it is so much human suffering and dislocation passed under the bridge. Thousands of the unemployed are still walking the streets. To them, the callous way in which the decision was handled is still an awful reality. To others, more fortunate, it has become merely a distasteful memory. It still remains, however, for the government to tell us the policy behind the act. Have we given up the policy of defence in depth against manned bombers, or have we not? We cannot remain half and half. The government cannot fool the Canadian people on this one much longer. The Prime Minister will find that the Canadian people are quite competent to judge a government that works both sides of a street.
At the same time as he was quoting Mr. Khrushchev in defence of the decision he took a year ago the Prime Minister raised another

question. Mr. Khrushchev, according to the right hon. gentleman, told the supreme Soviet that surface vessels were no longer effective and that underseas craft would replace them in the Soviet strategy. A few breaths later the Prime Minister told us, with his usual self satisfaction, of Canada's continuing development of surface vessels. If Mr. Khrushchev has vindicated half of the governments half policy on air defence, has he challenged the policy on naval defence? We should be told by the government whether its policy is to continue to rely on surface vessels and aircraft or whether we intend to follow-at a respectable lag-the Russian lead, and rely on underseas craft.


Mr. Chambers:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As soon as I am finished.
On this subject, Admiral Jerauld Wright, retiring supreme allied commander (Atlantic), told the NATO parliamentary conference in Washington on November 18, 1959:
Our nuclear propelled submarines, the most promising of all anti-submarine weapons in the Atlantic, are available ... for the destruction of both guided missile submarines and submarines operating against our sea lines of communication.
Admiral Wright feels that the anti-submarine submarine is the most promising defensive weapon in this field. When you find Mr. Khrushchev and Admiral Wright agreeing on something which is out of step with Canadian policy, it may be time for an agonizing reappraisal.
One of the most important considerations of Canadian defence policy at the present time is the conversion, or the possibility of conversion, from conventional to atomic weapons. In the nuclear class, we have been ;old of the Bomarc ground to air missile, the Lacrosse ground to ground missile, the Sidewinder air to air missile and, indirectly, the possibility of small atomic bombs being carried by the F-104G. The way this information has come to light is regrettable. There has been no clear-cut statement of policy by the government at any time during the discussions. What information we have has been given piecemeal in divers ways at press conferences at airports and other places, interviews, passing references and by statements of United States officers. Parliament and the Canadian people are entitled to a forthright statement of the government's intention in respect to atomic weapons, both defensive and offensive.
Even more amazing, perhaps, than the lack of a policy is that the government should tell us that we have committed ourselves in advance, and spent money, many months before an agreement has been worked out with the United States with respect to custody and
The Address-Mr. Hellyer control. We were reassured last week that negotiations are presently under way with the United States government. But we were given the same information last February, almost a year ago. It might have been prudent to have completed the negotiations before committing ourselves to the use of any particular equipment.
The Bomarc is the only atomic weapon which, we have been told, will be used by us for North American defence. If the manned bomber is as obsolete as the Prime Minister says it is, we will probably not proceed with the installation. Of course, the government will have spent a great deal of the taxpayers' money and when the cancellation is finally made the money will have been spent uselessly.
As far as the atomic weapons to be used by our forces in Europe are concerned, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) stated that every effort should be made to have them, as well as all nuclear and other weapons, placed under NATO control. This is in line with the idea of unified command and complete integration of forces which is widely held by the military. It would eliminate the present cast system of first-class nations and second class nations. Paul Henri Spaak, secretary general of NATO, touched on the problem which affects standardization of weapons when he spoke to the NATO parliamentary conference in Washington. He said that France is forced to rediscover today what has been well known to others for ten years. Furthermore, the United States is not prepared to share with its friends secrets which are already well known to its enemies.
NATO control of atomic weapons would not mean the development of manufacturing facilities in other countries; quite the reverse might be true. If the necessary weapons were available to NATO forces it might mean the elimination of costly and wasteful duplication of effort along national lines. We do not underestimate the difficulty of achieving this solution. We believe, however, that it is both desirable and possible. The Prime Minister has indicated great confidence in Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). This is a worthy project to which he can bend his diplomatic ability.
The central theme of any Canadian defence policy is its relationship with its United States neighbour and with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Prime Minister has said that our policy has been one of collective defence. We agree that everything possible must be done to keep the alliance intact and strong.


David James Walker: There is the new leader of the of the Liberal party!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is unquestionably a problem and, I may add, a danger which we must face.
I am in no way a rabid militarist, but I am absolutely certain that it would be sheer madness for the western world to lessen the military effort before the situation is entirely changed.
(Text):
Those who propose a unilateral reduction in our effort say that we could divert the saving to foreign aid. Very few have mentioned what seems to me a more significant and sensible alternative. It is often spoken of in a different context but very seldom related to defence. We should increase our total production.
As Dr. John Galbraith says in his book, "The Affluent Society", there are several ways of doing this. The most obvious and, if I may say so, the most conservative approach is to use the resources at present available. We have in this country at the present time almost 700,000 persons drawing unemployment insurance. If even half of these people could be given gainful employment we would increase our annual output by over a billion dollars.
There would, of course, be several claims against the increase. These would come from the workers themselves, from the capital employed and from government. Government's share should be sufficient to expand greatly participation in projects designed to assist the less developed countries of the
The Address-Mr. Hellyer world, while at the same time the re-employed workers should enjoy a much higher standard of living than at present.
Last year in May when the estimates of the Department of Labour were under consideration I suggested that the government embark on a massive scheme of adult re-education and rehabilitation. The idea was warmly applauded by the government. Months have gone by and there is no indication that the government has acted boldly. This is one positive way that the government could greatly assist individual Canadians and subsequently provide itself with additional tax revenue for domestic and foreign aid purposes. Such a policy, to me, is far more sensible than a policy of retrenchment and retreat.
As I said earlier, it is not the intrinsic value of Canada's contribution which is of paramount importance, it is the example we set. The government must not reduce defence expenditures simply because it thinks it can get away with it and use the saving to bail itself out of its financial mess. I have said repeatedly that most of the major defence decisions taken by this government have been based more on fiscal than on military considerations. I regret that the press reports of the government's intentions support this opinion. It is not just the security of Canada which is at stake but because of our key position in the alliance it is the principle of collective security for the whole free world.
The tests of success in the performance of the duties of the government involve hard decisions. If they are to do their duty they must often swim against the tide of private feeling. The matter of defence and national survival is too urgent and overwhelming in its importance to be considered lightly.
There are a great many questions we shall ask, Mr. Speaker, when the special committee on defence expenditure is set up. It is important that we get the best value possible for the money being spent. To do so it will be necessary for the government to give us a great deal more information than they have previously. If the witnesses are allowed to answer questions forthrightly and with candour the committee can be of considerable benefit to parliament and the country.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Might I ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker? This has been an interesting discourse but for me at least not too illuminating. There were many comments by the hon. member but no strong opinions. Would he and his party advocate, if it were possible as of today, the continuation of the program of building and equipping the R.C.A.F. with the CF-105 and do he and his

The Address-Mr. A. R. Smith party agree or disagree with the United States decision to slow down or discontinue the 108 and B-70 programs in the United States?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the questions which the hon. gentleman has asked should be answered after we have the facts made available to us in the committee which is being set up. They are highly hypothetical questions. He advances the hypothesis of continuing a program today of building an aircraft which was cut up by acetylene torches and buried a year ago, which was discarded and wiped out primarily for the reason that the government wanted to bury the corpse before anybody could have a chance to see what a worth-while aircraft it was. It is impossible to consider continuation at the present time when the jigs, tools and probably even the blueprints no longer exist. That is a ridiculous and hypothetical question. I can understand why the hon. member is so hard to illuminate when he picks these straws out of the air and asks what we would do now with an aircraft which was burned, buried and, as far as the government is concerned, forgotten over a year ago.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Did the hon. member and his party strongly advocate the continuance of that program last year at the time it was discontinued? Did his party argue strongly that is should have been continued to the full extent knowing full well that these planes would not be ready to equip the R.C.A.F. operationally until 1962 or 1963?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the hon. member should take the time tomorrow to read my speech and not take the time of the house now. If he will, he will see that I made that point very clearly in the context.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Moris-sette) and the seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Perhaps I can best sum up the opinion of the house when I report the words of one of our more senior members who said that after 20 years of experience he wished that he had made or could make a contribution such as both of these members produced in the debate. He went on to say that they indeed set an extremely high standard, one which it would be difficult for future sessions of the house to live up to. May I say to both of them, and I know the house will agree, that the often perfunctory remarks of congratulation which are made on these occasions are not made on this occasion but are offered with all sincerity because they acquitted themselves in a very excellent fashion.

I should like to say a word or two about the remarks of the gentleman who has just resumed his seat. However, as I propose to say something on defence perhaps I can reserve that until then. I was going to refer to him as the opposition defence authority but as he did not make a constructive or original statement throughout his entire address, with the exception of his reference to someone's book, he can only be put in the category of a critic.
Before referring to his remarks, however, I propose to try to say one or two things of a constructive nature and perhaps I can best start by saying to you, sir, how proud Canadians were of the representation you gave our country in your recent tour. I trust that as you made your journey you did not encounter the experience which I regrettably and unfortunately encountered during a shorter tour, that of visiting areas of Europe which had relatively little information on the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. I spent some time in the United Kingdom and I must say that I was particularly concerned with the attitude that existed there. Not only is very little known about Canada but I sensed a rather unusual feeling that there was little desire to learn very much about our country.
I was also somewhat alarmed at reading, in many instances, a rather antagonistic press and one which in describing the events of Her Majesty's visit to Canada, in the majority of instances in which there were many references, completely misrepresented what had taken place in Canada. In fact, after some seven weeks in the United Kingdom, what I was able to bring back in the way of press clippings of Canadian activities would not have done credit to the obituary column of one of our daily newspapers. However, I would not like you to give the impression that any of these people with whom we have close association were anything but hospitable to those of us who went over.
The relationship, in so far as our position in the commonwealth is concerned, remains extremely high. But what does concern me is the fact that, not only in Europe but also in the United States we must, not only as a government but as a people, make every effort to discourage any image of Canada which is only going to suggest that we have a vast wilderness and that all we can produce is cold weather, mounted policemen and ducks. I argue that if we are to reach into the markets of the world we must be able to show we are well equipped, we are well qualified and that we have all the facilities. I say that this attitude, perhaps

to a degree, is partly our own responsibility. I suggest that not only government bureaus, both in trade and commerce and our tourist bureaus, but in addition industry and the people associated with the vast press of Canada, should endeavour to improve what I call the Canadian image abroad.
I think, sir, that it anything is known about Canada it is certainly the vast resources which have played an important part and contributed so much to the Canadian economy. This is what I experienced in various sections of Europe and in particular when I discussed our problems with various securities' analysts in New York. They know something, of course, about the resource development that is taking place here. Because of this, I am going to make one or two suggestions to the house, asking as I do whether or not we fully appreciate the size of our own resources and the contribution that they make to Canada. I then would ask a further question as to whether or not, from an administrative standpoint, we have geared ourselves to service these resources in the most efficient manner possible.
The outstanding feature of our economy, I suggest, is that we have such large resources, and such large reserves, as to be almost unbelievable. These statistics may be of interest to the house. At 1958 rates of consumption the estimated reserves in energy would last us over 1,000 years. In so far as petroleum alone is concerned, it would last from 800 to 1,600 years, and coal in excess of 1,400 years.
Perhaps what is most significant, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada, with less than 1 per cent of the world's population owns about 15 per cent of the world's known resources of fossil fuels. With this background, I suggest to the house we should examine the system whereby we administer these resources in so far as the crown has any control over them.
We have already, in a past session, established a national energy board which deals with the different operational problems of these resources. But it is interesting to note that many of such resources, both in dollar value and in quality, have two departments dealing specifically with the problems of these resources. I am not suggesting in this day we establish a new ministry, but I am somewhat concerned with a situation which finds three departments directly concerned with one industry alone, namely trade and commerce, transport and mines. It does seem to me we could efficiently collectively group under one head in one department such a resource, with one senior administrator responsible for the over-all picture. They could,
The Address-Mr. A.R. Smith thereby, make a useful contribution to the government service as well as to the interests developing these resources.
I go on to make a second suggestion in this respect. From time to time this house is asked to consider problems dealing with resources development. Invariably these problems are referred to one of three committees. Again, I realize that this is hardly the time to introduce a suggestion for another standing committee, but I do ask you, Mr. Speaker, when we are considering future committees of this house or reorganizing them, to give some thought to a standing committee dealing with resources only. In this way we would have a well informed body of members in this house who would be able to deal adequately with many of the pressing problems concerning these resources. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that in my own city a short time ago a group of geologists and technicians were called together, geologists from all over the world, in what was known as an Arctic symposium. There came, from some 20-odd countries, great authorities who had some knowledge of the geology of the resources in the Arctic.
Perhaps what is significant is, first of all, that it is generally agreed that the Soviet has made greater advances in many of these fields, particularly in the north, than we have. The second significant fact is that the minister of northern affairs very rightly said we plan to double our own contribution, as a government, through the mines branch concerned with this particular field of research. I believe, therefore, that the remarks which I have made indicate that the question of planning for our resources development is one of some urgency.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) today and earlier in the debate made some reference to the possibility of the establishment of a house committee on rules. I am sure that this will meet with the approval of all sides of the house because there are problems here which were well illustrated today in the volume of time it took to conduct a small amount of business. I am going to make one or two suggestions which this committee, assuming it is appointed, might take under advisement. Perhaps I should first of all say, Mr. Speaker, that in these suggestions I intend or imply no disrespect to the chair. This house recognizes, sir, the great contribution which you make in administering * and looking after the business of this house, sometimes under difficult circumstances. My suggestions are rather intended to help the situation rather than confuse it.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that from time to time we find

The Address-Mr. A.R. Smith it necessary to extend the working hours of the house. We invariably do this late in the season, when it is very warm, and we realize it is going to be quite late in midsummer before we will be going back to our constituencies. My first suggestion, which is perhaps not too palatable to some, is that we should immediately give consideration to the extension of the working hours of the House of Commons. We have come down here to work. I suggest that we should take advantage of every hour that we can to process the legislation in this house.
The second suggestion I make deals with the number of days which are allocated to this throne speech debate. I suggest that, even in recent years, we have cut oft a number of days available to it, and that the committee might consider a further reduction. The third suggestion which I make is on the debate on the resolution introducing a bill, is often duplicated in the three readings which follow. I would suggest to the committee that they examine the possibility of eliminating this repetition.
The fourth suggestion, which is perhaps equally important, deals with the point which was raised by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) today, and that is the question of lengthy statements which are given by ministers of the crown. My suggestion here, sir, is, would it not be acceptable to the committee, and perhaps the house, to have these statements placed on the record as an appendix to Hansard. Then, in turn, the relevant replies could be introduced at a time when the estimates were under consideration, depending upon the problem dealt with in the statement. If there were a question of urgency requiring an earlier reply, then this would be something upon which the chair could advise the house.
The fifth point that I make is the question of members' speeches. I am not thinking so much of the throne speech debate itself but rather of the speeches that we hear where repetition follows repetition dealing with the subject matter of a particular bill. I have been as guilty an offender as has any member of this house. It seems to me that here again we can shorten up the proceedings if a custom of the house were accepted whereby repetition was cut to a minimum.
One of the last suggestions I would make deals with our committee system. I think the committee on rules should examine the question of whether or not we get full value from our committee system. I would ask them to examine, first of all, the size of the committees and, second, to have some regard to whether or not departments, after

they have been examined, can make a report to the house on the suggestions or recommendations which have been made by the committee in the previous session. I cite as an example the Department of National Defence where the minister followed this practice and gave as examples references where the department had accepted many of the suggestions. I think the committees would operate more efficiently under such a reference and that they would be given encouragement to attack their work with greater enthusiasm.
My last suggestion with regard to house rules deals with the question of the customs of the house itself. From time to time, Mr. Speaker, you will rule us out of order on a particular matter. Many of the senior members of the house obviously know that they are out of order but on a great many occasions the members who have not had this lengthy experience will not be aware of the fact that they have actually offended a house rule or a house custom. I am therefore going to suggest that some of us should go back to school and that, under the very efficient Clerk of the house, we should assemble discussion groups so that we might become better informed of our own house rules. Under such a practice I suggest that endless delays resulting from ignorance of the rules at least would be reduced to a minimum.
Finally, I come to the most difficult period of the day for you, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the matter of determining the question of relevancy during the question period. In a legislative assembly of which I had the privilege of being a member there was a practice-and after all, practices differ from one legislative body to another-to the effect that where a question was asked by an individual member the Speaker of the house ruled that if the information could be obtained by picking up the telephone, especially where it concerned a junior official, he would not allow the question. I am not necessarily subscribing to this view here. I realize that there are circumstances under which it would not be acceptable. However, I suggest that this committee should strengthen your hand completely so that relevancy shall be uppermost in our minds when directing questions.
I have made nine suggestions in all and I have not in any way recommended for the committee's examination anything which would reduce constructive debate or discussion within the house. I have made the point that it is essential that we shorten the sessions for the members of the House of Commons. If we do not do this, it will eventually become a matter of time before it is necessary to recognize that this business of being a

member of the house is a full twelve months' function in Ottawa. If that is the case, our remuneration or our salary is going to have to be based on a twelve months' period and not as it was initially intended, namely on a period of a few months, from four to five. It is quite obvious that, as the sessions grow longer and as we are limited in the time during which we can go back and in some way supplement our income, it is ridiculous to think that the members can continue as they have been endeavouring to live, maintaining, as so many of them do, two homes, on their present income.
I now turn to the matter of defence on which I wish to say a few words. I am sure the house welcomes the establishment of a special committee or a committee which will deal with defence matters. The house will recall that some 18 months ago the standing committee on estimates examined the estimates of the Department of National Defence. I have endeavoured to ask myself how these committees will differ. First of all, the new committee will be somewhat smaller. I think this will increase the efficiency in carrying out its business. The problems which only the committee itself can determine is which of various witnesses it will call, for the committee will be master of its own rules.
The question of whether or not we shall enter into the realm of policy is not going to be a simple one to answer. The basic rule which we followed previously was that where an estimate for an expenditure was involved, the question of policy also became involved to some extent. But the procedure of the committee or whether we accomplish our business in one month or six months is not the important thing. The important thing is that each of us assuming the responsibility of being a member-if, of course, we are a member of that committee-must recognize that we have a responsibility not just to make political headlines, but to make a contribution in some way in examining the defence expenditures of government.
I am a little bit suspicious that perhaps this is not the purpose especially when we hear various opposition elements within the house and outside discuss Canada's defence policy as a whole. On the one hand, we hear those people who attempt to introduce the question of sovereignty as though it was something brand new to them. They have forgotten the element of co-operation between the various countries during the war when sovereignty was never questioned at all. Now when they are concerned with perhaps the element of co-operation that we have been extended and are extending ourselves to the United States, they cry that we are losing our sovereignty.
The Address-Mr. A.R. Smith
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all responsible members of this house that sovereignty is not the question today. It is a question of survival. I believe that we should not only co-operate to the extent that we have with the United States in the defence of this continent but that we should extend our co-operation even further. I believe that we should sit with them and determine how best we are able to provide the forms of defence best suited to our type of economy and our ability to pay for them. I think it is essential that we work out-as has been done by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) and his associates on several occasions-a common understanding. In this respect I think the present Minister of National Defence has done more than any other minister of national defence in the history of Canada.
We have one other criticism which is generally heard and this is by those who advise us that it is wrong to carry any nuclear equipment, in particular warheads, with which to equip any of our defence weapons in Canada. Surely these people must realize that until such time as total defence with a built-in inspection system is possible we must defend ourselves with the most modern weapons and equipment possible. In the event of an emergency, these people would be the same ones who would be criticizing us for not having adequate defence.
Speaking as we have been of the importance or the necessity of maintaining defence and working toward the total reduction in arms, complete disarmament, we must give every support that we can as a nation to this objective. We must also, in my opinion, however be ready to accept something less than that, if we are not able to achieve full disarmament. Steps to eliminate surprise attack swiftly would be a step in this direction. Believing as I do in the importance of working out a disarmament agreement, as I say, until that time comes it is essential for Canada to maintain its defences in the strongest position possible because, as the lesson has proved in the past, the deterrent is still the best defence that we know.
I should now like to say just a word or two about certain remarks of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). He talked about the Prime Minister first of all deceiving -then the record was changed to misleading -the house. This hon. gentleman had a responsible position in a former government as an associate minister of defence. On one occasion-I could quote many-he introduced his own remarks by talking about the unimpressive performance of the Prime Minister who took many press clippings and read reports of speeches made by the Leader of

The Address-Mr. A.R. Smith the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have a Hansard in this house. But there is no official record outside the house, and it was necessary to call the Leader of the Opposition to order and read back to him some of the inconsistent remarks he had made from time to time. Therefore I intend to refer back to July 3 of 1959, page 5460 of Hansard, when the hon. member for Trinity said this:
It is true that the F-104 used by the U.S.A.F. is not the Mark G contemplated for our air division but the G differs from the others mainly in electronic equipment, there being no change in the airframe or engine.
Just before that he had said:
We further understand that the fatality rate of F-104 planes and pilots in the U.S.A.F. is unusually high. The accident rate is about double that of other U.S.A.F. fighters.
All of us in this house have a responsibility not only to our own conscience but to the people of Canada as a whole. I suggest to the hon. member that when he endeavoured to create fear and alarm in the minds of the armed forces, in particular the air force, by suggesting that this plane was a killer without any reference to the obvious changes which were required in its superstructure. He was doing a disservice to the pilots who will be flying these planes. Surely the hon. member must know that in all of the nine marks of the Spitfire there were several alterations in order to improve its efficiency and safety, and the same can be said of all the 16 front line aircraft used in the last war. Any suggestion that this aircraft is not suited to the conditions for which it is required is an erroneous one, and I suggest that he has been misleading the house in this respect.
I think it is important when we speak of defence that we stop thinking of only one possible aggressor. There is only one aggressor now, the U.S.S.R. I recall visiting the United States not too long ago when a senior military figure in that country said to me that it was his guess that in a few years we might well be sitting with the Russian chief of staff planning how we are going to defeat another possible aggressor. I think it is interesting to note that at the United Nations this year Russia adopted a somewhat more conciliatory attitude, and I think we must recognize that their economic offensive today is far more serious than their military threat, because their economic front is here, and we must meet it today.
I also suggest that in making any assessment of where a potential aggressor lies we must look at a group of people to the east, 600 million strong and recognize that our defences must be in a position to meet all

potential aggressors, not just one, and I suggest that this, too, has been the defence policy of our government.
I would like to make a reference to the general economy of our country, and again make what I hope is a suggestion of a constructive nature. Those of us on this side of the house take some pride that we hear less today about the problems of tight money than we did some six months ago. No one denies that many of the small merchants, those people who must maintain inventories, have indeed had a difficult period. But what is interesting is that the economy has advanced. My own city has expanded in every area possible. In fact, we have never had it so good in spite of a setback in one important industry. The gross national product of Canada is up 3 per cent. Housing starts are up 35 per cent, and so the record goes. Yet the opposition critics, prior to the opening of the house, appeared through every news media to criticize the monetary policies of this government, and then suddenly they stopped or, at least, altered their direction of attack. I think it was particularly significant that they altered their attack about the same time that an hon. senator of the Liberal party wrote a letter, as I understand it, to one of the Ottawa dailies congratulating the government on their monetary policies.
It is significant to note, I suggest, that following this every major bank president, and also the governor of the Bank of Canada, supported the principles, the actions which the Bank of Canada had taken with respect to credit. No one will at any time discount the remarks of the governor when he went on to say that Canada has been living beyond its means. No one will deny the problem presented by the inner six and the outer seven European nations. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) spoke of the apprehension felt by those countries who are concerned about the common market. Those member countries of the inner six and outer seven are also members of NATO. No one will question that Canada must trade or stagnate. Few will question that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) made fine representations on our behalf at the Paris conference.
The question I now ask, and I put it to the house, is this: Supposing this concern materializes and the inner six and outer seven set up a number of discriminatory trade barriers. Then we are in a position where our exports abroad will decline, and continue to decline, although, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out, and rightly so, they did increase in the last half of the year. We must then ask ourselves, what course of action do we now take?

There are only two possible courses to take, perhaps three. First, to impress upon the European communities that we assisted them when they needed assistance most; otherwise, continue to make representation. Second, we should perhaps examine the suggestion made by a senior official of the government of the United States who talked about closer trade relationship, in fact, a common market with Canada. Personally, I would have very serious reservations about this suggestion, because it would tie us even closer to the economy of the United States, even greater than we already are. Third, we have the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He returned to this country from Europe, and he suggested that all levels, government, business, industry and labour, must work together to determine how best we can put ourselves in a competitive position to meet the new threat of competition from Europe.
This means, that business, for its part, cannot expect to have set up areas of tariff barriers protecting one industry when, on the other hand, we are expecting Europe to open up new areas. This means, in turn, that labour will have to reconcile its differences with management and also make some attempt to reduce costs. This means the government will have to pursue every possible channel to be absolutely certain we are diversifying all of the areas of trade, in the hope that we can develop new business.
Finally, I should like to introduce one other note with respect to the general economy of Canada. I spoke of the need for self discipline, because that is what it amounts to, as a means of competing with various countries which today are offering a new economic threat to us. Might I suggest that there is another area of self discipline in relation to our own economy in so far as it affects government and the people. Many hon. members may have read a report by a bank president commenting on interviews with some 19 young applicants for positions as junior clerks in a banking institution. Each of these young men concerned himself mainly, according to this report, with such questions as how soon he would be able to retire, the pension plan offered by the bank and the other social benefits which he would receive.
There is in this economy today no reason why we should not provide social benefits for the people of Canada as a whole, but I do suggest that the attitude of these 19 youngsters could symbolize something which amounts almost to an economic sickness which, if permitted' to continue, with its insistence that the state owes the individual a living. This will destroy personal incentive to such an extent that it will be difficult to
The Address-Mr. Cardin get people to do anything for themselves in any situation. I should make it clear that I do not believe we have reached this point yet, and it will be necessary, quite obviously, to maintain all the social services which we have come to accept; we may even have to increase some of them in order to assist those who live on fixed incomes.
But I suggest that some leadership could be given by the government and by industry in the hope that we can cut back this continued demand that the government must do everything. I intend this to apply not only to individuals but to business and industry which come down to Ottawa continually asking for increased assistance or to be bailed out of difficulty; requests which always require money from the treasury. I suggest that this government, which has shown courage beyond all belief in many fields-in establishing a commission to look at its own functions; in setting up committees of the house to determine the future of its own expenditures; in establishing methods by which we can develop the north; in establishing a foreign policy which has made the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) one of the great international leaders-this government could again make a contribution to Canada by encouraging and seeing that personal initiative is still recognized and that if you risk a dollar you are entitled to make a dollar in return. This is a worthy objective and one which will need the wholehearted co-operation not only of the government itself but of all the people within our dominion.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, in case I should not have enough time to finish my speech I should like to put on record immediately a statement I was asked to make by my leader to the effect that after due consideration the loyal opposition intends to vote for the sub-amendment later this afternoon, because we do agree that the government has failed in the economic and social planning required by present circumstances. But in voting for that amendment we of the Liberal party wish to make it perfectly clear that we are not voting for the kind of economic and social planning advocated at one time by the C.C.F.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to congratulate the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who performed a task that is invariably difficult and sometimes thankless. I don't think it would be unfair to my hon. friend to say that his eloquence was exceeded only by his imagination.

The Address-Mr. Cardin
I should like also to extend to you my warmest congratulations and my best wishes of success in the discharge of your duties as chairman of committees of the whole house. (Text):
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) on their appointment to important cabinet posts, and to offer my best wishes to those hon. members who have been named parliamentary secretaries. This latter office, of course has until recently been an office which carried with it a certain responsibility, because until very recently a parliamentary secretary spoke for and on behalf of his minister. Apparently, however, from what we have heard this afternoon, that is no longer to be the case. I think it is too bad that such a lessening of the importance of the function of parliamentary secretaries should have occurred right at the outset of their tenure of office.


Mr. Lambert:: On a point of information, would the hon. member permit a question? Is he including in his general statement both the case of an hon. member who is a parliamentary secretary speaking in the debate on the address, in which the subject matter is quite general and where he may express his own personal views, and the case of a parliamentary secretary speaking on a particular bill where it is indicated that he is representing the government?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the hon. member would take the trouble to read the speeches made by the parliamentary secretaries in the past he would find, quite clearly, that when they spoke in the house they were speaking in conformity with the policy of the ministers to whom they were attached, whether it was on the address in reply to the speech from the throne or on anything else.
I should like, now, to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man) on the very effective and interesting speech she made in seconding the address. Her speech was refreshingly free from the "times were never better" theme we have been hearing from government spokesmen for the last two years. As a matter of fact, she took the house almost more by surprise than she did by her charm.
Unfortunately, all the speeches we are now hearing from the government benches are not as objective and unbiased as that of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas. Indeed, gov-vernment spokesmen are so busy patting one another on the back and trying to convince themselves that times were never better that they do not realize that Canadians who are living through these times and who are in
[Mr. Cardin.)

an excellent position to judge now consider the Conservatives as being an unjustifiably vain as well as an inefficient mutual admiration society, as the last Gallup poll showed. Members of the government have arrived at such a point of sensitivity that they can no longer stand criticism of any kind without hitting out angrily and irresponsibly at anyone or anything that might disturb the government's sanctimonious self-satisfaction and complacency. They blame the opposition for the people's lack of confidence in the government; they blame the Bank of Canada for high interest rates; they blame the weather for unemployment; and they blame the previous administration when they cannot find a more immediate scapegoat.
To the Conservatives, everybody is out of step but our John. But our John is apparently reluctant to shoulder squarely the responsibilities that go with the high office of Prime Minister as indicated by his leaving out of the throne speech or any of his speeches any mention of the real problems and the real difficulties that face the country today.
Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) accuses of undermining confidence in Canada's future and of unjustifiable pessimism anyone who dares mention or attempts to obtain information about the vital problems of our national economy or our national defence around which subjects he throws a cloak of silence. But the very same right hon. gentleman is very eloquent and indeed eager to squeeze out for himself every bit of credit in the rare fields where some progress has been made whether or not the government had anything to do with it. An example of this, out of many, is the great stress that the Prime Minister places on the 7 per cent increase in our gross national product and his complete silence on the persistent problem of unemployment with over
722,000	Canadians out of work.


Mr. Palleil:: That is not correct; that figure is not accurate.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I suggest that the hon. gentleman take that up with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).


John Cameron Pallett: You analyse his answer.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The attitude of the government makes it abundantly clear that the political philosophy the Conservatives adopted prior to 1957 of winning elections at any cost is still the basis of operation of the present administration and indeed it is the only explanation for the inconceivable discrepancies between government speeches and facts as they really are.
Just as the Conservatives did not hesitate to place before the Canadian public a host of ill-considered and impossible promises to



19B0

[Stage Direction]
achieve power they do not now hesitate to hide their inefficiency, their irresponsibility and their incompetence behind a barrage of double talk and an avalanche of political propaganda and publicity stunts such as having the Prime Minister's picture taken with an angelic look in his eye and a halo over his head.
Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment at this point.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would do so later.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Mr. Speaker, may I point out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member who has the floor yields it, the hon. gentleman cannot put a question to him.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Would you not say that the Prime Minister-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Cariboo please resume his seat?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Such 'Grossartally' exaggerated publicity stunts could be considered humorous if it were not apparent from speeches of government members that they actually believe that because of his administration the Prime Minister deserves to be canonized. I think the members of the opposition will be forgiven for not sharing the blind and unjustified idolatry displayed by government members and for believing instead that it will take more than publicity and propaganda to meet the challenge of a rapidly evolving world and to earn the prosperity and stability that we hope will be Canada's fortune in the future.
At the last Progressive Conservative convention the order from the hierarchy was for Conservatives to get closer to the people. To my mind that is one tactic that will not enjoy any great success because everyone now knows that the closer the Conservatives get to the people the easier it will be for the government to put its hand in the taxpayers' pocket. And surely that is easy enough already. Income taxes are already too heavy, the cost of living is getting out of hand, interest rates are already too high and if the Conservatives get any closer they will smother the Canadian economy and the Canadian people as well.
It might be interesting to examine what the Conservatives mean when they talk about getting closer to the people. Were they being close to the people when they led them to believe that Conservatives would increase social security, reduce taxation and balance the budget, and ended up by increasing taxes and presenting a record deficit to the Canadian people? Was the Prime Minister close to the
The Address-Mr. Cardin people when he stated that not one Canadian would suffer from unemployment as long as he was Prime Minister and is he any closer now when he closes his eyes and his ears to the 722,000 unemployed in the country? Was he close to the provinces and municipalities when he shed so many crocodile tears over their financial plight and is he any closer now when he states that because of constitutional difficulties and federal obligations there is really nothing he can do about it?
Was the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) close to the Canadian people when he stated that it was not as important to tell the truth to the Canadian public during elections as it was to tell the truth in the House of Commons?
And in his speech in this very debate was the Prime Minister being close to the people? Three quarters of his speech was concentrated on attacking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). He tortured the texts, he tortured himself and he tortured the house in a vain attempt to find substantial discrepancies in the statements of the Leader of the Opposition on defence policy and then illogically concluded that the Leader of the Opposition was following a sinuous and tortuous course.
Everyone knows that it is the tipsy driver who feels that the other fellow is not going straight and the Prime Minister's speeches from the time he took over leadership of his party to this day have been on countless occasions absolutely contradictory. The course followed by the Prime Minister is not only sinuous, it is sinister, as well.
For instance, in his speech the other day the Prime Minister, not having any real policy to offer on current issues and no answer or solution to present day urgent problems of defence and the high-cost economy, unemployment, and others, included in his speech the announcement of three important but surprise pieces of legislation the announcement of which would normally have been placed in the throne speech which was delivered just three or four days previously. The reason for this, of course, was to bolster up an otherwise completely empty speech and to detract public attention from the extremely serious difficulties and urgent problems that are challenging Canada's economic and military strength. In fact, the government has nothing to offer. ,
The sinister part of the Prime Minister's course is that the Prime Minister himself is attempting to lull Canadians into a false sense of security and a most unrealistic approach to the future when he should be extremely active and anxious to inform the people of the dangers and pitfalls that now stand in Canada's path.
408	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Cardin
I do not consider that my remarks are pessimistic. There is no pessimism on this side of the house as to Canada's future but there is a profound realization of the existence of problems which must be solved before Canada's future can be considered assured. There are certain signs in our economy which force us to ask just how the Canadian economy will fit into the broad and rapidly shifting picture of international trade.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made a report recently on the Paris meeting and the developments taking place in the common market and the free trade area. He explained how Canada has now become a member of OAEC, and certainly these are all steps in the right direction for international trade.
I feel, however, that Canada should take an inward look and see just how well prepared Canada is to compete in world markets where there is a definite tendency toward freer trade and greater competition. It would appear as though Canada has already reached the stage-I am not speaking now of dumping or unfair competition-where fair competition from abroad has seriously cut into our home markets and in certain cases has jeopardized important industries. The textile industry, our merchant marine and the shipbuilding industry are obvious examples but there are others and there will be more if the problem is not soon solved.
I do not have to describe the plight of the textile industry. Suffice it to say that one after the other textile mills are being closed. Nor do I need to stress how ridiculous and, indeed, how unacceptable it is for Canada, whose economy depends more and more on exports and whose very slogan is from sea to sea, to have not one ship under Canadian registry at either its eastern or western ports and, indeed, for the government of Canada to sell its last few remaining ships because it could not operate them economically.


Mr. Crouse:: How many did your government sell?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Then, of course, there is the closely related shipbuilding industry which at this time should be increasingly active and flourishing but which is actually grinding to a standstill in spite of the fact that our shipyards are well and modernly equipped and that our technicians and skilled labour are second to none in the world. There is something fundamentally wrong when hundreds and thousands of shipyard workers in my home town and in shipyards throughout the country have to sit back and watch Canada's export trade being carried by foreign ships while our shipyard workers 

and our sailors are trying to live on unemployment insurance. I read recently that even our Canadian steel industries are beginning to find importation of foreign steel a little disconcerting and are beginning to suggest that we should raise trade barriers against the importation of steel.
The point I wish to make here is that if a growing number of Canadian industries are continually losing a good part of our own home markets to foreign competition to the point of having to abandon activity in these fields in some cases, what will Canada's chances be in the future in selling its products in a more competitive world market? If Mr. Khrushchev does launch an all-out economic war, as he has threatened to do, just how well is Canada prepared to meet the unrealistic and drastic price structure involved in such an attack? If Canada cannot meet this extreme situation and, indeed, if it cannot meet the price structure of extended freer trade and greater competition, what will happen to the Canadian economy?
In presenting his report of the international trade meeting in Paris the other day the minister presented what to my mind was only half of a very important problem. I am not sure which half of the problem is more important but the other half of the problem to which the minister did not refer is to find out exactly how we are going to make Canadian prices competitive in this era of freer trade and greater competition. I do not believe anyone will dispute the wisdom of freer trade under present conditions but that, of course, does not make the Canadian problem of high prices any easier.
What is the answer? I would be more than a genius, Mr. Speaker, if I had the answer to that problem and I would be more than a fool if I pretended that either the cause or the solution were simple. But one thing is sure, that it is unpardonable irresponsibility on the part of the government to act as though the problem did not exist, and it is economic suicide for the government to let the people believe that Canada can achieve economic stability and true prosperity without having solved it.
I realize that this subject is a really hot potato but I honestly believe that it is one that can no longer be ignored by the house or by the people, no matter how hot it is. I believe that our whole parliamentary system and this house in particular were created in order to recognize, to study and to try to solve, if possible, all national problems, certainly those as fundamental and as vital as this one.
It is preposterous for a government to close its eyes to the real problems because of their

difficulty and to concentrate its attention on certain legislation because of its popularity. Certainly it will be a fine thing to have a bill of rights but I wonder just how much comfort it will be to Canadians to read about freedoms, liberties and rights they have always possessed if the bottom falls out of the Canadian economy?
Surely the government cannot possibly and will not refuse the invitation extended to it by the president of the Canadian Labour Congress to attend a meeting of government, labour and management. I am sure that the government can usefully use this opportunity offered to it in order to make a thoroughly objective and exhaustive study into the general causes of and possible solutions to our high cost economy. Also, Mr. Speaker, in this meeting the problems that are now facing those industries whose very existence is jeopardized by foreign competition might well be studied. I do not feel that the solution to the problem of these affected industries will be found among the traditionally accepted solutions of the past, high tariffs, quotas and restrictions which, to my mind, under present economic trends will become as obsolete as economic isolationism itself.
To find a solution to the problem we will have to be far more imaginative and be bolder than we have ever been. We will have to explore other vistas of our free enterprise system and tap other sources of initiative, energy and strength from both labour and management who together have made Canada the industrial power it now is. Although there are many other causes of our high cost economy, I would be less than truthful if I did not say that I believe that the persistent and apparently irreconcilable differences in the points of view of these two giants of industry, labour and management, have been rocking Canada's economic boat. I do not believe it is in the interests of either labour or management or Canadians generally that we should let the boat capsize regardless of who is right and who is wrong.
Nor do I believe that the responsibility for the present difficulties can be placed on labour any more than on management. The blame might well be put on the origin or the circumstances under which the relationship between labour and management was founded centuries ago, a relationship of lord and vassal which is of course no longer compatible under our progressive social standards and reforms and, indeed, not accepted by either labour or management. But even after many generations there still exists between labour and management the same diametrically opposed interests and points of
The Address-Mr. Cardin view of feudal days. These differences can only widen with increasing competition which we now foresee.
If we could find a new basis or a new principle on which to found, not a relationship but a veritable partnership between these two giants, I believe that we would have gone a long way toward solving our problem of a high cost economy and the Canadian economy itself would be in a far stronger position to meet any challenge the world would have to offer. Many informed people in Canada have spoken of the desirability of having more Canadians invest more money in Canadian industry. I fully agree with that principle. Industry itself could, and perhaps should, encourage and facilitate the investment of capital by their employees in the industry or plant where the majority of these employees spend the greater part of their lives and to which they have contributed so much.
The government also might, in a very tangible way, encourage employees to invest in the industry or plant in which they work. If we look at what is being done in other fields of our economic activity, income tax deductions, government guaranteed loans earmarked for certain purposes could no longer be considered to be too revolutionary. This type of participation in benefits is already being followed by several companies in Canada with considerable success, and a comparable partnership of labour and management might be usefully adopted in a far greater number of industries. I am not at all sure that the industries most affected by foreign competition, which we must keep alive, might not find in this way the new energy, the new strength, the new power that is necessary to make them viable, once labour and management are both pulling in the same direction and toward the same objective.
The return of capital to the original investors-because for many reasons even the employees' participation in the new partnership should be in dollars and cents-could usefully be reinvested in the purchase of more modern machinery or might be reinvested in other industries. The employees, on the other hand, would have a sense of belonging which they have never had before and which would spark interest in their work which would translate itself into increased production and a reduction of costs. Employee participation in profits, along with their salaries, would give them a greater annual revenue, and their shares in the company would give them a sort of built-in pension plan. It seems to me that from this

The Address-Mr. J. Smith partnership there could arise a great number of social benefits which are of importance.
The employees, on the other hand, would have a greater appreciation of the possibilities of the industry and understand the difficulties being met by the industry by having representatives on the board of directors, by having reports from the company and watching the balance sheet. I am convinced that the employees could and would find appropriate solutions to the problems of management which management might never be able to find alone. Mr. Speaker, whether we follow this method or not I cannot help but think that the farther we get away from this lord-vassal type of relationship between labour and management, whose respective interests are, by their very nature, diametrically opposed to one another and the oloser we can come to a partnership of these two essential halves of industry where the interest of one is also the interest of the other, then the oloser we will be to solving the problems of our high-cost economy, and stabilizing our industries without sacrificing Canada's high standard of living.
I would strongly urge the government to accept the invitation of the labour congress and even to attempt a field experiment in the textile, ship-operating and shipbuilding industries, under the sponsorship of government, of labour, of management, of technicians and economists, in a combined effort to try to save these vital industries, and with a view to exploring the limitless possibilities to be found in the free enterprise system and in the will and determination of the Canadian people to make of Canada the truly great nation it can become. It is this government's most sacred responsibility to give to the country the leadership and the guidance necessary to attain that end. We on this side respectfully submit that this government has not assumed that responsibility.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in this house during the throne speech debate. I welcome this opportunity and, like other hon. members, I am going to limit my remarks to matters pertaining to the county which I represent. I will, on behalf of that county, give some credit to this government for the many things they have done. I hope, also, I shall make some suggestions which will be useful.
I extend to you, sir, my congratulations on being appointed Deputy Speaker of this house. I extend congratulations also to the Sergeant-at-Arms. To Mr. Franklin, who has just retired, I convey my wishes for a long and happy retired life. I should like also to extend to the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder

(Mrs. Casselman) of the speech from the throne my sincere congratulations for a job which was exceptionally well done.
The riding which I represent, Lincoln county, being part of the Niagara peninsula is steeped in the history and tradition of the early days when Upper Canada was first settled by the Anglo-Saxon people. The first government of Upper Canada was held at Niagara-on-the-Lake in Lincoln county. The part played by General Isaac Brock, Laura Secord and Butler's Bangers during the war of 1812 and at the battle of Queenston Heights is proudly remembered by the people of the Niagara peninsula and, I am sure, by the people of Canada. Sometimes I think that our government here in Ottawa could do more from the national standpoint to preserve the heritage and traditions of these early settlers, the British colonial soldiers, and the part they played in defending the boundary line between Canada and the United States along the banks of the Niagara river.
Old Fort Mississagua, which stands at the mouth of the Niagara river across from old Fort Niagara, which is on the United States side, is deteriorating fast. In order that it be preserved for the future repair work will have to be done soon or the old building will become a complete ruin. At the present time the roof is still intact. I believe this fort was built about the same time as Fort Henry at Kingston. There are other old buildings at Niagara-on-the-Lake, such as the old St. Mark's Anglican church, the old St. Andrew's Presbyterian church, which are gems of early Canadian architecture, some of them dating back prior to the burning of old Niagara during the war of 1812.
Those old buildings are really buildings that should be preserved for all time. The old St. Andrew's church intrigues me. The box stalls where the family sit together, with the little door that you fasten with a bolt when you go in; the high pulpit with the winding stair going up either side; and the padded sounding board extending over the minister's desk could be Scotland's contribution to early acoustics.
The Ontario provincial government have done an excellent job in restoring and preserving Fort George navy hall, the Mac-Farlane house, Queenston Heights and many other historial places all along the Niagara river to Fort Erie. That is so from a provincial standpoint. However, I do feel that since Niagara-on-the-Lake was the cradle of constituted government in Upper Canada from a national standpoint it deserves a little bit more prominence and a little bit more money being spent on preserving what is left of those early colonial days.

I am concerned about old Fort Mississagua and have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) who has advised me that he will send one of his department officials to Niagara-on-the-Lake this spring to inspect the old fort in conjunction with officials of the Niagara parks commission.
Those early settlers who came to Niagara peninsula were United Empire Loyalists. They came to Canada after the war of independence in the United States and they brought with them their tools and experience in farming and milling which gave them a good start and so the Niagara area developed fast in those early days.
The scriptures tell us that when the Israelites left Egypt and journeyed into the promised land they carried with them little fig trees and seeds of corn. I am sure those early settlers coming into the Niagara peninsula across the treacherous Niagara river in the Conestoga wagons may have brought with them little peach trees and grapevines as well as their other belongings.
Fruit and vegetable growing is the Niagara peninsula's oldest industry and still is the most important one. However, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that over the past 20 years when the former government was in power the problems of the growers were sadly neglected. Each year their markets were flooded with surplus and subsidized crops from the United States dumped into Canada just at a time when the Niagara crops were ready to harvest. This procedure had a very discouraging effect on the fruit growers and during those years many of the old family farms were broken up and sold into small acreages for week-end farmers, housing subdivisions and industrial sites and many of the young people left the farms.
However, I do not agree with some of the writings in our newspaper about the fruit growing industry in the Niagara peninsula being finished or nearly finished. It is true that those years of indifference to the growers by the former government have damaged the industry and it will take some time to correct that damage.
We still have plenty of the good land, the good climate and the know-how to grow good fruit; and if the growers continue to receive the same sympathetic support that our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) is giving them now there will be delicious peaches from the Niagara peninsula for a long time to come. However, long range planning of the fruit lands is essential and growers must be assured of a fair share of the Canadian market.
The Address-Mr. J. Smith
Those fruit growers do not want high tariffs or unreasonable legislation. All they want is protection against the dumping of surplus crops from the United States into Canada at times when Canadian crops are ready to harvest. Government assistance to recover the British market for canned fruit which was also lost by the former government is also essential. It is extremely interesting to note today that there is going to be some change in the dollar situation, something which might help us to sell more of our canned fruit in the United Kingdom.
During the 1957 election the growers asked for three items of legistation, namely a seasonal tariff during the harvesting season, fair value for duty purposes and price stabilization. These items were all designed to combat dumping from the United States. Those acts are now all in effect except a section of Bill No. C-51 which has not been proclaimed so far. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) announced that fruit and vegetables were Canada's third highest import from the United States. Surely fair value for duty to protect our market during the harvesting season from dumping by United States growers would be in order.
The outlook of the Niagara fruit industry has substantially improved in the last two years and most of the growers report good returns for 1959, except some growers who suffered considerable crop damage by hailstorm and wind. Those growers are considering this new crop insurance act very seriously.
The uncertainty of the canning industry, as the result of a great many of the Canadian canning factories having been bought up by United States interests and many having been closed down is causing much concern among the growers.
The passing of the small corner grocery store trade and the apparent end of home canning-which together provided a market for about 40 per cent of the basket crop- is also a problem that is gradually being overcome. This basket fruit business is moving into the hands of the big chain stores who buy in large quantities, thus making it necessary for the growers to form collective marketing agencies with suitable cold storage facilities so as to hold the crop in storage when necessary awaiting shipment.
There is a great need for improved marketing facilities with good cold storage facilities in the Niagara peninsula and grants by the federal government which are available now to build cold storage plants should be encouraged so that more companies will take advantage of those plants to improve their storage facilities.

The Address-Mr. J. Smith
There is not too much mixed farming in my riding and time will not permit that I deal with it at this time. However, at some time in the future, during the estimates, I hope to deal with it.
Building and operating of ship canals has always played an important part in the every day life of the people of Lincoln county. Three canals have been built across the Niagara peninsula. The first started construction soon after the war of 1812 and was completed in 1829.
I must say a word about this old canal. It is very important at this time because for 20 years the people of the Niagara peninsula asked and begged the former government to do something about cleaning it up and restoring the canal lands to their original state, but did not obtain satisfactory results. The then department of transport did make several unrealistic cash offers that the municipalities do the clean-up job themselves, which was entirely impossible. So it fell to our present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to find the money and proceed with the job, which is now well under way. Some of my good Liberal friends, and my friends in the C.C.F. too, who supported me in the last two elections say it was well worth switching their votes to get the old canal cleaned up; and so it was, because children were often drowned in the unguarded muddy water, and it was an ugly eyesore to the whole community.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) in her eloquent speech referred to empty cargo vessels passing down the seaway. Well, we have that too. We also have it in another way in the Niagara peninsula-miles of freight trains come loaded across the international bridges at Niagara Falls and Fort Erie and return empty to the United States. This is too much of a one-way business for the good of Canada. This is the result of our imbalance of trade with the United States which was fostered by the trade policies and GATT arrangements of the former government, which reached an all-time high in 1956.
Our former government seemed afraid of retaliation by the United States government. I do not see things that way. Neither do I believe in sudden changes, but rather a gradual equalization of our tariff regulations on farm products and manufactured goods entering the United States or Canada. It is necessary at least to be on an equal footing. If there is a 25 per cent duty on a Canadian product entering the United States, then it should be the same on a United States product entering Canada unless, of course, the product is citrus fruit or fresh fruit out of season, or other food products we cannot grow in

Canada, or products we cannot manufacture in Canada. In this case tariffs are not necessary.
Far be it from me to be an economist, but it does appear to me that Canada would be better off if our currency rates with the United States were also equalized.
The slump in Canada's textile manufacturing industry has been felt in Lincoln county. Over the past 20 years we have lost several fine industries. Statistics tell us that some 15 years ago Canada's textile industry was Canada's highest employer of labour, but now it has dropped to less than the third highest. This should be of concern to all Canadians, and I for one repudiate a statement often heard that Canada should not be in the textile industry at all, that we cannot compete, and that business should go elsewhere.
Two world wars have shown us that we can be isolated, and we need to keep all our industries. While I am not a believer in high tariffs I do favour quotas, which seem to me to be the only way we can save what is left of our once prosperous textile industry. The same set of facts applies to other light industry such as small tools and hardware.
Regarding the sale of our wheat and the threat of Russia planting millions more acres of wheat, that matter is very disturbing. Sometimes I wonder if we are putting enough research and study into ways and means of selling or processing some of our wheat into a food product that would be more acceptable to backward countries of the world that are in need of food, countries that may not have the facilities for processing wheat themselves.
We hear much from certain people about tight money. When I look around my riding and other parts of Canada I see evidence of national development on a broad scale. In Ontario the provincial government is spending millions on much needed highways and other public projects. Schools, houses, sewer and water projects are being built and installed at a fast pace by all the municipalities.
There may be a slowing down of credit on second-class risks due to the demand for capital being greater than the supply, but there certainly is no sign of a decline in the general construction industry, either by private enterprise, by governments or by municipalities. Perhaps the land of my origin where money is always tight makes me immune to the lament about tight money coming from the other side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I find in my own riding that people who are being displaced by automation in some of our heavy industries, and the decline of the textile and other light industry due to foreign imports, are finding it difficult to be absorbed into other industry,

especially those past middle age. This is a matter the government should take under advisement.
However, the people of Lincoln county do appreciate the things this government has promised and done. Price stabilization on the peach crop last year avoided what looked like a complete loss to many of the growers when the canning industry slumped and there was the old threat of dumping from the United States. Price stabilization went into effect on the peach crop with good results to the growers.
The clean-up of the old Welland ship canal after so many years of passing the buck, as it were, by the former government is something which our people are very pleased about. We appreciate what the Department of Transport has done in helping to develop a regional airport in the Niagara peninsula and the improvements now under way on the seaway Welland ship canal.
I trust that matters pertaining to pilots on the Port Weller-Sarnia part of the seaway will be settled to the satisfaction of the Canadian and United States authorities and the pilots before navigation opens; also that a civil service competition for the position of supervisor of pilots will be called, and that that matter, which has been a very contentious one, will also be settled before navigation opens.
I have suggested to the Minister of Transport that consideration might soon be given to improved facilities for salvage and rescue on the great lakes and the seaway. I feel that Canada should have a first-class salvage and rescue ship on each of the great lakes capable of providing fire protection, towing and general rescue work. I think we rely too much on the United States coastguard service on the great lakes and with the opening of the seaway and the increased water transportation we might well be thinking of a Canadian coastguard service of our own.
The opening up of the seaway is also bringing new business to Lincoln county. Our shipyard at Port Weller has been successful in securing a contract to build a new deep sea passenger and freight vessel for the British West India trade. Bauxite which at one time came to the abrasive industries in Niagara peninsula by United States railway lines is now coming by deep sea vessels through the seaway and a local company is spending a substantial sum of money building new wharfage facilities for unloading large ocean freighters bringing bauxite and other raw materials to some of our local industries. The very large number of tourists who visited the seaway Welland ship canal last summer gives promise of an increased tourist attraction to the canal area and in conjunction
Division
with historic old Niagara and Niagara Falls I see a greater tourist industry awaiting further development.
The matter of tolls on the Welland ship canal is causing deep concern to industries in the Hamilton-Niagara peninsula area who bring to this area Canadian raw materials such as pulpwood, coal and iron ore to be processed, and ship out such products as paper, steel and package freight, destined to points in the United States and various parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk informs me that it is 5.45 o'clock p.m. It being the sixth appointed day for this debate and 15 minutes before the time of adjournment, it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put herewith the question on any subamendment now before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. The question is on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting leader what the business is for tomorrow?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The present debate will continue tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the government if they will give some indication of what the business will be after this debate is concluded?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under the rules this debate can continue for four more days. I am sure it would be the wish of the leader of the house to acquaint the house with the business that will follow as soon as it may be helpful to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: It has been the practice to give some indication of the business during the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know that it has been the practice necessarily to give an indication a week in advance but the remark of the hon. gentleman will be brought to the attention of the leader of the house.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tasse
Taylor
Thomas
Thompson
Thrasher
Tremblay
Valade
Villeneuve
Vivian
Walker
Webb
Webster
Weichel
White
Winkler
Woolliams
Wratten-184.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:
st. Paul's hospital, saskatoon-capital

Mr, Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has St. Paul's hospital, Saskatoon, or anybody acting on its behalf, advised the government that it will be necessary to close the hospital unless government assistance is obtained in financing capital debt?
2.	Has the government received representations from St. Paul's hospital, Saskatoon, or anybody acting on its behalf, requesting the federal government to include interest charges on capital debt in its payments on account of the hospital insurance act?
3.	If so, what reply has been made by the government to such representations?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	No.
2.	and 3. Representations were received from the minister of public health in Saskatchewan requesting that consideration be given to modifying the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act so as to include certain capital costs. It was stated that the matter was of importance in connection with construction programs, particularly the St. Paul's hospital in Saskatoon.
The full text of the reply from the Minister of National Health and Welfare dated August 20, 1959, is as follows:
"Dear Mr. Erb:
Thank you for your letter of August 12 concerning the possibility of modifying the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to permit the inclusion of depreciation on physical plant and interest on money borrowed for capital purposes.
At the time the act was drafted, amounts expended on the capital cost of land, buildings and physical plant, depreciation thereon and amounts expended for the payment of any capital debt or interest thereon were excluded from the operation of the act after very careful consideration.
In the last few months, the inclusion of some or all of the items has been urged from time to time, and further careful consideration has been given to the issues involved. It may be said, I feel, that opinion regarding both the desirability and the means of including these items is not unanimous, and that, furthermore, their inclusion would raise extremely difficult problems.
The hospital insurance program is a new and expanding one, and while undoubtedly
Questions
careful and continuing review of the situation is essential, I am of the opinion that radical changes or modifications should only be made in the light of further experience gained through the operation of the program.
In view of this, I regret that I am not in a position to make an announcement concerning these matters at the present time.
Yours sincerely,
J. Waldo Monteith.
The Honourable J. Walter Erb,
Minister of Public Health,
Provincial Health Building,
Regina, Saskatchewan."


CHICAGO AND GREAT LAKES WATER DIVERSIONS
Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): 1.	Has the government received a report or any information on the deliberations of the foreign relations committee of the United States congress on the question of the Chicago water diversion?
2.	Has the Canadian government made any further representations to the United States government on the question of the diversion of great lakes waters since August 20, 1959?
3.	If so, what reply has been received from the United States government or any of its committees or agencies?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):
1.	No.
2.	Yes. In a note dated September 22, principally concerned with a United States proposal to consult with Canada on this matter, Canadian opposition to any action resulting in further diversions from the great lakes was reiterated.
In addition, the "consultations" proposed by the United States have since been held. The manner in which the Canadian position was again put forth during these "consultations" will be disclosed simultaneously in Washington and Ottawa in the near future.
3.	Answered by 2 above.



CORNWALL HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE


Mr. Argue: 1.	Was an independent check ever made on the safety of the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge?
2.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) by whom; (c) by whom was it ordered; (d) what personnel was used in conducting it; (e) what actual time was spent by such personnel on location at the bridge site during the check; (f) what information was made available to this personnel conducting the check and by whom; (g) why was such a safety check considered necessary?
3.	Was a report made on the findings of the personnel who conducted this safety check?
4. If so, (a) on what date; (b) by whom; (c) to whom; (d) what was the nature of the report?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1,	2, 3, 4. This question cannot be answered because it relates to a subject matter that is sub judice.



CORNWALL HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE CHECK CONTROL SYSTEM

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has a control system been set up at any time since July 1, 1957, by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for the purpose of checking, shifting, rocking or movement of piers and substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge?
2.	If so, (a) on what date was it set up; (b) by whom was it authorized; (c) what were the terms of reference; (d) the date of each check; (e) the results of each check; (f) the name of each engineer who carried out the checks or surveys, and what were their duties and qualifications?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.2.	These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.



CORNWALL HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE


Mr. Argue: 1.	Did the St. Lawrence seaway authority receive a report or letter from the contractors working on the substructure for the Cornwall high level bridge, regarding a difference they found re soil or glacial till conditions as compared to information supplied to them by the authority from previous test borings carried out by the United States corps of engineers or the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, what was the date of the communication, and what was its nature?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.2.	These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority received a report of an analysis of the silt content of the piers of the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge from an inspection company which had made such a test at the request of the contractor doing the remedial work on the substructure?
2.	If so, (a) on what date was the report made;
(b)	who was the official signing the report; (c) what was his position; (d) the name of the company employing him; (e) what were the findings of this independent report?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1,	2. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Were the piers of the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge washed to obtain an analysis of silt content prior to remedial measures being carried out?
2.	If so, (a) who conducted the washing operations; (b) on what dates; (c) how many washings were carried out; (d) why were each considered necessary?
3.	Was a copy of the analysis of silt content of the piers asked for by the contractor undertaking the remedial work?
4.	If so, (a) was it given to him, and on what date; (b) what was the date of the request and its nature?
5.	If not, why was his request refused by the
St. Lawrence seaway authority?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1,	2, 3, 4, 5. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Were remedial methods applied to the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge approved by both American and Canadian authorities, and accepted by the United States corps of engineers, Dr. Steinman and the St. Lawrence seaway authority prior to starting such remedial work?
2.	If so, who approved in the case of each authority, and on what date?
3.	If not, what person or authority did not approve?
4.	Were remedial procedures approved on the completion of said work by both American and Canadian authorities as being satisfactory according to specifications and standards?
5.	If so, who approved for each authority, on what date, and on what results were such approval based?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1,	2, 3, 4, 5. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Were any control measures set up to guard against possible substructure defects developing

unnoticed in the Cornwall high level bridge (a) during steel erection; (b) after completion?
2.	If so, what were they?
3.	Were these control measures as set up followed out?
4.	Were reports made from time to time under these control measures?
5.	If so, what was the nature of the reports, by whom, and to whom were they made, and at what frequency?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler of Transpori):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	2* 3, 4, 5. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Were all specifications contained in the contract agreement relative to the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge strictly adhered to?
2.	If not, what variations were permitted, for what reason, and by whom were variations approved in each case?
3.	Did any defects show up at any locations where the original specifications were not followed?
4.	If so, what were they, at what locations, on what date did they occur?
5.	Were remedial measures undertaken? If so, what were they, on what dates were they begun, and who decided on what measures to take in each case?
6.	Did any defects or faults show up (a) during the remedial work; (b) subsequent to the remedial work, at locations where such work was conducted?
7.	If so, (a) what was the nature of such faults and defects; (b) what further corrective measures were taken; (c) by whom were they ordered, and on what date; (d) by whom were the final results approved?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler of Transpori):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Did the initial design for the Cornwall high level bridge by Dr. Steinman call for piers to go to bedrock?
2.	If so, was the design in this respect changed?
3.	For what reason, on what date, and who initiated the design change?
4.	Were any substructure design changes approved by or on behalf of the St. Lawrence seawav authority?
5.	If so, what were they, on what date were they made, by whom, and what were the names of the engineers consulted re the design change in each case?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler of Transpori):
Questions
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the actual contract price accepted by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for construction of the substructure for the south channel high level bridge at Cornwall, Ontario, and what was the date of acceptance?
2.	Were any work orders issued in connection with the main contract for construction of the substructure?
3.	If so, what was the number of orders, the date of each, the name of the official authorizing and signing each, the value of each, and the nature of such orders?
4.	Was any change in tender price accepted by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for construction of the substructure after the contract was signed?
5.	If so, what was the date of each change, the name of the official authorizing it, the reason for it, and the actual amount?
6.	What is the actual number of work orders which have been issued for remedial work in connection with the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge, the date of each order, the value, the name of the official signing each, and the purpose of each?
7.	What is the total actual cost of remedial work on the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge as of January 1, 1960?
8.	What is the total actual amount unpaid on this contract for the substructure as of January 1, 1960, and amounts unpaid on (a) the prime contract*
(b)	extras in connection with the main contract
(c)	remedial work, and the reason for non-payment on each category?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	$1,240,550; January 25, 1957.
2.	Yes.
3.	4, 5, 6, 7, 8. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date were original test borings taken in regard to soil conditions in connection with the substructure for the Cornwall high level bridge?
2.	What was the name of each official, the position he held, and who took these test borings?
3.	What were the results of tests, and what size cores were taken?
4.	Were cores tested for strength in Canada?
5. If so, (a) what was the date of each test; (b) the name of official testing; (e) the name and location of the laboratory where the test was made?
6.	Where have bore samples been kept since they were taken?
7.	Were any transferred to another place? If so, where were they transferred and on what date?

Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Were any voids ever found in the down
stream river pier of the substructure of the south channel high level bridge at Cornwall on the Canadian side?
2.	If so, (a) on what dates; (b) how many were discovered; (e) what was the size of each; (d) by whom were they discovered?
3.	Were remedial measures taken?
4.	If so, (a) on which voids; (b) on what dates;
(c)	what was the nature of the measures taken;
(d)	by whom were they taken; (e) what was the total cost?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1, 2, 3, 4. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.




Mr. Argue: 1.	Were field notes kept by the resident, field or assistant engineer at Cornwall in relation to the construction of the substructure of the south channel high level bridge?
2.	If so, (a) to whom were they submitted; (b) on what dates; (c) by whom; (d) what was the nature of each?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1, 2. These questions cannot be answered because they relate to a subject matter that is sub judice.



WELLAND CANAL DREDGING CONTRACT 49

Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date was contract number 49 for dredging the Welland ship canal signed?
2.	What was the date of commencement of work under the contract, and on what date was it completed?
3.	Were any instructions issued by the St. Lawrence seaway authority to contractors as how to bid on this contract?
4.	If so, what were the instructions, and the date?
5.	What was the quantity of (a) silt; (b) rock, estimated in contract number 49, and how or on what information were these quantities arrived at?
6.	What was the actual number of cubic yards of (a) silt; (b) rock, excavated under this contract?
7.	Was this in excess of the amount estimated in the contract?
8.	If so, who authorized removal of the extra quantity, how much of each, what was the reason for this authorization, and the date authorized?
9.	What was the unit price accepted by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for the excavation of (a) silt; (b) rock?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	July 27, 1956.
2.	On or about the date of execution of the contract, viz. July 27, 1956; August 19, 1959.
3.	Yes.
4.	Instructions were contained in the specifications and instructions to tenderers dated June 13, 1956.
5.	(a) 40,000 cu. yds.; (b) 632,000 cu. yds.; estimated quantities obtained through cross-sectioning.
6.	(a) 221,623 cu. yds.; (b) 599,586 cu. yds.
7.	Yes.
8.	The contract required dredging to deepen the existing channel of the Welland ship canal from station 1231-)-00 to station 1460+00 to a specified depth and within specific limits. This requirement dictated the quantities to be dredged.
9.	The contract unit price was $16.85 per cu. yd. for material consisting generally of bedrock with an overburden of silt.



Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the total value of contract number 49 for dredging the Welland ship canal?
2.	What amount of this has been paid, and on what dates?
3.	What is the total actual amount owing for work done under this contract as of January 1, 1960?
4.	Have any submissions of accounts regarding payment on contract number 49 been made to (a) the St. Lawrence seaway authority; (b) the Department of Transport?
5.	If so, (a) how many; (b) on what dates; (c) for what amounts; (d) for what work?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	$11,623,200 (estimated).
2.	$10,944,069.10, payments were made in each calendar month beginning in September, 1956, and ending in August, 1959 except the month of December, 1957 when two payments were made and the month of December, 1958 when no payment was made.
3.	Nil, except for a claim with reference to quantities of silt.
4.	(a) Yes: all payments by the seaway authority to its contractors are made upon submission of progress estimates; (b) No.
5.	(a) 36; (b) answered by Question No. 2;

Questions
(c)
$	6,740.00
47,180.00
137.833.00
121.657.00
331.102.50
513.925.00
253.592.50 953,068.28 424,585.57

(d)	The work involved dredging from station 1231 + 00 to station 1460 + 00 of the Welland ship canal.



FORT LENNOX BUILDING, ILE AUX NOIX, QUE.   OIL TENDERS

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Have public tenders been called for the supply of oil to be used in heating the Fort Lennox building at lie aux Noix, Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) who submitted tenders and what was the amount of each? (b) to whom was the contract awarded, for what amount and for what time?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Quotations were solicited from known suppliers.
2.	(a) Canadian Oil Companies Limited, Toronto, $825.00 Net; Texaco Oil Limited, Montreal, $880.00 Net; Imperial Oil Limited, Ottawa, $907.50 2%-30 days; British American Oil Co., Toronto, $962.50 2%- 30 days; Shell Oil Company of Canada, Toronto, $935.00 Net; Mr. Roland Boudreau, St. Paul, lie aux Noix, $1,320.00 Net.
(b)	Contract awarded to Canadian Oil Companies Limited in the amount of $825 for 5,500 gallons of fuel oil, the estimated quantity required for the current heating season.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  BORROWING POWER

Mr. Argue: 

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  BANK BALANCE

Mr. Argue: What was the bank balance of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority account as of January 1, 1960?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows: $602,433.41.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  HEADQUARTERS BUILDING SITE

Mr. Argue: 1.	From whom was the land purchased for the erection of the headquarters building of the St. Lawrence seaway authority at Cornwall?
2.	On what date was it purchased, by whom, and what was the price paid?
3.	What was the municipal assessed value of the land on the date of purchase?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Department of Public Works.
2.	November 1, 1954, by the St. Lawrence seaway authority at a price of $100,000.

Questions
3.	The municipal assessed value ol the land on which the building is located was $39,666 for the year 1954.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, CORNWALL

Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date was the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority headquarters building at Cornwall begun, and on what date was it completed?
2.	What architect supplied the plans for the building, and what was the cost of same?
3.	Were tenders called for the construction?
4.	If so: (a) What was the name of each tenderer and amount of each? (b) What contractor was awarded the contract and at what price?
5.	What was the government's estimated cost of the building?
6.	What was the actual total cost of the building?
7.	Has this amount all been paid?
8.	If not, what amount is still owing, and to whom?
9.	What was the total cost of (a) furniture; (b) rugs; (c) office equipment, for this building?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	On or about the date of contract, August 25, 1955; conditionally accepted in November, 1958.
2.	Gordon S. Adamson and Associates; $79,225.42.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) M. Sullivan and Son Limited, $1,337,337; Canamont Construction Limited, $1,458,400; Anglin-Norcross Limited, $1,530,000. _
(b) M. Sullivan and Son Limited $1,337,337.
5'. $1,500,000.
6.	$1,396,918.
7.	No.
8.	$17,336.12. Balance of holdback retained -$21,496.83-M. Sullivan and Son Limited.
9.	Furniture with an inventory value of $55,453.25 was transferred from authority-operated construction offices. The value of rugs is nil and that of office equipment is $49,863.79.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-OFFICE SPACE RENTAL

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority rented any office space since Its inception?
2.	If so, (a) from whom; (b) for what purpose; (c) on what date; (d) at what location; (e) at what rent; (f) for how long; (g) what were the terms of each lease or agreement?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transpori):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) (i) Department of Public Works; (ii) Real Estate Investors Corporation, Montreal.
(b)	(i) Administrative and engineering staff; head office and construction headquarters; (ii) Eastern district headquarters.
(c)	(i) Administrative and engineering staff
and construction headquarters-October 1, 1954; head office-August 23,	1954; (ii)
Eastern district headquarters-April 1, 1959.
(d)	(i) Montreal and Ottawa; (ii) St. Lambert.
(e)	(i) Montreal-$2.75 per sq. ft. per month; Ottawa-$1.75 per sq. ft. per month; (ii) St. Lambert-$2.74 per sq. ft. per month.
(f)	(i) Month to month basis; (ii) Three year term.
(g)	(i) No lease or formal agreement exists with the Department of Public Works; (ii) Authority to provide cleaning, partitions and lighting fixtures. All other services to be provided by owner.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  MEETINGS RESPECTING CONTRACT 49

Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any meetings been held between contractors or their representatives, and officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority or the Department of Transport, for the purpose of discussing (a) work completed under contract number 49;	(b)
or payment thereof?
2.	If so, (a) what was the date of each; (b) where were they held; (c) what officials attended each;
(d)	what was the nature of the discussions; (e) what decisions were reached; (f) which decisions were carried out, and on what date?
3.	Has the St. Lawrence seaway authority or the Department of Transport obtained legal advice regarding payment on this contract?
4.	If so, (a) what official did so; (b) on what date; (c) nature of request; (d) what advice was received; (e) what legal counsel was approached; (f) what action was taken?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transpori):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1. Regular meetings were held throughout the period of execution of the work between the contractor's engineers and representatives and the engineers of the authority. Prior to completion of the work, a claim was submitted by the contractor to the authority. With a view to negotiating a settlement of the claim, meetings were held between the engineers or the chief engineer of the authority and the engineers of the contractor. Meetings were also held and discussions took place relative to the legal aspects of the claim between counsel for the contractor and counsel for the authority. Further meetings were held between respresentatives of the contractor and authority, with counsel

for the contractor and counsel for the authority in attendance. No settlement has yet been reached.
2, 3, 4. Answered by Question 1.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY  INDIVIDUAL LOCK MACHINERY

Mr. Argue: 1. Have officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority accepted each individual set of gates and associated machinery of each individual lock as a completed working unit, according to plans and specifications at the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, what official of the authority has done so in each case, what was the date of acceptance, the name of the official signing, and was it with his personal knowledge? If not, the name of officials recommending acceptance, and the positions held by same?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of
Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Separate contracts were given for supply and erection of gates, for the operation mechanisms and for the electrical systems. Subject to the warranty stipulated in the contract, the work under each contract is accepted individually when the chief engineer, in writing, certifies to final completion in accordance with the plans and specifications. In giving such certificate, the chief engineer relies not only on his personal knowledge, but on the reports of his senior engineer assistants.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Questions



OLD AGE SECURITY RECIPIENTS

Mr. Meunier: 1.	How many persons were receiving old age
security allowances, on (a) May 1, 1957;	(b)
September 1, 1957; (c) January 1, 1958; (d) January 1, 1959?
2.	What was the amount of such allowances paid by the federal treasury (a) for the first six months of 1957; (b) for the last six months of 1957; (c) for each of the years 1958, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monfeith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	(a) 807,365; (b) 816,651; (c) 821,800; (d) 850,616.
2.	(a) $192,977,359; (b) $240,254,663; (c) $554,913,467; (d) $571,063,016.



FAMILY ALLOWANCE RECIPIENTS

Mr. Meunier: 1.	How many children were receiving family allowances, on (a) May 1, 1957; (b) September 1, 1957; (c) January 1, 1958; (d) January 1, 1959?
2.	What was the amount of such allowances paid by the federal treasury (a) for the first six months of 1957; (b) for the last six months of 1957; (c) for each of the years 1958, 1959?
Answer by: Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
1.	(a) 5,599,226, (b) 5,670,168, (c) 5,744,674, (d) 5,995,727.
2.	(a) $202,431,225, (b) $220,616,679, (c) $470,006,700, (d) $487,380,605.

Thursday, January 28, 1960