1960-02-02

OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-40, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to distinguish between the user and non-user of drugs with respect to trafficking. By providing the death penalty or life imprisonment for the non-user trafficking in drugs it is hoped that this will be a strong deterrent in the case of the trafficker who operates on the basis of business risk and economic returns. Increased penalties and rigid enforcement have been found to be strong deterrents in other countries faced with the problem.
The second step, once having stopped or curtailed the supply of drugs, is to try to effect a cure of the user by compulsory treatment. Since the majority of provinces are not in a position to provide the treatment and cure at present, proclamation can be made when the facilities are acquired in each province for that specific province, or proclamation of the treatment section may be made when all the provinces have facilities for the treatment and cure of users.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


John Andrew W. Drysdale: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-41, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment) .


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The purpose of this bill is to provide the death penalty for those crimes coming within the definition of capital murder. In general, this legislation seeks to exclude from the death penalty those crimes generally referred to as crimes of passion, but retains the death penalty as a deterrent where 79951-0-39J
a murder occurs during a theft or as a result of the use of an offensive weapon or by an explosion. The bill seeks to protect police officers, prison guards and those assisting them by using the death penalty as a deterrent to prevent murder while these persons acting in the course of their duty or those assisting them seek to arrest a person or retain a prisoner in custody. In the case of treason and a person convicted of two or more murders, the death penalty is also applied.
Instead of execution by hanging, provision is made for execution by means of the gas chamber. The form of the traditional death sentence that a person shall "be hanged by the neck until he is dead" is changed so that the person shall "suffer death in the manner authorized by law". Provision is also made for disposal of the body either by burial, which is the present method, or by cremation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER ON QUESTIONS ON ORDERS OF THE DAY

['Mr. Speaker, there are dispatches in connection with two borders, the Israeli-Syrian border and also the border to the south. On the Israeli-Syrian border, as hon. members know, there have been certain clashes in which unfortunately nationals of both sides have been killed. The United Nations emergency force has no jurisdiction with respect to that particular border, but there is a United Nations truce supervision organization on which Canada has 12 to 17 officers serving and which, of course, will be responsible for doing whatever is possible to bring about a settlement on that border.\nOn the southern border there have only been reports of Egyptian troops moving toward the border. There have been similar reports on several occasions during the last few months, and at the moment that situation is not as serious as the dispatches would indicate. We are keeping in close touch with Mr. Hammarskj old, the secretary general of the United Nations, and thus far there is no need for any decision to be made. We are very hopeful that the United Nations emergency force by its very presence there will be able to prevent any really serious difficulties arising.']
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling the orders of the day, if hon. members will permit me I should like to say a further word about the form of questions put at this time of the day. Hon. members will recall that a few days ago I reviewed the practice during the oral question period which takes place before the orders of the day in the period reserved for routine proceedings. I do not wish to mention the subject matter of the questions but to speak rather of the form, and to remind hon. members that both the questions and the answers are subject to standing order 39, which reads in part as follows:
But in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same-


Mr. Marlin (Essex East):: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I continue:
-and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
I think that is reasonably clear. In Beau-chesne's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms",



[Stage Direction]
Statement by Mr. Speaker fourth edition, there is commentary on page 147, citation 171, which reads in part as follows:
In putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits. In making a question, observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a question.
The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house.
At page 149, citation 173, we find the following:
Hon. members must confine themselves to the questions they desire to put; they must not enter into an argument upon asking a question; they cannot add any remarks upon it; a question, the answer to which involves an expression of opinion, cannot be put. A member in putting a question cannot state an opinion, and he must confine his observations to those which are absolutely necessary to make the question intelligible.
Those comments on our practice I think are reasonably clear, and they apply not only to questions which are asked but to the answers. There is never any difficulty with questions which are put on the order paper, because they are written out and prepared with some care; but with respect to supplementary questions which are asked at this time of the proceedings, and the replies, the Speaker is in the unfortunate position of having to decide on the spur of the moment whether or not the question or the answer goes beyond what the proper practice permits. Of course I do my best to follow the proceedings and apply these principles fairly, but I do ask for the co-operation of the house, and I ask for co-operation on both sides. Yesterday comment was made, and I think properly, on an answer which came from the ministerial side, and I myself have had occasion to comment frequently on questions and on answers.
In saying that I do so to recall this matter to the minds of hon. members, and to ask for their co-operation because of the obvious difficulty there is in following a practice which involves dealing with matters on the spur of the moment as the house proceeds.
May I say one more thing. I really have to reprimand myself as well, because I find that the other day I almost entered into argument in the house and I wish to make amends to the hon. member concerned. At page 428 of Hansard for January 28 I am correctly reported as follows:
I think the hon. member for Essex East misunderstood the answer given earlier. I think all hon. members of the house, with the exception of himself, understood the replies given to his two questions.
That was quite improper comment from the Chair, and I express my regrets.

On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether one of them would care to comment on the situation which is reported to be serious on the borders of Israel, and the implications of that situation for the United Nations emergency force in which Canadian troops continue to serve.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are dispatches in connection with two borders, the Israeli-Syrian border and also the border to the south. On the Israeli-Syrian border, as hon. members know, there have been certain clashes in which unfortunately nationals of both sides have been killed. The United Nations emergency force has no jurisdiction with respect to that particular border, but there is a United Nations truce supervision organization on which Canada has 12 to 17 officers serving and which, of course, will be responsible for doing whatever is possible to bring about a settlement on that border.
On the southern border there have only been reports of Egyptian troops moving toward the border. There have been similar reports on several occasions during the last few months, and at the moment that situation is not as serious as the dispatches would indicate. We are keeping in close touch with Mr. Hammarskj old, the secretary general of the United Nations, and thus far there is no need for any decision to be made. We are very hopeful that the United Nations emergency force by its very presence there will be able to prevent any really serious difficulties arising.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from Larry Sefton, director district 6 of the united steelworkers of America, arising out of the shut-down of Bancroft's dyno-uranium mines, asking that severance pay for unemployed workers be not considered as regular income in the provision of unemployment insurance, that severance

pay be income tax exempt, and that special arrangements be made for retraining and family transportation for persons out of work?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: I will have the matter looked into with a view to giving an answer tomorrow.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question, but directed to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour say what progress, if any, is being made in the reconsideration of the provision which prohibits payment of unemployment insurance while severance pay is being received?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The unemployment insurance commission have advised me that they are sending this matter to the unemployment insurance advisory committee. They are communicating with the chairman of the committee so that he may call the committee together as soon as possible.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fori William):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As world refugee year ends June 30, and in view of the widespread belief that Canada is playing a leading role in world refugee year, can the minister inform the house if more than the approved 100 families will be admitted to Canada before the June 30 deadline? Is the government giving consideration to carrying on the policy of admission for an indefinite period of time?
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of
Citizenship and Immigration): If the hon. member means more refugees who are completely sponsored by the federal government, then I think he would have to direct his question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because it was the Department of External Affairs which made the arrangements for the 100 families. If he means refugees in general, they are coming into the country all the time. As a matter of fact in the last six months of 1959, which period corresponded with the first six months of world refugee year, 1,400 stateless persons came into Canada. In addition to those we know to have been stateless refugees, others came in, of whom we have no count, who claimed citizenship of their former countries.
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



EXAMINATION OF RECORDS OF WESTERN LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harris Rogers (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, to ascertain whether officials of the taxation division are examining the records of livestock dealers in western Canada for the purpose of obtaining information on persons engaged in the cattle industry.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisier of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue are continually obtaining information on a local, district and countrywide basis so they can be satisfied that the proper number of returns are being filed and incomes are being properly reported. It is true that at this time officials are making a particular study of the sales of cattle to cattle dealers in western Canada so the returns, which presumably will be filed in April of this year, can be checked against the information which is being obtained.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing pollution of rivers and streams of Canada by chemical products the effects of which on human health and wildlife are in many cases unknown, would the minister inform the house what research is being undertaken by his department to assure Canadians a safe and plentiful supply of water, protection of fish life and the safeguarding of Canadian beaches?


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. Through close association with United States and provincial interests in projects concerned with pollution control in boundary waters we have sought to keep in touch with new analytical methods and research on waste control methods. My department has also provided for an expansion of its own research facilities in a new environmental health centre, plans for which were completed some time ago.

Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES ON 50-50 PROPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if there has been any correspondence with any of the provincial governments on the prairies regarding the 50-50 scheme, and if so would the government make that correspondence available to the house before the debate on Friday?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: There has been some correspondence in regard to the matter. I do not know whether we could get it ready to make it available to the house before Friday, but I shall see what can be done.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yesterday the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) inquired whether the government was giving consideration to the problem of the hazard of explosives being concealed on commercial aircraft. At the same time he inquired whether consideration was being given to curbing the sale of insurance policies at airports.
The hon. member will recall that on January 22 the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) inquired whether I would request officials of the department to investigate the possibility of drawing up suitable regulations regarding the carrying or concealment of explosives on passenger aircraft, and I said I would do so. I have arranged for this investigation to be undertaken, and it will include consideration of the point raised by the hon. member regarding insurance policies.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the house leader and ask him if provision will be made shortly for the usual discussion on external affairs?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisler of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We should like to have the debate on external affairs next week on Wednesday and Thursday, February 10 and 11. In order to do that it will mean taking over a private members' day. According to rule 15, subsection 3, the


first two Thursdays after the completion of the present debate are private members' days, and Thursday, February 11, is one of those days. I suggest that we might substitute Thursday, February 18 for that particular private members' day, but it would require the unanimous consent of the house to alter this rule. If that consent were granted now I would then be able to announce tonight or subsequently the order of business for February 10 and 11, which business would be a debate on external affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to say something more before I put the question?


Lionel Chevrier: I was going to ask another question, and inquire of the minister whether it would not be possible to have the debate so arranged that we would not lose a private members' day.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggestion is to substitute February 18 for it.


Mr. Speaker:: The proposal the house leader makes is that another day be substituted for Thursday, February 11, which is a private members' day. This procedure, of course, would require consent of the house because it is a change in the standing order. Is the house ready for the question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we just want to be quite clear that by this arrangement we are not losing anything in the total number of private members' days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no loss at all.


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is a matter of substitution. Does the house then give unanimous consent to the proposal which would make Thursday, February 11, a private members' day, available for another purpose, with the understanding that no private members' day will be lost but that another day will be substituted? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether he has yet had the opportunity to obtain consent from the provincial premiers for the tabling of correspondence in connection with the university grants, about which I questioned him some days ago.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I communicated with the various provinces, and I know that some

have replied. I do not know whether all have done so. I will be in a position tomorrow to advise the hon. gentleman.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the cost of the Bomarc program. In today's Globe and Mail it is stated that Canada's over-all investment in the Bomarc program is expected to be around $125 million. As shown at page 296 of Hansard of January 25, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) indicated the cost of this program as being $300 million. Would the minister care to give the house the correct figures?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. This is exactly the kind of question which I think you indicated, not only in the discussion this morning but on earlier occasions, should not be asked in order to clear up a difference of opinion between an hon. member in the house and a newspaper report. If Your Honour allows the question it is all right, but in that case such questions should be allowed on this side of the house as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is properly one for the order paper, as it is seeking exact information on the defence program.


Ernest James Broome: I should like to rephrase the question, if I may. Can the minister advise us as to the estimated cost of the Bomarc program?


Mr. Benidickson:: He would not do so yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already suggested that the question is properly one for the order paper, as it is asking for statistical information about the defence program.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister see the minister of energy of Ontario and discuss with him the site of the proposed nuclear research centre; and, if so, has he any report to make on those discussions?


John George Diefenbaker: Did the hon. member ask whether I would see him or whether I had seen him?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Armand Dumas: I asked whether the right hon. gentleman had seen the minister of energy of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: I saw the minister of energy, and we discussed various matters including the matter referred to by the hon. gentleman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Was the Minister of Trade and Commerce present at these discussions?


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not available on the occasion in question.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Sf. Denis):: May I ask a
question of the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that during the past week end a series of robberies occurred in post offices and mail depots, does the minister intend to put the safety of his department into the hands of the R.C.M.P., as he promised to do when he was in opposition?


Hon. W. M. Hamilion (Postmaster General):: The safety of our department-to use the words which were used by the hon. member, although I have some reservations about them -is partially cared for by the R.C.M.P. in a number of provinces in Canada, and in others by the local provincial police, always of course in co-operation with our own security officers.


Azellus Denis: May I ask if the government is insured in all these cases?


William McLean Hamilton: No,
Mr. Speaker.


William McLean Hamilton: In
case there might be some misunderstanding of my last answer to the hon. member for St. Denis, I understood him to be asking whether the government was insured against its own losses, to which the answer is of course no. People who send registered mail or other packages of the kind which are properly insurable are, of course, reimbursed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister say what consideration is being given to the important proposal of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour that there should be established in
616	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Canada an economic council composed of representatives of the federal and provincial governments, employers and labour organizations, consumers and farmers, to plan for full employment and maximum prosperity?


John George Diefenbaker: Representations were made, I think, yesterday, and no consideration has been given.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Has the government yet come to a decision on the important proposal by the Canadian Labour Congress that Canada should call together a conference of representatives of labour, government and management to deal with unemployment and other matters?


John George Diefenbaker: A matter such as that will always be brought before the house when a decision is made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister will recall that I asked this question myself ten days ago. Will the Prime Minister now say whether or not the government has given consideration to this proposal made by the president of the congress of labour three weeks ago when he spoke to the board of trade meeting in Toronto?


John George Diefenbaker: The answer is no.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Minister of Labour if he can give us the figures of unplaced applicants for work which were asked for yesterday.


Michael Starr: All the figures that are available to the Minister of Labour are now in the hands of the hon. member for Essex East and his group.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the Minister of Labour give us the figures as of January 21, which are not available, as far as I know, to any member of this house and which, on the minister's own statement, are now in his possession?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Michael Starr: Those figures are also unavailable to the Minister of Labour.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he is in a position to give me an


answer to the question I asked him on Thursday last concerning the cancellation of the television interview with the new premier of Quebec.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was waiting patiently until I had the opportunity to take the floor. I have made inquiries with respect to the question asked by the hon. member, seeking an explanation as to why the scheduled television broadcast interview with the premier of Quebec was cancelled. I am advised by the C.B.C. that this cancellation arose as the result of a misunderstanding between the office of the premier and the office of the C.B.C. whereby the premier was scheduled to appear on television at a time when he had other commitments. Accordingly the broadcast was cancelled.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would be prepared to table voluntarily "The Canadian Economic Outlook, 1959", or if it will be necessary to put a motion on the order paper.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I suppose the alternative to "voluntarily" is the application of force. I shall await events.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether the small business branch in his department is looking into the effect of the deficiency payments for hogs to local locker plants and local butchers across the country?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not yet.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister have this branch of his department make such an inquiry, in order that the deficiency payment legislation may not have an adverse effect on these small businesses?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member's suggestion will be taken into consideration.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 1, 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.
Mr. R. M. T. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Before beginning my remarks I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker of this house. I know he will do a very fine job, as he has always done in the past. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) on his appointment to the ministry. I am sure the new Minister of Public Works will put a little inspiration into his department as he did into the public accounts committee last year. I should also like to say that I believe the new Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny), will look after his duties in an exemplary way. Further, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) on his remarks when proposing the address, and to say that I read them with great care. Finally I should like to commend the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), whose face has brought a little colour into the House of Commons.
I was very happy to see in the speech from the throne, that amendments to the Combines Investigation Act will be brought before the House of Commons this session. I believe there is a very definite need for this act to be amended so as to protect the interests of the small businessman against such things as loss leader selling, about which I will have the opportunity to speak further when the question comes up for discussion.
It is also very gratifying for me to see that the cities of Nanaimo and Oshawa will be the given new harbour commissions. I know if those two cities look after their harbours as well as the harbour commission of Hamilton has done through the co-operation of this government they will derive much benefit from the harbours not only in terms of free grants from the federal government and assistance in dredging, but by taking advantage of loans that may be forthcoming from this government to make possible the mass development of harbours throughout Canada.
It is also gratifying to see that this government is taking some action in the field of social legislation with respect to the social 79951-0-40
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald security act and the Veterans Allowance Act, to enable these folks to collect their pensions when living outside the country.
I am not going to talk at a great length about political expediency, because I have heard enough of that during the last eight or nine days, but will make just one refence of that nature. I read the budget speech made by Hon. Walter Harris on March 14, 1957, forecasting a buoyant economy for Canada. He told us we never had it so good and that everything was in a buoyant position. This was his two cups of coffee a day budget for our pensioners, a very loose type of thing. When he spoke he forgot one thing. He apparently forgot that he had on his desk at the time he spoke a report known as sessional paper No. 227, the economic outlook for 1957. While he was saying all these things about our buoyant economy he must have had on his desk as the then minister of finance a copy of that report.
What I want to talk abouf today is housing in general in Canada. I would point out that in this economic report for 1957 there were some cogent references to housing and the money market in the country at that time. I wish to place a section of this report on record. It reads as follows:
Housing construction is expected to drop fairly markedly below the high levels of the two previous years. The carryover into 1957 is much less than in recent years, and both starts and completions are expected to be down as well. The decline in activity in the current winter will be much more than seasonal, and a drop in the volume of roughly one fifth has been allowed for in the estimates.
That does not sound to me like a description of a buoyant housing program coming up in 1957. But this is the worst thing. Under the provisions of the National Housing Act there is a seotion which allows the federal government to get into the direct lending business. Here was a perfect opportunity for the then minister of finance to forecast that the government of that day would do something in the way of making increased funds available for housing, but he did not do this. When this government came into power on June 10, 1957, we found that the cupboard was bare as far as housing money was concerned.
The Liberals knew when they were in office that the lending institutions did not have sufficient money, so they should have taken the opportunity to put money into the housing market so that in the early spring money would have been available to make possible a complete housing construction program across the country. But they did not choose to do this. It is gratifying to note that since July 14, 1957 until today this government has made available $1,500 million

The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald under the National Housing Act for direct lending, much more than the $150 million maximum allowed by the former government.
I should like to discuss for a few moments the different types of housing programs in which the federal government participates, including land assembly and the many other fields in which the federal government is engaged. In my own riding of Hamilton South we have 1300 government rental projects. The federal government puts up 75 per cent of this money and 25 per cent is put up by the provincial government. The administration of the houses comes under municipal jurisdiction. I should like to see a further development of this type of housing, but not too extensive. I think it is better to go into a limited dividend housing project than a complete program of rental housing across the country; because it would accomplish the same end.
It may be pointed out that in 1946 the federal government went into the limited dividend housing field. Between 1946 and the end of May of 1957, ten days prior to our coming into office, the federal government had put $58 million into limited dividend housing and apartments. It is interesting to observe that from June 10,	1957 until
December 31, 1959 this government in its two and a half years in power put 100 per cent more money into this field, an amount of $115 million, which I am sure has been of assistance across the nation and especially in my own community, where at the present time we have 300 rental apartments going up under the limited dividend scheme, as well as many homes for senior citizens.
The limited dividend scheme in my opinion should be in wider use across the country. This is an area where free enterprise can take a forthright stand. As hon. members may or may not know, one who builds a limited dividend apartment project is allowed only 5 per cent on his investment. When you see some of these individuals whom socialists would probably call capitalists going into this type of venture and collecting only 5 per cent on their investment, it convinces you that we have people on the capitalist side of the fence who are interested in looking after the interests of the little man in the country.
I might explain that the limited dividend apartment projects in my constituency provide accommodation for people with annual incomes ranging between $2,800 and $3,600. I am sure the government's stand in providing this type of mortgage money through private enterprise will achieve a better and more economical job. This type of lending is controlled by the government. The private individual cannot increase the rent by rule of

thumb. He is controlled in the rentals by the cost of land and construction all the way down the line. He has to have a government audit during construction. I have heard it said in my own constituency that free enterprisers under this scheme would gouge the construction costs and feather their own beds with thousands of dollars, but Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are not as stupid as that. They send out investigators to audit the books of the chief contractor and all the subcontractors on any such projects.
I should like to make a few suggestions. In examining some of the regulations under the limited dividend section of the National Housing Act it is very difficult to assess who needs a home and who does not. One instance comes to my mind of a man with five children who went to one of the developments in Hamilton and wanted to rent a three bedroom apartment. His income was $4,160 a year. Under the regulations three bedroom apartments are rented to people with a maximum income of $3,650, and when your income increases to approximately $4,600 or $4,700 you must vacate the apartment.
This is where a hardship is worked. We are trying to provide homes for people who need them. This man was paying $120 a month for his accommodation. I think some rule of thumb should be put into the regulations so that the man with a large family may obtain an apartment if his income does not exceed the limit at which he would be required to vacate. This is merely a suggestion. I think it should be arranged so that anyone who has more than three children could be allowed to earn $250 a year for each child in his family over three; thus the man with five children could have his income limit increased by $500, thus enabling him to take advantage of this type of accommodation.
It is also noted that the baby bonus is taken into consideration under the present regulations as far as income is concerned. I know of about 10 or 12 cases of Canadian people with large families, and who have incomes of $3,600 a year, are in this position. Because they have five children and are receiving a baby bonus of around $200 or $300 a year they are not given the privilege of moving into those houses. The inclusion of the baby bonus or the family allowance, or whatever you wish to call it, should be taken out of the regulations.
May I say that the limited dividend plan has been a great thing in helping the municipalities finance accommodation for senior citizens. I think the federal government has not gone far enough in this field. If the municipalities could band together with nonprofit organizations to look after the problem

I think the government should go all the way with them. As far as the limited dividend section is concerned, I know that in Hamilton an investigation was made by the contractors and city officials.
If free enterprise is expected to help the government in these low rental apartments I think the government should give them the opportunity right away to apply for mortgages. Under the regulations that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have set up they cannot accept applications from anyone if there is not any money in the kitty. I think it is time this regulation is changed so that anyone can apply. Putting in an application for a loan merely speeds up the process, and gives the person in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation office a little time to peruse the application, so when the money is made available the application will be granted.
I should now like to deal with the section having to do with urban renewal and development. We have a great deal of this going on at the present time in my community. Unfortunately the city politicians are using it to get their names in the paper and have a little political fun, but it is a very important matter. Some two years ago in Hamilton an urban renewal study was done which showed that there were 10 blighted areas in the city which needed some renovation. If people in the communities in general across the country knew that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would pay 75 per cent of the cost of any such study they would take advantage of it. There is an urban redevelopment study which is done by the municipality, 50 per cent of the cost of which comes under federal government and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation jurisdiction. After these studies are done it is up to the municipality to take action to acquire and clear the land.
In acquiring land the thought of expropriation always comes up. This is a very difficult thing. We have many such problems in Hamilton. Expropriation proceedings under the pertinent section of the National Housing Act do not come under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government. Not only the legal side of the picture should be looked at but also the moral side. In Hamilton some 31 homes of people who have lived in them for 30 years are being condemned. These people have been leasing the land for the past 30 years. Because they do not actually own the land they are going to be asked to move their homes after living in them for 30 odd years; they are asked to move them across a busy highway, which is a difficult thing to do.
79951-0-40i
The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald
The city council of Hamilton should look not only at the legal aspects of this matter but at the moral aspects as well. This project is going to cost some $3 million. I think they should take a good look at this expropriation. It may be pointed out that after all this is being done under urban redevelopment, and that a proposal must be forthcoming to the federal government. Eight months ago members of the city council of Hamilton came to Ottawa to find out how far Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Minister of Public Works would go in this development. They received a very good hearing, and several concessions pro and con were made and it looked as if we could go ahead and look after this situation. Eight months have gone by, but up to last week we had not received an application from the city of Hamilton. I hope the city will not come to the federal government in a couple of weeks with an application and want an answer in a week. They have waited some eight and one half months. I am sure that when they bring the application to us they will allow us a little time.
In the field of urban redevelopment I think it is the responsibility not only of the municipalities and the government but of the citizens to make themselves aware of what is going on in their community and to provide a proper housing and social structure in the blighted areas where crime is prevalent and poor housing conditions prevail.
My time is limited, but I should now like to talk about land assembly. I judge by some of the speeches of Liberal so-called backbenchers that they do not like land assembly. This is a subject on which hon. members can take different views, but I would like to suggest that I have learned something of land assembly in Hamilton in the last year. We had some 413 land assembly lots made available in my riding. These were not subsidized lots, as some of the Liberal members have stated; these were lots sold without profit.
I think there is something to be said about getting out of the land assembly business, but it must be done in a very careful way. The reason land assembly was first brought into the picture was to provide low cost serviced land for individuals who wanted to build houses. Low cost serviced land is a very fine thing to have. Municipalities are responsible first of all for putting in the services, but there seems to be a big gap in the co-operation of the municipalities and the federal government in this specific item. In Hamilton we have some 900 acres of land assembly property that could go on the market at any time in competition with free enterprise, builders and developers. We have heard the story of

The Address-Mr. R. M. T. McDonald the large investor who squeezes blood out of the people by getting high cost land and putting it on sale. I think that is quite true in certain localities. In Hamilton we have the builder-developer, not just the developer. I am proposing that the federal government get out of the land assembly business as such.
The current problems are many in Hamilton. We have some 250 builders, and we find that the 900 acres would give us approximately 4,500 lots which could be made available to the people in general. If the builders and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would work together these lots could be made available in a systematic way. It is very bad policy on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to dump 100 acres on the market right next to someone who might have property for which he paid $500 more.
I think the way to overcome this problem is to develop land on a systematic basis. Let us take the specific instance of Hamilton. Take the 250 builders and apportion to them the 4,500 lots at a below-market price. The market price in Hamilton for a 55-foot lot is somewhere around $4,700 or $4,800. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials could probably put a serviced lot on the market for about $3,300, which is well below the market value in Hamilton, and it would be a direct benefit to the person who brought the property.
I think this benefit could still be derived- on a mass basis if each of the builders had apportioned to him a number of lots, depending upon the type of construction he has undertaken in the past three or four years. They could build those houses as economically as an individual could build them himself. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could put an end selling price on the houses. In other words, if the builder took advantage of the $3,300 lot, that $3,300 price would be below the market value and he would not be permitted to exploit the citizens of Hamilton and district by getting another $1,000 for the land in excess of what he paid for it. If the end price of the house was $15,000 or $15,500, then that would be the price the people of Hamilton would have to pay. It would still be a low cost house; they would still have low down payments because of the control over the selling price. I think C.M.H.C. officials, through the Minister of Public Works, should look at this problem very carefully and do it right away. I should' like to see this land assembly program in Hamilton carried out immediately, as there is a great problem with regard to servicing in the community.
There also comes to my mind the problem we are having with respect to senior citizens'


homes, and I think this is a perfect opportunity for Central Mortgage and Housing officials through the Minister of Public Works if they want to get on with land assembly in Hamilton. They could set aside 100 acres of this property almost by way of a grant to the community. I do not mean an outright grant, but if we are selling land at below market value I do not think it would hurt the people as a whole to add $100 or $200 to the cost of every acre being sold, so you would then have 100 acres that could be granted' almost free of charge to the municipality or to a nonprofit organization in order that they could build senior citizens' homes for not much more than the amount of mortgage they could get under the limited dividend scheme.
I know there is a great deal of discussion about interest rates and money today. I think we are all worried about the increase in interest rates, but I should like to take another view. The Minister of Public Works indicated that he would raise the interest rate from 6 per cent to 6| per cent on insured N.H.A. loans made by lending institutions, and I think it is the responsibility of these lending institutions to put forth a great effort to make money available at 6f-per cent. Their security is almost like a gilt-edged government bond, and when we are going through a rough financial period I think it is up to the lending institutions to get behind Canada and lend the money required so that 125,000 homes may be built.
I also feel that the long range government program with respect to mortgages should be looked at, and that the government should not be regarded as the great white father handing out money to the people. After the present slight economic instability has passed I think the government should examine the situation very closely with a view to getting out of the mortgage business generally. I believe the government should concern itself more with federal-provincial housing, limited dividend housing and small homes of the 1,050 square feet type.
In my opinion the government has shown good faith with regard to housing since taking office, and has not acted in a political manner. I do not think members of the opposition will say the government has not taken action in regard to housing, because it has. It has increased the amount available for direct lending from the $150 million the Liberals had in the coffers to $1,500 million. It has increased the amount available for insured N.H.A. loans from $4 billion to $6 billion. I am sure everyone will agree that the government has done a fine job so far as housing is concerned.

I should like to say again that it is up to the lending institutions of Canada-I am not talking primarily about the banks but the insurance and trust companies-to go ahead, put their shoulders to the wheel and help us get out of the tight money slump. I am sure if they do the people of Canada will not only be grateful but will place more savings with them so they will be able to lend more money in the future.
(Translation):


Mr. Raymond Eudes (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I want to join previous speakers in congratulating both the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Casselman).
I should also like to congratulate you for the confidence which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and all the hon. members extended to you in unanimously electing you Deputy Speaker of this house, and to wish you well.
I should like to comment, in particular, the following paragraph of the speech from the throne:
Canada's general economic position has greatly Improved during 1959 and the prospects for 1960 are favourable. The recurring problem of seasonal unemployment remains, however, but apart from this, expansion of production and employment has been general across the nation.
That paragraph covers three main ideas: on the one hand, the economic position has improved in 1959, and the prospects for 1960 are favourable; on the other hand, the problem of seasonal unemployment is still with us; and finally, expansion in production and employment has been general across the nation.
That paragraph, added to the several statements made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and members of his government, both here and elsewhere, present the economic position of Canada as an extravagant picture of felicity and prosperity, hardly in keeping with the facts.
Foremost among those is unemployment. The latest statistics show that the number of unemployed in Canada has now reached 755,537, i.e. about 60,000 more than on December 31, 1959. Consequently, more than 12 per cent of the Canadian labour force is now unemployed.
How many hundreds of million dollars is the national production thus being deprived of? Are not those figures impressive enough, especially in a country which we are given
The Address-Mr. Eudes to believe is prosperous, to call the immediate attention of the government, whose leader, three years ago, promised that, as long as he would be Prime Minister, no man able to work would remain unemployed?
Is this really a case as is claimed, of seasonal and accidental phenomenon, worthy of no more than a passing reference in the speech from the throne, when we know that, in the last three years it has recurred persistently and that for several months a year it paralyses business and industry, and affects the welfare of millions of people?
In that cheerless picture, the province of Quebec stands out with about 37 per cent of the total number of unemployed, which means over 225,000 people, almost 25 per cent of them in Montreal.
One fortunate thing, in all this misfortune, is that social security measures established by previous Liberal administrations, such as family allowances, old age pensions, unemployment insurance benefits, at least provide the bare necessities to the unemployed.
In the 1957 elections the leader of the Conservative party promised workers he would increase unemployment insurance benefits, eliminate the waiting period and extend the benefit period to 52 weeks.
Between the 1957 and 1958 elections legislation was indeed passed extending the period of seasonal benefits. That was between two elections. However, the 1959 amendments neither removed nor even shortened the waiting period. As a result, a large proportion of the unemployed do not yet qualify for benefits, or have simply exhausted their benefits.
On the other hand, in order to provide about $23i million a year more for unemployed workers, both workers and employers must now pay into the unemployment insurance fund $80 million more per year than they did previously.
Despite that increase in contributions, the unemployment insurance fund, from December 31, 1956 to December 31, 1959, lost close to $500 million. From 1955 to 1956, the last year of Liberal administration, the fund had gained $36 million, reaching a total of $926,776,830. On December 31, 1958, the fund had gone down to $625,363,366, and on December 31, 1959, to $471,094,255, a drop of $150 million in a single year.
Government members seem quite unconcerned about the extreme seriousness of this vital problem. They do occasionally acknowledge its existence, stressing that it is only

The Address-Mr. Eudes temporary, and they shrug off their responsibility by explaining that present unemployment is the unavoidable result of the sad legacy left by the previous administration, the Liberals. A very sad legacy indeed, which left them, in June, 1957, with two billion dollars in the till.
It is about time that government members should get rid of this opposition complex and realize that for close to three years now they and they alone have been responsible for running the country.
The only solution they could think of to stop unemployment was a winter works program.
Last year's results showed up the inefficiency of this plan under which the federal government offers to pay municipalities 50 per cent of the cost of labour on wintertime projects. Now, because of the high cost of winter works, and the necessary use of expensive machinery, that 50 per cent actually represents no more than 10 to 12 per cent of the total costs. The harshness of our climate necessarily restricts the quantity, the nature and the choice of those projects. Lastly, the complex procedure that has to be gone through in order to obtain federal government assistance, i.e., drawing up by municipalities of plans and specifications that have to be submitted for approval to the provincial governments, negotiations between the provinces and the federal government, and the final acceptance by the latter, would require that such procedures be started at least several months before unemployment showed its ugly head. Such has unfortunately not been the case since the winter works program was established. As a matter of fact the federal government waited until autumn to offer its assistance. In any event, according to the estimates of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the program for 1960, will procure work for only 34,000 unemployed, and temporary employment 34,000 out of the more than 750,000 unemployed.
It seems useless to criticize on the inefficiency of the only solution the government has come up with to check unemployment. Yet, the situation is critical. It is practically the same as in January 1959, when religious authorities in Montreal, who were rightly alarmed, drew the attention of their parishioners to the pastoral letter dated January 18, 1959, of which I shall sum up a few points which deserve serious consideration.
A serious study of our economic system is imperative.
Present conditions mean destitution for too many families, and seriously endanger the social


order. The idleness of able-bodied men who want work but cannot find any is abnormal and against natural law.
The government has the power and the duty to redirect the economy according to prevailing circumstances at each particular time, for the welfare of all.
The state must play a positive role.
Unemployment begets poverty, temptation arising from despair, and criminality. It imperils social order by breeding discontent, and bitterness towards society which is unable to make use of living forces eager to be put to work. Finally, it is a paradox in a country that is immensely wealthy and in full development.
Yes, it is a paradox too, that this unemployment should be accompanied by a series of phenomena that usually have no relation to it, but which, once coupled with it, nevertheless remain detrimental to the expansion of a sound, prosperous and vigorous economy.
Thus, in 1959, there has been a continued notable rise in the cost of living. This rise, which curtails exports and favours imports, is a factor which could seriously increase the deficit in our trade balance and international accounts.
This rise also affects our approach to statistics such as those on retail and wholesale sales.
The interest rates have gone up enormously. Despite this substantial increase, which should normally attract the lenders, money has become scare. Municipalities and school corporations can hardly borrow the money required for their expansion, and when they do find it, they have to pay exorbitant rates of interest. For instance, recently, the city of Montreal had to agree to a rate of 7.58 per cent in order to borrow $13 million.
Industry, and more particularly small enterprises, are stifled by the three plagues of our economy: unemployment, inflation and tight money.
We are apt to question the accuracy of statements made by government members on our record of prosperity when we see the hundreds of notices published each week in Montreal newspapers of forced sales by court order, assignments of property to creditors, and bankruptcies facing craftsmen, tradesmen and industrialists who, after years of struggle, despite the increasing success they had known until three years ago, are forced to admit their failure now to use their native ability for the welfare of the community. All this because of economic developments beyond their control.
I have not enough time to talk about our huge deficit.

Our international accounts deficit is increasing in spite of an inflow of foreign capital momentarily sufficient to offset it.
I must point out that, even with attractive interest rates, foreign investors are more and more reluctant to invest in Canada. That is because Europe has made a good recovery since the second world war. Economic activity is picking up, and capital invested in other countries in the past is kept there to maintain commercial efficiency. Europe is gradually relaxing tariff barriers on imports and this can only be harmful to Canadian exporters.
In 1959, the inflow of foreign capital was 10 per cent less than in 1958 and at the end of October 1958, our external trade deficit had increased by half a billion dollars.
According to figures supplied by the D.B.S., in 1958, the external debt of Canada increased by $1,600,000,000.
Economists throughout the world have often repeated that a country, no more than an individual, can live indefinitely on borrowed money.
If Canada is to remain master of its own destiny, it is imperative that its policy should take into account various economic factors, namely unemployment, inflation, tight money, reduction of foreign capital investments, problems in maintaining foreign markets, reduction of the national deficit. That inescapable responsibility rests with the government. People are anxiously awaiting its reply.
May I now be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to comment as briefly as possible on an extremely important statement made by the Prime Minister when speaking in this debate, on January 18 last.
He said in substance that it was necessary to obtain, during this session of parliament, agreement to an amendment to our constitution on a question of national importance, in order to remove the necessity of going to the United Kingdom parliament to amend our own constitution.
Like the one announcing the setting up of a Hoover-type royal commission, that statement really took the house by surprise; not because it contained any original idea or unexpected project, but of the way in which it was introduced.
The speech from the throne had been delivered by His Excellency the Governor General only four days before.
The Address-Mr. Eudes
Now, according to a solidly established parliamentary tradition, that speech briefly announces all important legislation the government will be submitting to parliament during the session opened by it.
No one can possibly claim that this statement on the amendment to the constitution is a matter of secondary importance in the government's mind. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that this was inadvertently omitted from the speech from the throne.
The fact remains that the announcement of this legislation was not contained in the speech from the throne. Why? It is contrary to the rules of this house to impute motives to an hon. member. However, one can still wonder. Why, for instance, was this legislation announced immediately after the Leader of the Opposition took part in the debate? Was this a piece of political strategy on the part of the Prime Minister? Nobody but himself will know.
Be that as it may, it seems like a strange procedure on the part of a man who, while he was in the opposition, and particularly during the election campaign of 1957, set himself up as the champion of the privileges and rights of parliament and its members.
This strange attitude of the Prime Minister towards respect for the rules and customs of the house is not an isolated case.
On this very matter, may I quote an editorial from Montreal's La Presse of January 29, 1960:
Almost three years ago, when the present Prime Minister of Canada sat in the opposition, he aroused people all across the country by denouncing the closure rule as an instrument of oppression, as a violation of the principle of free discussion in a democratic parliament. He most solemnly pledged himself to abolish this abominable parliamentary rule, if he was brought to power.
Mr. Diefenbaker was elected Prime Minister. Apparently faithful to his election promise, at the very first session of parliament following the 1957 election, he put on the order paper of the House of Commons a resolution for the removal of the closure provision from the rules of procedure. But -for there is a but-the session ended and the resolution remained on the order paper until the session ended and was never submitted to the approval of the house. During the 1958 and 1959 sessions, the matter was not brought up, nor was it in 1960. Answering a question put to him this week about it, he said parliament had more important and more urgent matters to look after.
He even added with complacency, not to say with arrogance, that this rule, also referred to as "the gag'', could be dangerous under a Liberal administration, but was not so under a Conservative government which guarantees the greatest freedom of discussion.
It's a rather rickety piece of logic, for even if the Prime Minister's explanation is taken literally, that is, if we admit, for argument's sake, that closure is dangerous under a Liberal administration and not so under a Conservative one, would

The Address-Mr. Eudes it not be elementary prudence for the present government to suppress it at once so that it would not be used by another party if there is a change of government?
If this rule of procedure is objectional per se, is it not dangerous to let it remain in the book. If there is no intention of using it, why keep it in force? Is it not likely to give the impression that it may come in handy in case it is considered necessary or opportune to apply it?
At all events, we must welcome the announcement of this legislation that will enable us to modify our constitution ourselves, without the consent of the United Kingdom's parliament. This power is an attribute still missing for our complete emancipation and for the absolute sovereignty of Canada.
Compared to Australia and New Zealand, we must admit that Canada is still dependent.
The act of the British parliament which, in July 1900, grouped the various Australian colonies under a confederation, gave Australia its constitution, and its people the power to amend it without recourse to Westminster.
The same thing happened in the case of New Zealand when that country became a dominion in 1907.
Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, in his book "Constitutional amendment in Canada", says that very early after the adoption of the British North America Act this question of amending by ourselves of our own constitution came to certain minds. As early as 1883, the Toronto newspaper The Bystander said that this power should be the property of the nation. Such opinions were however considered extremist and even anti-imperialist.
In 1920, a noted British peer, Sir Clifford Sifton, described our method of amending the constitution as "an anachronism and an absurdity".
The matter was officially discussed in parliament for the first time in March 1920, by the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie King on the occasion of a debate on the peace treaty with Bulgaria. Here is an excerpt from his statement.
(Text):
The government should consider the advisability of an address being presented to His Majesty to have powers given to the parliament of Canada, subject to the concurrence of the several provinces of the dominion, to amend the constitution of Canada in such particulars as may be agreed upon as a result of conference between the provincial and federal authorities and approved by this parliament and the legislatures of the different provinces.
(Translation):
We know that, in the meantime, especially since the imperial conference of 1926, the idea has spread far and wide. The problem gave rise to numerous studies and discussions. Throughout his long parliamentary career, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe has kept
[Mr. Eudes.l
urging that constitutional reform. The ideas of our former prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, on that question are well known.
Yet, in spite of the numerous federal-provincial conferences where the problem was considered, all efforts made in that connection have not yet given the desired result because a formula acceptable to each of the provinces and to the federal government has not yet been found.
This does not mean, however, that Canada considers itself in a state of subordination vis-a-vis the United Kingdom, but it hesitates in the fear it should lose its acquired rights, to accept such a constitutional change.
Nor should it be thought that the United Kingdom parliament is anxious to retain that prerogative. On the contrary, it is rather anxious to relinquish this rather embarrassing power which makes it the trustee and guardian of our constitution.
It would be premature at this stage to suggest an appropriate procedure.
Let us only note that the thinking on this matter has matured. If some machinery is suggested to enable us to amend our own constitution, and if this machinery takes into account both provincial and federal autonomy and racial, religious, cultural and regional factors, the project is likely to succeed.
It will be a further step towards full sovereignty, another step added to those taken in the same direction by Liberal administrations, for instance the signing of our own treaties, the ending of appeals to the privy council, the disappearance of the word dominion, and the appointment of the first Canadian governor general.
Before I bring my speech to a close, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about another project put forward by the Montreal newspaper La Presse. I am thinking of the organization of a universal exhibition in Canada in 1967. That newspaper recently published a series of very interesting articles on the matter by Laurent Lauzier.
Last April the Montreal committee of the Canadian universal exhibition submitted to federal and provincial authorities and to the city of Montreal a report urging the organization of a universal exhibition in 1967 in the Canadian metropolis for the centennial of confederation.
The project no doubt should be taken into favourable consideration by the government.
Besides the circumstance of the date, the whole world's attention is focused on Canada on account of its influence in the economic and political fields. In the field of culture, particularly since the Canada Council was established in 1957, our country is progressing rapidly toward real maturity.

With its picturesque and varied scenery, its natural resources and the diversity of its people, Canada has everything to offer as the scene of a world exhibition.
On the other hand, Montreal, metropolis of the country, second largest French city in the world, with its location, its industrial development, its commercial activity, its port, its railway and air terminals, the St. Lawrence seaway, its cosmopolitan aspect and international atmosphere, leads all other Canadian cities as a site for such an exhibition.
I realize that we are still seven years away from 1967.
However, it is not premature to consider the project seriously, nor too early for the Canadian authorities to submit a request in the matter to the International Bureau of Exhibitions in Paris. Indeed a project such as this calls for years of preparation.
I am, of course, in favour of the project and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for such action, will perhaps be kind enough to make a few comments on the subject in due time.
(Text):


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to add my congratulations to those which have already been extended to the mover (Mr. Morissette) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for his expert address on the economy of the country; and to the very gracious hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) for her real contribution to this debate.
From some of the opposition benches we have heard a great deal about the emptiness of this speech from the throne. I would merely suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in that speech from the throne there are many things which the ordinary people in this country will appreciate and to which they are looking forward. Certainly we note with pleasure the government's announcement that amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act will be placed before parliament to make these pensions payable outside of Canada. We commend the government for this action; we think it is a generous and just gesture to the elderly citizens of our country.
I should also like to urge that the idea of a physical fitness council be accepted for the improvement of our physical health. I should like to add that I feel they should also accept the responsibility for mental health, and that a combined council to encourage physical and mental health could do a great deal for the health of this country. Certainly physical health is important,
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner but the ability of our people to think clearly and logically is perhaps more important than the physical aspect.
The people in my constituency will be pleased to find in the speech from the throne the announcement that a new department of forestry will be set up. Inasmuch as a great deal of the forest industry in Alberta is concentrated in my riding we look forward to this department providing a lead, in co-operation with the provinces in the development of our forest industries. With the only pulp mill in the prairie provinces located at Hinton in my riding, this is a matter of major concern to us. With major lumber industries in the Edson and White-court areas we would urge the government to continue its program of research into the use of lodgepole pine as material for the pulp and paper industry. And we might suggest to the government that the locale of Edson might make an excellent site for any future forest research laboratory. One other suggestion with regard to this new department of forestry which I should like to make is that perhaps we should give consideration to placing the national parks under this new department, as they are certainly related resources.
Now I should like to turn to agriculture for a few moments. It would seem to me that agriculture in Canada is now at the crossroads. Which way will it go; to the large integrated companies, as suggested by one of the eastern daily papers, or to the well integrated, well managed, properly capitalized family farms? There is no doubt in my mind that the family farm is the best and most economical producer, and that it should be encouraged and helped.
It might be well at this time to place the rest of the house on record with regard to this question. Right now I gather from what the opposition say that they would rather see integration and corporate farming. The C.C.F. seem to vacillate between the two, and would appear to put more emphasis on large corporate farming. Certainly there has never been any doubt so far as the policy of this government is concerned. Our stand has been clear; to help the family farm and its operations.
We have heard a considerable amount about agriculture in this debate, some of it from hon. members opposite most uninformed with regard to the facts. What are the facts with respect to agriculture, particularly as they pertain to western agriculture? The first is that we can produce in Canada at least twice as much food as we do now. We have done this before in times of stress, and we can do it again as soon as there are markets available to absorb our production. If we

The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner were to pile up produce at government expense only to have it spoil or see it destroyed, that would be a waste which could not be excused. Only a portion of our surplus can be assimilated by overseas and local welfare agencies even on a giveaway basis. Incentive support programs will pile up unmanageable surpluses, as has been conclusively shown by the results of the United States program and by some programs here in Canada. We are a high cost economy, yet we depend on exports for our prosperity. Therefore our produce must be priced in relation to world markets.
Because of the contribution which farmers made during the war, because of tariff protection of industry, because of a high cost of production over which agriculture has no control, the government of Canada has a moral and legal obligation to the farmers of this country. The Stewart commission has shown that the corporations have failed in their efforts to do a good job in the pricing and distribution of products to the consumer, primarily because of their desire for profits which are higher than normal. We are convinced that these same corporations should not have control over the production of our foodstuffs. We are equally convinced that the most economical producer is the family farmer-the man who has certainly been vindicated by the Stewart commission in this regard. He must have support if he is to survive, and I am proud to say that he has the support of this government.
One of the major reasons why corporate farming cannot be as efficient as individual family farms is the fact that with family farms we have individual management and very little of the top-heavy overhead which is bogging down so many corporations at the present time and diminishing the production of goods and services in Canada. The announced intention of the stabilization act was to maintain prices, using a flexible program to provide markets, support the family farm and prevent the accumulation of unmanageable surpluses. This is one reason we have used deficiency payments in respect to a number of products in the past. These deficiency payment programs have worked well as applied to wool, apples and other products.
The announced intention of the government to use a deficiency payment program with regard to eggs and hogs was made early last year. I am sure this program can work in respect to both these commodities if it is given a chance by the producers, a chance by members of parliament and, most important of all, by the trade concerned with each product. If the trade will not co-operate, then marketing boards on a national level become an absolute necessity.

As an example, let us consider the situation with regard to eggs. Under the former system of support, with government purchase at a floor price level, the support was given to the produce buyer and the packer. In effect, they had a daily floor price. All their storage stocks became government stocks for which the government paid them. Then the government started to pay storage. The effect was to give these people free inventory and free cold storage plants. It also gave them an incentive to become producers to complete the cycle of a government-guaranteed business.
Opponents of the present plan suggest that the government should have reduced the support, and say this would have accomplished the same thing. Not at all. The reduction of the support price would have killed the family farm and handed production over to large integrated units which would then have had control and been able to push up prices at will. The other disadvantage of government purchase was that people concerned with the trade would never venture into export markets because they were never obliged to. They left that to the government, and sold all their excess to the government.
The principle of deficiency payments in this field is an absolute necessity if we are going to support the family farm, and if we intend to have a healthy, independent, agricultural economy. The mechanics of this program will have to be worked out. There are bound to be some wrinkles. We expect that, and look forward to trying to help make this plan work.
It has also become apparent with regard to eggs that the trade has done everything possible to influence the farmer to dislike this plan, because it takes the trade off the gravy train. One look at the price spread between one province and another will convince one that there is some manipulation of prices going on. Certainly it does not cost 12 to 18 cents to ship a dozen eggs from Alberta to Ontario, yet this has been the spread at various times over the past few months. Now the spread is down to 4 and 5 cents between Alberta and Ontario, and this is the way it should be. This proves how wrong the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulangerj was when he said, as reported at page 25 of Hansard, that western farmers would be the hardest hit by this legislation in view of the price gap in relation to other parts of the country.
I would point out to the hon. member that on a national average we in western Canada will gain a little from that price spread, as the Minister of Agriculture stated yesterday.
It becomes apparent that in Canada there is a virtual monopoly in the egg business.

This new scheme is bothering the trade, and they are doing everything possible to try to convince the producer that it is not a good idea, all of which is more evidence than should be required to promote the idea of producer marketing boards across Canada. I realize that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the provincial sale of eggs, but I feel that consideration should be given to allowing the stabilization board to have control of interprovincial shipments and to encouraging the provinces to set up marketing boards using the stabilization board as a national co-ordinating facility.
It was quite wrong when the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) stated that we did not discuss this program. Of course we did. I spent most of the summer discussing the program with farmers throughout my constituency, and I have yet to hear one say that the old program was better. They are willing to accept this program. We have to get behind it and show them it can work. It is not in the best interests of the country for people who know nothing about the program and who do not understand it to stand up in this house and call it down, as some have done.
I should like to say a word with regard to the sheep industry in Canada. I would urge the minister to give serious and favourable consideration to the report and recommendations which were brought in by the sheep committee in the latter part of 1959. Further to their recommendations, I believe that a standardized system of carcass grading is absolutely essential to the prosperity of our sheep industry and should be considered along with the other recommendations in this regard.
From time to time, as legislation is brought before this house on matters which have had particular reference to western Canada, we have heard a great deal of noise from the opposition benches in regard to what they would like for areas from which they come. We heard on one occasion last year, during discussion of a western farm bill, a dissertation on codfish. This year we have heard dissertations on soybeans and other things in eastern Canada. I can assure the house that we in western Canada realize and are willing to work on problems of other areas, but we do have regional problems that can only be settled in a regional way. We feel it is a matter of disrespect to western Canada for these hon. members to continue to act as they have in the last year or two each time western legislation has been before the house.
Further to that, on occasion there has been some confusion as to what we do want
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner
for agriculture in western Canada, and perhaps for the benefit of the house and the government I could briefly summarize what we desire. First of all, we want prices for our produce which bear a true relationship to costs, bearing in mind efficiency improvements due to technical changes. Second, we want stability of those prices so we can plan our future with some degree of success. Third, we would like as free access to the markets of the world as is feasible, and we do not mean by paying lip service to the free trade idea of the Liberal party.
We have witnessed a very strange spectacle in the last few days. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking about free trade. Mention was made of some cars coming in from Russia. Who was the first hon. member to get up and object? It was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). We have also heard a lot about textiles in the last few days and the need for more protection for that industry. Who have been bringing forward all these things? The free trade experts. As I say, it is time we had a little realistic thinking about trade on the part of the Liberal party.
We would also like to see more people in Canada, because more immigration increases our own domestic markets for our products.
We would like to see more responsibility in marketing by the people in the trade. We commend the government and the Minister of Trade and Commerce for what he has done from the government side particularly in marketing our grains.
We want to see more responsibility in the field of storage, and more responsibility assumed by those people who are concerned with distributing the goods we produce to the consumer, and here we refer these people to the Stewart commission. The only available solution here is the producer marketing board.
We want to see continued government research in marketing and production. We want to see continued government control and research in the field of animal and plant diseases. Certainly we can commend the minister and his department in this regard. We commend the government, too, for the crop assistance scheme introduced in the last session of parliament. This is an absolute necessity for farmers in western Canada. It may take a few years for this plan to shake down into a generally usable scheme, but it had to be started and we are proud that the government to which we belong started it.
We are also appreciative of what the government has done in regard to farm credit, in spite of those in western Canada who complain that it does not do any good
628	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. H. M. Horner to give further credit to already debt-ridden farmers. It is an irrefutable fact that if the family farm is going to continue as an efficient producing unit it is going to have to be properly capitalized.
We would also like to see the prices of some of the things we buy, and particularly farm machinery, cars and trucks, brought more into line with the prices we receive. We can see no value in having the farmers of western Canada pay for the style changes and retooling that are required every year or two because our Canadian manufacturers are trying to keep up with their United States counterparts. If this trend by Canadian manufacturers continues they will find that they will start to lose an increasing volume to imported farm machinery, because our farmers are just not going to pay the costs as they have done in the past.
These are some of the things we require for western Canadian agriculture. I consider all of them basic. This government in two and one half years has instituted more of them than any other government in Canada in any previous 20-year period. We urge the government to consider those things which are yet to be done, and to implement them as soon as possible.
With respect to rapeseed I should like to support the admirable work done by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp) in asking to have rapeseed classified as a grain. Here I would ask the government to take into consideration the recommendations made last year by the committee on agriculture and colonization.
Another regional problem we have in the northern part of the prairies, and particularly in those areas not now covered by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, concerns conservation. We would urge the government to give consideration to extending this act to the northern part of the prairies. We are concerned that conservation measures be instituted here in such a manner as to conserve our soil and water and assist in flood control measures.
In my constituency we have a voluntary organization known as the Pembina river conservation and drainage association which has done much work in this regard along the Pembina river. Assistance under the P.F.R.A. would assist them in their work and enhance the cause of conservation.
We are happy to hear that plans for a national conservation conference are continuing. This must be the first big step before any effective land use program can be instituted. My constituents are conservation conscious, and are watching these developments with interest.


Before I conclude may I say that in 195758 the people of this country made a decision that they would like to see some changes in the way things were run. I suggest that these changes have been made with foresight and vigour and that when these changes were made those people most affected by them reacted to the greatest degree. If a government is going to be firm and continue to govern in a wise manner, then it cannot give in to every pressure group in the country. I suggest it is not fitting that some of the questions that have been brought up by pressure groups should be forced upon the government in any way at all. The decisions confronting the government are for the government to make. We are proud of the way it is making its decisions, and will continue to support the government in its important work.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address this obviously enthusiastic audience I must first of all congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) as mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the maiden speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas was a delightful parliamentary manifestation of earnestness, equipoise and euphony.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before launching on to my main topic, because I am somewhat optimistic by nature, I think we in this House of Commons should as Canadians, all of us, have a sense of gratitude for the opportunity to live in this beautiful land, so rich in resources and so abundantly provided with opportunities for people and for governments. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if we only use our intelligence and our industry and apply them to our human and natural resources we can solve our problems in the Canadian and democratic way.
I think we should also be grateful that we live in a land of democratic institutions, as reflected in this parliament, with all its failings. It is a human institution, a reflection of the people in this country. We should not forget, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that half the world has copied this type of institution at this time, and a great section of the world is trying to produce or reproduce the pattern established by the mother of parliaments at Westminster in Great Britain. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, a true democracy is a society in which there is healthy conflict within a framework of effective, legitimate government, recognized by all parties to that conflict. This is represented, I suppose, to the best advantage in the world today in the

parliament at Westminster, where the lusty debates on policies are tempered with wit and fertilized with humour.
In concluding my remarks is this fashion I wish to emphasize that "Made in Britain" still is a mighty good brand for all freedom seeking and freedom loving people to patronize.
I intended to speak on several questions which are raised in the speech from the throne. In fact I have in my office now laid aside a masterpiece from experience. Owing to certain local developments and the importance of and my interest in a very current problem, I shall deal largely with the development of the Columbia river basin in Canada. However, I cannot resist the opportunity at this time to welcome the decision of the government to establish a department of forests; for this recognition is an important thing to Canada, in my opinion possibly much more important than many people would realize at this time; important to the people themselves, important to the government, and I am sure that in days to come it will be mighty important to the treasury of this country. This step has been urged for years by a number of organizations across this country and by a number of members in this house including, in all modesty, Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay West. I shall have more to say on this question when the bill to give effect to this step comes before the house.
The mention of amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to provide for payment of pensions and allowances outside of Canada is all to the good. It has been urged' by members of all parties in this house on different occasions. However, we in this-I was going to say "group", Mr. Speaker, but it is getting to be such a common word in this house that I think it better to say "this band of happy warriors"-we in this band of happy warriors regret there is no mention of any increase in old age security payments, or of an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act to increase the allowable income of recipients. I am sure many war disability pensioners will be disappointed that there is no provision for an increase in war disability pensions. We will have more to say on that at a later date as well.
Other members of this happy band, my colleagues, already in this debate have dealt effectively with the problems concerning fiscal policies, defence, trade, markets, housing, unemployment, civil service salaries. Because of the limitations of time and' my anxiety to deal with a particular question I am not going to deal with those questions now.
Question of Privilege
However, before launching myself on to the Columbia I do wish to express my support for the concern of the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl), over recent manifestations in the world and in Canada resulting from the scourge of the swastika. I have personal knowledge of a number of individual expressions of admiration for that philosophy, but time does not permit me to tell the house now. It is a thing I hate, Mr. Speaker. This is a virus that can be very insidious.
However, while I fully understand and appreciate the hon. member's desire for the government to take legislative action as a deterrent to those insidious hatemongers, I cannot agree that this would be an effective remedy. I think it safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that history proves it is almost impossible to successfully legislate against the intangible delinquencies of mankind. In my opinion it is the duty of all Canadians to extinguish these sparks of intolerance by their influence and demonstrations of their faith in democratic principles. Before leaving this question I suggest also that it would be a good thing, an excellent idea in fact, if such books as The Diary of Anne Frank and The Scourge of the Swastika by Lord Russell were made required reading in all high schools in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having reached the Columbia river in my progress and in my oration, may I suggest that you call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with an item appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette, headed: "Ottawa station move protested by Liberal", and credited to the Canadian Press. I shall quote part of it to prove that the Canadian Press misconstrued my remarks, because what I said yesterday in this house was exactly the opposite. I should like the Canadian Press to make this correction.
(Text):
Ottawa, Feb. 1-C.P.-A western Quebec member of parliament complained today a decision to move

The Address-Mr. Herridge
Ottawa's union station to the city's southern outskirts was a "political move" and discriminated against the city of Hull, Que., across the Ottawa river from the capital.
Then the article goes on to say:
Mr. Leduc quoted Jacques Greber, the Parisian town planner who set the pattern for Ottawa's development in the national capital plan, as saying the station should remain in the centre of the city. The move will take it two miles south. He said Ottawa is being embellished at Hull's expense.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I never made any such statement in the house and, to prove it, I should like to quote my remarks on this subject as recorded on page 559 of Hansard of February 1, 1960:
I should like also to call the attention of the house to an important announcement made last fall, when the government accepted the recommendations of the national capital commission with regard to the removal of Union station and the railway tracks to a point a few miles away from the capital, that is, beyond the Rideau river in the vicinity of Hurdman's bridge.
This is a wise policy on the part of the government and I should like to commend it for that because, in the N.C.C. report, where reference is made to railway tracks, Mr. Greber states that the removal of Union station and of the railway tracks from the centre of the national capital is the key to the whole national capital development project. It is not necessary to be an expert town-planner to know that in removing the station and the railway tracks from the centre of the capital, traffic conditions will, at the same time, be improved. After the railway tracks are removed, the city of Ottawa and the national capital commission will be able to build driveways, new roads and new streets on the present site of those tracks, relieving congestion in that area and, at the same time, taking care of the traffic problem in the downtown area.
The project will be of benefit not only to the city of Ottawa but also to the city of Hull.
(Text):



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ernilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for some bodily sustenance at one o'clock I had just reached the banks of the Columbia river. I wish to deal particularly with a paragraph in the throne speech that is of prime importance to the people of Canada and of great interest to the people of British Columbia generally and to the people of the Kootenays in particular. I quote from page 2 of Hansard this paragraph in the throne speech:
Substantial progress has now been made in finding a satisfactory basis for the development of the power of the Columbia river in co-operation with

the United States and negotiations for this purpose have now been initiated with the government of the United States. The results will be placed before parliament for approval and for the authority to take the measures necessary to bring about the full use of this most valuable source of power. The government of Canada remains ready to participate with British Columbia in the joint development of the potentials of this great river.
In dealing with this question, Mr. Speaker, we must realize that the Columbia is to power production what the Mississippi is to navigation or the Nile to irrigation. It is one of the great rivers of North America, exceeded only by the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence in the amount of water it discharges annually into the ocean. Its total length is 1,210 miles, of which 465 are in Canada. It has a total fall of 2,650 feet from its headwaters to the sea and 1,360 feet of this fall are in Canada, which shows the great advantage of storage in Canada. The Columbia river basin has an area of 259,000 square miles, of which 39,700 are in Canada.
It is estimated that there can be developed a total installed capacity of 35 million kilowatts with over 4 million of this total in Canada. This represents 30 per cent of the total water power potential of Canada and the United States combined. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from the report of a committee of congress on the Columbia river which was appointed in 1943 to study the possibility of developing the United States portion of the Columbia river basin. The report had this to say in part:
From the standpoint of resources the Columbia is the mightiest stream on the North American continent, its potential almost beyond comprehension, for nature in one of her philanthropic moods fashioned the land with such perfection as is nowhere else known.
I mention the few facts, Mr. Speaker, to bring into focus and to create a proper conception of the magnitude of the resources that are being dealt with according to this paragraph in the throne speech. The investigation of the resources of the Columbia, as many members will recall, is the result of a reference to the international joint commission which was tabled in this house and in Washington on March 9, 1944. On February 21 and 22, 1949 in this house I presented the C.C.F. policy with respect to the development of the Columbia basin in Canada.
I might say at this time that we are very glad to see that the government of Canada is following along the lines of the policy that we suggested then. In fairness I must also say, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) also took a very similar approach at that time and has continued to maintain the same approach since

he attained his high office. As found on page 775 of Hansard for February 22, 1949 I said:
-consideration should be given by this government to the development of the water resources in the basin under public ownership in co-operation with the government of British Columbia. I am recommending the establishment of a Canadian Columbia river basin authority, and in support of that proposal I should like to quote from the minutes of a committee of congress which sat in 1933-34 to consider this question and which reported with respect to the United States portion of the Columbia river basin as follows:
"We believe in private enterprise-in the expectancy of rewards for honest endeavour, labour, initiative and daring"-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And so do we. I continue:
"-in the things that have made America great. But some things are too big for private enterprise, and the Columbia river is one of these."
I also made this suggestion:
-the Columbia river basin is rich in history and rich in possibilities for the taking of an excellent documentary film by the national film board- I think that the national film board could make a great contribution towards arousing the interest of the youth of our country by undertaking a documentary film covering the development of the Columbia river basin.
I am very glad to know that provision has been made by the government for the making of a documentary film of the Columbia river basin. I said the minister had the same approach, and I congratulate him for his consistency after taking office. If I am allowed a play on words, Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well how "Green" is our valley.
Now, Mr. Speaker, some years ago the former government took this matter out of the hands of the international joint commission and carried on discussions at the high political level, I think with the idea of speeding things up. However, those discussions were on the whole fruitless, and progress toward an agreement between Canada and the United States was almost nil. After 15 years of engineering studies by the international Columbia river engineering board, they presented their report to the international joint commission early last year, after the Canadian government had spent approximately $5 million since 1945 on surveys and research to obtain the essential information.
Then in identical letters to the United States and Canadian sections of the international joint commission dated January 8, 1959 and January 29, 1959 respectively, the secretary of state of the United States and the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada referred to the general objectives of the Columbia reference of March, 1944 and requested from the international joint commission a special report, as follows:
The Address-Mr. Herridge
The governments of the United States and Canada, as a part of their continuing discussions, have agreed to request the international joint commission to report specially to the governments at an early date its recommendations concerning the principles to be applied in determining:
(a)	the benefits which will result from the co-operative use of storage of waters and electrical interconnection within the Columbia river system; and
(b)	the apportionment between the two countries of such benefits more particularly in regard to electrical generation and flood control.
I want to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that we were very pleased indeed when we saw the government return, shall I say, the technical aspects of the discussion on this important question to the international joint commission. This action on their part has been fully justified by the speed with which negotiations have been carried on and accelerated, and the result shown by the report of the international joint commission. This report of the international joint commission of the United States and Canada as proposed for determining and apportioning benefit from the co-operative use and storage of water and electrical interconnections within the Columbia river system was made public a few days ago. I may say it is a most interesting and possibly a unique document. So far as I can find out it is the only document of its kind in Canadian history dealing with a problem of this type.
On Monday, January 25 the Prime Minister announced that negotiations between Canada and the United States for the development of the water resources of the Columbia river system are to commence in Ottawa on Thursday, February 11. Step by step we seem to be making some headway. He announced also that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) would be the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the other members being Mr. Robertson, deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources, Mr. A. E. Ritchie, assistant undersecretary, Department of External Affairs, and Mr. E. W. Bassett, deputy minister of lands and forests of the province of British Columbia.
I should like to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf of this band of warriors, as I said before, for the vigorous way in which he has handled this question and for the soundness of the procedures adopted. His actions and efforts are the subject of general satisfaction in British Columbia, and in particular in the Kootenays and that portion of the Kootenays which I have the honour to represent.
I also wish to express the appreciation of my constituents for the great work done by General McNaughton for Canada throughout the years. Both in Canada and in the United States his devotion to the principles of equity

The Address

Mr. Herridge and fair play for all governments and peoples concerned is generally recognized. He does not seek to get the best of anyone. He has sought to get this problem settled on the basis of justice and equity to all the governments and peoples concerned. Editorials in a number of United States newspapers and journals also contain flattering testimonials to General McNaughton. I want to quote from the Engineering News Record of November 12, 1959 at page 116. Under the heading "Choose Right Man for IJC", I read this:
United States representation on the international joint commission has been without a permanent head since the death of Douglas McKay, former interior secretary, last July.
It is appropriate to note here that Canada's three-man half of I.J.C. is headed by an engineer and administrator of great prestige, vigour and ability-A.G.L. McNaughton. General McNaughton represents Canada's interests in the I.J.C. with unquestionable competence.
In the best interests of our nation, President Eisenhower should name a worthy counterpart for General McNaughton-and fairly soon.
In that connection I want to pay tribute to his loyal colleagues on the commission and their loyal staff. Very seldom have I witnessed a staff serving a commission which enters into the spirit and purpose of the commission more than does the staff of the international joint commission.
I was glad to note, Mr. Speaker, the recent co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, something to which we have looked forward, on this important issue and Premier Bennett's recent announcement that both governments now agree on a national position with respect to this development.
During the period of these negotiations we have had a lot of propaganda from the Peace River Development Company. Mr. Main-waring says that the Peace river power can be developed in eight years, and that it will take 13 years to develop power on the Columbia river. However, I am reliably informed that power from the Columbia river can be provided in 6J years by the building of the Mica creek dam.
Mr. Mainwaring accuses the federal government of false optimism. I am glad we have some people in the federal government handling this question who are optimistic and capable of getting the ball rolling. I think in all these statements Mr. Mainwaring is trying to throw cold water on the development of the water resources of the Columbia under a public authority. No doubt we will need all our water resources in British Columbia developed, but it is a matter of timing and economics. I think anyone who studies the evidence will realize that this evidence clearly proves it is in the public interest that the Columbia be developed first.

Without any doubt there is overwhelming public support in British Columbia for the development of the Columbia first, and under a public authority, as has been demonstrated by a resolution of the British Columbia chamber of commerce, I think in 1957, urging the development of Mica creek and that it be entrusted to the British Columbia power commission; resolutions of Kootenay chambers of commerce, municipalities and other organizations; and a public opinion poll conducted by the Sun of Vancouver on August 24, 1957.
At this point I want to compliment the Sun Publishing Company for issuing a very excellent brochure on electric power in British Columbia. In doing this they have performed a public service by bringing together in one easily read document a good many of the facts concerning this important development. The public opinion poll showed that 69 per cent were in favour of public ownership and only 11 per cent in favour of private ownership. There were 4 per cent who did not seem to care, but in any society that is the normal percentage who do not seem to care.
Then there is another report that I had very recently concerning the experience of the people in the United States. This report had a history of the success achieved in producing low cost power by the Tennessee valley authority, by the Ontario hydro commission, by Winnipeg hydro and at Bonneville and Grand Coulee. The cheapest power in the world is developed at Bonneville and Grand Coulee under a public authority.
There is unanimous support for the building of the Mica creek dam as the first project. In my constituency there is unanimous support for the building of a dam on Murphy creek, known as Low Arrow. However, Mr. Speaker, the people of Kootenay West are concerned over proposals to build what is known as the High Arrow dam north of Castlegar. This dam would raise the lake level 44 feet above normal high water, and seriously flood and affect the district north as far as Revelstoke. It would flood or partially flood 18 communities covering over 40,000 acres of good land, and it would mean the displacement at the present time of some 1600 or more now and prevent the settlement of thousands more in the days to come. It would destroy industrial sites, flood our beaches, render useless wharf facilities, make an almost impossible condition with respect to the booming of logs and the dumping of logs in rivers and leave us, shall I say, with this great draw-down from high water to low water, and thus leave great waste and desolation throughout a good portion of the area, separate communities on one side of

the lake from those on the other. There would not be a kilowatt of power produced in Canada from this dam.
There is strong opposition to this proposal, as indicated by the papers recently. For example, the Nelson Daily News which I have says "dam draws fire". I have heard from the Castlegar and district chamber of commerce, the Nakusp chamber of commerce and the associated chambers of commerce and individuals from Rossland to Revelstoke.
What are we asked to sacrifice all this great land for? We are asked to sacrifice for certain downstream benefits when it is obvious, from the change in the development of power in the United States, the turnover from thermo power to firm power, that we may receive these benefits for only from 25 to 30 years.
The residents of the Columbia river basin do not intend to be silent spectators in the coming drama of development, but understanding and active members of the cast, playing their parts with purpose and in harmony to the benefit of all and to the benefit of Canada. The West Kootenay rod and gun club association has made certain proposals with respect to a biological survey of the basin to determine the effect on game and fisheries of the Columbia and Kootenay river developments and compensation to correct certain things caused by the building of dams and so on. Our people take a great interest in this question.
Before passing on I just want to refer to a statement made by Mr. McMynn, a senior official of the West Kootenay Light and Power Company Limited, as reported in the Trail Daily Times of January 25, 1960. He is reported as follows:
Mr. McMynn declared that a lot of Arrow lakes property was "continually bothered" with flooding now, without any development on the Arrow lakes at all. "It occurred to us." he said, "that if the owners of that property could be relocated satisfactorily above high water, and the cost of relocation were paid by the authority making the development, then a great number of people inhabiting the Arrow lakes would be pleased to see that happen."
Yet at the same time, while Mr. McMynn talks of no development, other people talk of the compensation required as about $30 million. Mr. McMynn is a very likeable person, but all I can say in response to that statement is that he must have had a touch of gout the evening before he made a statement like that, because he could not have been considering the question in a broad, objective way.
I have mentioned the protests that have been made, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I want to emphasize a few facts. This is a matter that must be given consideration. We are opposed to flooding this beautiful valley
The Address-Mr. Herridge for the damming of water without any power being produced in Canada, with the desolation which will result, and also for relatively short run benefits. We believe we have a responsibility to future generations.
The people I represent are a concerned people. At the present time chambers of commerce, rod and gun clubs, church groups and other organizations are really studying this matter seriously because they feel they are participants in this matter, and rightly so, as Canadians. I mention their fears to the house and to the minister at this time. However, while these fears are justified, I suggest that we must get together on the things upon which we can agree.
In conclusion I must emphasize the fact that in British Columbia there is unanimous support for the public development of the Columbia river basin waters. There is unanimous support for dominion-provincial co-operation in this development. There is the Mica creek dam. There is unanimous support for the building of the Murphy creek dam or in other words the Low Arrow dam. I suggest that we must take a positive approach, and must not let our fears with respect to sectional interests take our eyes, shall I say, off the dream, as it were, of the major development. Therefore we must work together on these major proposals in a positive way.
I therefore suggest that every effort be made to secure agreement on a treaty and reach a successful conclusion with respect to these problems by establishing the principles for the division of downstream benefits outlined in the document tabled recently by the Prime Minister, by agreement for the co-operation of the provincial and dominion governments for the first building of Mica creek dam, and from that point continuing negotiations between representatives of Canada and representatives of the United States for the settlement of those other outstanding problems.
I am one who is rather hesitant to plunge into things too quickly. As time passes things are brought into proper focus and perspective. If we can get a treaty on the things I have mentioned, we can then continue studies and negotiations for the settlement of these outstanding problems over a period of years. If we start on Mica creek we will have made a great start in the right direction. We will have indicated to the rest of Canada that public ownership is going to be a dominant influence in the development and distribution of power in British Columbia. We would realize that we are seizing and dealing with an important question step by step and in a logical manner.

The Address-Mr. Crouse
I make these proposals to the minister. I believe that if we enter this thing in the right spirit, both in British Columbia, in the communities directly affected, and as Canada in dealing with our neighbours across the line, we shall finally come to a solution which is satisfactory to all without the desecration of any natural resources.
Therefore in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say this. I am sure that our negotiating team which commences its negotiations with its opposite numbers in the United States on February 11, undertakes its duties and its responsibilities with the best wishes of all members of this house, in high hopes that their labours will be crowned with success and that with the application of intelligence, industry and co-operation on the part of everyone concerned, the people of Canada and the people of the United States will benefit from this great development now and in the days to come.


Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenberg):: Mr. Speaker, as the member of parliament from the historic riding of Queens-Lunenberg I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate. My first words will be to you, to express my satisfaction at seeing you again in the chair in evident good health after your recent strenuous travels. I would also like to join with those who have preceded me in extending my best wishes to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) upon his elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. It is an appointment that has met with the approval of hon. members on 'both sides of this house, and I wish him every success in his new position.
Congratulations are also extended to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) as well as to the hon. and gracious member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), not only for the splendid addresses they made but also for the honour that was granted to them in being selected to move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Traditionally, the speech from the throne sets forth the intent of the government of the day with respect to its actions in the ensuing parliament, and describes what it proposes to do for the people of this country. The speech from the throne which we heard read at the opening of this session was exceptional in that the words showed a positive understanding of the problems of the Canadian people and indicated that effective steps would be taken to meet these problems. I believe the Prime Minister and his cabinet deserve the commendation of every Canadian for their careful planning of this program. The government is doing for the people of this country the very best it is possible to do at this time.
[Mr. Herridge.l

However, there has been all kinds of criticism from the opposition benches, most of it quite lengthy but none, as far as I can determine, of a type that could be considered constructive. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) spoke, most of his criticisms of our policies were a rebroadcast so far as I am concerned, for he said the same things when he honoured me by visiting my constituency and spoke at Bridgewater on my birthday, November 19. At that time, however, he said that in 1957 Canada was enjoying a boom, while now we have the highest interest rates, inflation, and tightest money in our history.
I might say from the comments received that this type of speech made little impression on the good people of Queens-Lunenburg, but it did leave them with the feeling the Leader of the Opposition, or his party, could not do anything better than is being done. In fact in my opinion, which is shared by many, a great deal of the criticism is woefully weak; and although hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken at great length on a variety of topics, important constructive matters have been barely mentioned.
The negative policies of the Liberal party today have made little or no impression on the people of Canada, and the riding of Queens-Lunenburg is no exception. The reason behind this is readily understood when one reads the history of the people of my constituency. The early settlers came to Lunenburg county in 1753 from the Rhenish palatinate in Hanover. They suffered untold hardship and severe difficulties. However, they persevered, and today my constituents are divided roughly into two groups; those associated with agriculture and forestry and those who make their living on the sea and in allied industries.
The amazing fact about these early settlers is that they come to Nova Scotia to become farmers, but through necessity at least one half of these inland peasants took to the sea and became known as the best sailors and fishermen on the north Atlantic. The skills, the methods and the experience they gained have been passed down through the years, and today the citizens of my riding are well known for their thrift, their ambition, and their willingness to work.
When the Leader of the Opposition spoke of high interest rates in my riding he was apparently unaware of the background of this constituency, and the fact that my thrifty constituents prefer investing their hard earned savings at a satisfactory rate of interest. His criticism of so-called tight money also fell upon deaf ears, for my constituents have long been known as prudent people.

They welcome economic conservatism, a tightening of the reins on money, a stringent policy of budget balancing and curtailment of unnecessary government spending. This is true because generally speaking they are tough bargainers who pay as they go, who can and will use the resources at hand, and are against deficit spending.
When the Leader of the Opposition spoke of inflation he made no impression on the people of Queens-Lunenburg, for they know we cannot have steeply rising government expenditures, rapid economic expansion, easy money and a stable dollar, all at the same time. We have to make a choice. If we want more capital and credit for private industry we should not expect as a nation to place ever-mounting responsibilities on the federal and provincial governments. It is an evident fact in any economy that the capital and credit taken by the government is not available for anyone else.
Today there is a persistent tendency by many people to divert more and more productive resources into the hands of government. These people look upon federal government bodies as all-powerful forces capable of supplying their every need and shouldering all their responsibilities. I believe it is opportune to examine this dangerous trend toward dependence on the federal government, and point out to Canadians generally that the path to true progress in this nation does not lie in more government control and increased welfare plans but in a free competitive private enterprise system which is a living symbol not only of opportunity, but also of plenty, of human dignity, and of security for all Canadians.
We must speak out more forcefully in support of the capitalist system. It is capitalism's system of competition, and of freedom to profit through service to the consumer, which produces the goods. The apostles of socialism and of communism in this country, if not blinded by party zeal, cannot help but realize that anything communism or socialism can do, capitalism is already doing better. I believe the free enterprise system has proved itself to be the only system that enables man to preserve his individual liberties while at the same time providing him with the maximum opportunity to improve his living conditions. The standards of living enjoyed by the vast majority of people in North America are the clearest evidence of this truth.
When speaking of inflation we must also realize that there is no fixed value to the Canadian dollar. It floats freely on the Canadian economy, as freely as an abandoned ship on the ocean. We know that today the dollar
The Address-Mr. Crouse will only buy approximately half what it could buy 15 years ago, and we call this inflation. Newspaper editorials loudly call for action on this inflationary trend. They are all calling on somebody to do something, and invariably they ask, "Why doesn't the government do something?"
The truth of the matter is that the answer does not lie with the government but with the Canadian people. No government in a democratic country like Canada can control, or wishes to control, the minds of the people. As Canadians and as individuals we have certain freedoms. We are free to worship as we please, free to choose our own occupation, and work when it pleases us, although this freedom is gradually being taken away; free to elect the government of our choice, and free to set the value of our currency. Yes; this too is one of our freedoms. We, individually and collectively, set the value of our floating Canadian dollar; the government can only print the paper and mint the coins.
The decision as to the amount this paper and coinage is worth rests upon your shoulders, and from the creeping inflation experienced in Canada since 1939 it would appear that many are no longer interested in the value of a dollar but only in the quantity of dollars secured. By demanding more pay per hour without increasing production; by demanding less work hours per week without decreasing fixed company costs like insurance, taxes and yearly maintenance costs, and by seeking higher corporate profits, our unit costs have increased until we are no longer competitive in world markets nor in some of our Canadian markets. This loss of sales in competitive markets has caused some factories to close, with resulting unemployment which requires make-work programs that further increase taxes on the remaining producing companies.
In Nova Scotia and in the Atlantic area generally our fishermen have long known that increased earnings or wealth can come only from increased production and sales. I believe the adoption of this principle on a national basis is the only effective curb on inflation. Combine this with governmental economy so that we can live within our income, and Canadians will enjoy the greatest national growth and peace of mind ever experienced in their history.
I was somewhat amazed at the remarks made on January 22 by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). This self-styled democratic socialist, who is not of the inner six or the outer seven but one of the divided eight, stated that there is no use
636	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crouse in organized labour electing a capitalist government, that this would be ridiculous. In saying that, the hon. gentleman who belongs, as the former speaker said, to a happy band- a band which in my opinion plays a discordant note on eight different kinds of ideology- completely ignored the fact that most of the workers in Canada today, whether unionists or not, own stock either directly in Canadian companies or indirectly through insurance policies. These men may not be large capitalists; nevertheless they are capitalists, and it was these workers who elected a Conservative government to this house in 1957 and again in 1958.
The hon. member showed a further lack of knowledge regarding monetary matters when he suggested the establishment of a national investment board that would issue bonds and make capital available at an interest rate of not more than 3 per cent. He further stated that this board would compel the implementation of its recommendations, which is an action, I believe, foreign to our freedom loving democratic people and which gives an indication of the bureaucratic control Canadians would suffer if ever-heaven forbid- a socialist government were elected in Ottawa.
In the speech from the throne there is an important paragraph which reads as follows:
We are heartened by the unanimous approval given by the United Nations to the Canadian proposal to sample and analyse more widely and effectively the radioactive content of the atmosphere, soil and food. For this purpose necessary funds to enable Canada to take a leading part in this work will be requested.
The importance of this section of the throne speech cannot be overemphasized, especially when consideration is given to the danger to those yet unborn from radioactive substances. However, this section mentions an analysis only of the atmosphere, soil and food. In view of the productivity of our fisheries I would suggest to the government that an analysis of the water in the ocean, and in the rivers and lakes, be also maintained. I wonder how many people are aware of the fact that the atomic energy commission of the United States has an ocean dump site for radioactive waste material only 12 miles from Boston. The atomic energy commission has been using this dump site for the past 13 years to dispose of materials that are low in radioactivity and generally consist of residual solutions from experiments, contaminated paper, cloth, glassware and equipment, animal carcasses and sealed sources of radioactivity which have been reduced to unuseable levels by the natural process of radioactive decay. These are hot wastes. They have been sealed in metal containers whose


life is estimated at only 10 years in sea water, and dumped in 250 feet of water off Boston.
I think we as Canadians have the right to ask probing questions about the safety of such an operation. What effect will this have upon our fisheries, and what plans has the atomic energy commission for other dumps? I have reason to believe that due to public pressure the atomic energy commission will not continue dumping near Boston, but have moved their operations to a site located 200 miles east of Cape Cod, while another site is proposed for an area 120 miles southeast of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. What effect will these hot waste dumps have upon our scallop industry, the largest and most vigorously expanding shell fishery in the maritime provinces?
Taking an example of the rate of growth of that industry, last year for the period from January to October the Canadian fleet alone landed 4 million pounds of scallops as compared with 2,900,000 pounds for the same period in 1958, an increase of approximately 40 per cent. These shell fish bring to our fishermen a landed price ranging between 35 cents and 40 cents a pound.
At the present time Canadian scientists are working with United States scientists to ascertain methods of improving the scallop fishing and reducing the number of small unmarketable scallops. These joint Canadian-United States studies are being carried out at the request of the international commission of the northwest Atlantic fisheries because the bulk of these scallops are caught on Georges bank, which is located in an area approximately 200 miles from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and 150 miles from Cape Cod, not very far from the atomic disposal dump.
As long as these atomic wastes remain sealed there can be no danger of contamination to our fisheries, but these containers will not withstand for an indefinite period the effects of salt water from without and hot wastes from within. In view of the value of our fisheries to present and future generations who must of necessity, as population increases, turn to the sea as a source of low cost protein food, I would suggest to our government that this matter of dumping hot atomic waste in the sea be taken up immediately with the atomic energy commission.
We should demand clear proof that dumping operations near the fishing banks used by United States and Canadian fishermen will be safe and will not generate future harmful effects for our resources or our people. If this proof is not available every effort should be made to stop this practice and have these atomic wastes buried in land that is nonproductive. In Canada atomic wastes from the

Chalk river development are sealed in containers similar to those used in the United States and dumped in the Ottawa river. The effects of this action should also be studied.
In my earlier remarks I mentioned that some of my constituents are engaged in forestry work. In addition to logging operations many supplement their income by cutting and selling pulpwood to the Bowater-Mersey Paper Company Limited at Liverpool. This company only recently came under the international Bowater's umbrella, and every effort is being made to increase production and sales.
When consideration is given to the value of the pulp and paper industry in Canada, it is very gratifying to me that the speech from the throne indicates that a new forestry department is to be established. This department is to be concerned with affairs relating to the forests of Canada and their most effective utilization and conservation, and is to assume responsibility for related resources. It is fitting that recognition be given to this industry. Pulp and paper create more wealth in Canada than any other single industry, representing some 35 per cent of the total value of our exports.
In my riding large areas of timber land are still individually owned. However, present tax laws do not encourage further timber development. For example, many lands are assessed by municipalities according to the value of the standing timber. The owner at the present time pays high taxes and is encouraged to cut his wood. After the valuable wood has been removed the land will be assessed for only a fraction of the value at which it was assessed when it contained a good stand of timber. The true value of the land, however, is its capacity to produce a continuing crop that can find a market, so it is to be hoped that taxation methods will be developed that will encourage owners to maintain and improve their woodlands.
Another important forest problem is silviculture or reforestation, which is a young science in Canada. The best methods of growing and managing forests have not yet been completely determined; nor has the question been answered, who should pay the costs for the silvicultural management of Canadian forests as a whole. At present there are two groups carrying out silvicultural activities in Canada. The first includes the federal and provincial governments. They are concerned mainly with the principles affecting tree growth, but the time, money and effort expended are small in relation to the need. The second group carrying out this work is the pulp and paper industry. This latter body is composed of experienced foresters, engineers and others interested in the
The Address-Mr. Crouse improvement of forest management and operations. However, their expenditures can only be made from profits, and their investment in new forest growth can only be made on the basis of the return received. You might also call their investment one in faith, for it is not possible to receive a return on the investment for at least 50 to 100 years, as it takes this much time to grow a completely new forest.
How can we assist in this work as a government? First, there should be closer liaison between the federal and provincial governments. Federal assistance in the field of reforestation and in nurseries should also be increased. Research should be undertaken and studies made for the development of wider markets for the by-products of the forest, including slash, bark and small sticks.
I believe our greatest contribution could be made by further participation in forest fire protection. We have made a start in this direction by encouraging forest access roads, and I believe this program should be expanded and accelerated when consideration is given to the benefits produced.
Those of us who represent maritime ridings will watch with interest the outcome of the second United Nations conference on the law of the sea. This conference is to be held in Geneva during March or April of this year. In view of the highly controversial actions taken by Iceland and other nations in extending their territorial and fishing limits unilaterally, without prior agreement with other nations concerned, I believe Canada's attempt to give leadership in this all-important matter is worthy of special mention. Under the capable direction of our Secretary of State for External Affairs a booklet has been prepared outlining the Canadian proposal, and I know it is the sincere hope of all Canadians that this will provide a basis for negotiation that will eventually result in agreement among all nations regarding the breadth of the territorial sea as well as fishing limits.
I do not believe the importance of this coming conference is realized by most Canadians. Without some agreement among the international community of nations the actions taken by Iceland will spread to other nations; and the existing situation, with British trawlers fishing under the protection of armed frigates, is anything but satisfactory. A recent visit to Canada by a three-man delegation from the British trawler federation to study the Canadian proposal prior to the conference would indicate the importance attached to this problem by the British.
I was privileged to meet with this delegation, and in their opinion the implementation of Canada's proposed 12-mile fishing limit
638	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Crouse would curtail their fish landings by an estimated 30 per cent, thereby throwing some 25,000 Britons out of work. The importance of the fishing industry to Britain is understandable when we realize that Britons eat some seven times as much fish per capita as Canadians, whose per capita consumption is only about 13 pounds per year. However, in my opinion, after talking with this delegation, the British are prepared to make some sacrifices provided a satisfactory solution to this problem can be found.
The implementation of this proposal as put forth by our Secretary of State for External Affairs is most important to the Atlantic provinces from a conservation point of view. At the present time we enforce the 12-mile limit on our own nationals while permitting all other nations to fish within three miles of our shores. Maritimers generally have not raised a serious objection to this law, as fishermen from the United Sitates are the most affected and the United States takes annually some 80 per cent of our fish exports. In keeping with the policy of our government, we in the Atlantic provinces wish to make our contribution toward maintaining friendly relations with our neighbours to the south. However, in the event that agreement is not reached at Geneva this year I would suggest to our government, in all fairness to Canadian fishermen, that the present regulations be amended and Canadian fishermen be given the right to fish within three miles of the Canadian coast, which is the privilege granted to fishermen of all other nations.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the most important problem facing our fishing industry in Canada is the cost of replacing fishing draggers, trawlers and equipment. The average age of maritime trawlers over 100 feet in length is approximately 10 years, and it is necessary for those engaged in the industry to adopt a replacement policy if we are to maintain our competitive position in foreign markets. Those replacements of necessity must be larger ships with increased power and larger deck winches, as it is necessary to travel greater distances and fish in deeper waters in order to catch fish on a year round basis.
At the present time we have the A. T. Cameron, a 177-foot trawler type research ship operated by the Department of Fisheries and used in Atlantic and Arctic waters. This ship is fitted with five laboratories, each fitted out with modern equipment and gear for various research procedures as well as oceanographic, hydrographic and survey work. I think the provision of this ship was a move in the right direction, as we 

know very little at present about the wealth of food that can be harvested from the sea.
However, the fishing industry generally will be unable to avail itself of the deeper water fishing areas discovered by the A. T. Cameron, for present ships are not equipped for long distance deep water trawling. In other words the knowledge gained from expensive and extensive research will not be fully utilized.
This situation of course cannot last indefinitely and some firms are already planning on expanding their fleets. At least one firm, Booth Fisheries Canadian Co. Limited, is planning on the addition of three new steel trawlers to their North Atlantic fishing fleet. These ships will be 133 feet in length and will have a carrying capacity of 400,000 pounds of fish. While this addition will increase the number of pounds of fish landed and provide further employment ashore and afloat, it is unfortunate that due to excessive costs these ships could not be built in Canada. I am informed that they will be built in the Netherlands, and other large Canadian fishing companies are planning similar action.
The reason for this is obvious when a comparison of costs is made. These ships will cost in the vicinity of $300,000 in the Netherlands while Canadian yards require about $600,000 for similar ships. From these facts it is evident that some thought must be given to assisting and stimulating the construction of commercial fishing vessels in Canadian shipbuilding yards. Our friends across the border are faced with a similar situation and congress has passed a subsidy bill under which the government will pay up to one third of the cost of building a new vessel. While details of the payments under this bill must be worked out between the house and senate committees, nevertheless it is indicative of the aid that is planned for the United States fishing and shipbuilding industries. This program will also increase their production and could provide a threat to our export markets.
To date the government has made an outstanding contribution to the housing industry, as was indicated by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. McDonald) in his remarks this morning. I think they can make a similar contribution by assisting in the construction of ships in Canada. I believe that the first step is to make a close study of the problems besetting the shipbuilding and fishing industries. From discussions I have held with those who are familiar with the problems it would appear that the best incentive the government could give the Canadian fishing industry for the building up of a modern fishing fleet would be to institute investment allowances as is now being done

in the United Kingdom. These investment allowances would apply irrespective of the country in which the ship is built, with a higher allowance permitted on ships built in Canadian yards.
Increased depreciation should also be extended to existing fishing boats provided the allowance is used for the construction of new boats. This is necessary because a 100-foot wooden ship built in 1945 at a cost of $150,000 can only be depreciated for this amount while replacement costs in 1960 of a similar ship are $300,000. This type of program if implemented would be a great step forward for the Canadian Atlantic coast fishing industry. It would be the easiest and least costly for the government to administer and would revitalize the shipbuilding industry as well as assist in modernizing the fishing fleet.
When speaking in the house recently my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), mentioned the need to reestablish the ferry service between Kingsport and Parrsboro, Nova Scotia. In my opinion he presented the need for establishing this service in a very capable manner. The desire of all Nova Scotians to overcome some of our geographic handicaps is readily understood when an examination is made of the area and the distance from our east coast ports to our American and central Canadian markets. I should like to endorse his suggestion with respect to the implementation of this service as it would be of considerable assistance to fish exporters in my riding who are desirous of shortening the route to Amherst. For example, refrigerated trucks could leave Chester Basin and, travelling via New Ross, Kentville and the ferry, could cut off some 66 miles compared with the former route travelled. This would speed up delivery of our fish and produce by truck to other markets and I would urge the government to give every consideration to this proposal which will further strengthen the economy of our province.


Mr. C. R. Granger (Grand Falls-While Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by congratulating the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They maintained the traditions of the house in the quality of their speeches and acquitted themselves well.
I welcome this opportunity to place before the house some of the problems in my district. High in the priority of needs is improved communications on the Labrador coast. During the long winter and spring the coast of Labrador is almost completely isolated. Apart from the mail planes and the planes operated by the Newfoundland government for the
The Address-Mr. Granger International Grenfell Association, all transportation as such ceases when the C.N.R. coastal steamers make their last trips in the fall.
The only means of communication for most settlements is by small radiotelephone sets maintained mostly by the Department of Transport, and only some of the Labrador settlements have these. There are in fact fewer sets operating now on the Labrador coast than at the time of confederation of Newfoundland with Canada. I should like to impress upon the house the vital need for one of these sets in each community. At the present time, in the event of illness it is sometimes necessary to go by dog team eight or ten miles to the next village in order to get a message to a doctor or nurse. In some cases it is well nigh impossible.
The Department of Transport is doing excellent work at their large stations such as Cartwright but too few of the smaller settlements on the Labrador coast have any means of communication at all. May I express the hope that this year the Department of Transport will correct this deficiency.
I am well aware, and indeed in fairness I should point out that the Department of Transport is, and for many years has been, engaged in huge enterprises at the airports at Goose and Gander, both in my riding, and while these mighty contributions to international transport and national defence must be paramount considerations I would ask the minister not to overlook these smaller matters concerning the little people where the very lives of Canadian citizens are at stake and which could be remedied at very little cost indeed. I would invite his personal attention to this matter.
I would also request increased power for the C.B.C. radio station at Goose Bay so that settlements along the northern coastline can receive the station. A stronger station broadcasting educational programs to supplement the missionary work in education in these remote places would be of vast benefit.
There was a time when the Labrador cod fishery was carried on both from the shore and by floaters, the latter term being applied to schooners sailing from Newfoundland which fished in Labrador waters and carried their catch back to the island for processing and export. About nine or ten years ago, during a period when the type of fish produced by the floaters was not in demand, the Labrador floater fishery disappeared, and with the passing of the Labrador schooner there disappeared a way of life and an important part of Newfoundland's economy. Nowadays the shore fishery on the Labrador is still important but the ships of other nations are reaping the wealth of Newfoundland-Labrador waters.

The Address-Mr. Granger
The industrialization of the salt codfish business, resulting in keener competition and shortages of raw material for fish plants, must inevitably mean attention focusing once again on the prolific waters of the Labrador. I predict that in the future the salt codfish processing plants in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will have to look increasingly to Labrador for supplies. I think Labrador fishery tailored to meet modern needs is a necessity. I would ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacLean) to take a careful look at the possibilities of developing this abundant fishery for Canadian uses rather than leave it for our foreign competitors.
The community stage program is commendable, and I should like the Department of Fisheries to continue this program and include the Labrador coast in it. I should like to see a long range program of, say, ten community stages per year instituted.
A shortage of bait is a perennial handicap to the fishermen in my riding. I am glad to be able to say that a program of bait service has been instituted by the Department of Fisheries. I ask the Minister of Fisheries to continue to give this vital matter his sympathetic attention and to enlarge the program so that a complete bait service is available to Newfoundland and Labrador. Each year thousands of quintals of fish remain in the ocean because of a lack of bait. The national economy and the individual fishermen are both the poorer as a result.
Some day I hope to see a causeway across the strait of Belle Isle, providing a physical link between the mainland and the island of Newfoundland. This would really be the consummation of confederation. The possible effect of such a causeway from the standpoint of climate should be studied. There should be a determination made as to whether, in fact, such a causeway would divert the Arctic current away from the east coast of Newfoundland as well as blocking it from the gulf of St. Lawrence; whether the waters of the gulf would be warmer if Arctic ice were shut out; whether the ice that makes in the St. Lawrence river and gulf would continue to cool the climate in spring and whether there is a possibility that the climate of the whole maritime provinces might be improved by the deflection of the Arctic current. These are interesting speculations which might have far-reaching consequences. I would suggest that a working model be made and the possibilities of such a causeway explored now. This is an age of giant endeavour and the magnitude of the task should not discourage exploration. I suggest the minister of northern affairs give this matter serious consideration.


Of course, in time, I should like to see the trans-Canada highway built on the causeway, but I think the major concern at the moment is the possibility of improving the climate of the Atlantic provinces, with the possibility of added economic advantages. In my opinion it is a fascinating possibility, and I should like to see it given scientific study. Perhaps atomic power could be harnessed to throw up the huge barricade. If such an operation were attempted, it would be an atomic blast for peace.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the desirability of rewriting the trans-Canada highway agreement with the provinces. In my opinion, in so far as the province of Newfoundland is concerned, the present 50-50 arrangement is not realistic. Total population, distances involved and capacity to pay should be taken into strict account. Newfoundland has a small population, and the distances involved are comparatively great. The province is not wealthy. I believe the per capita mile of the trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland is the greatest, or close to the greatest in Canada. The cost to the province is a grievous burden. I would make a plea that the government give urgent consideration to the possibility of modifying the trans-Canada highway agreement with the provinces so that the proportion of cost will be more equitably distributed. Perhaps no single project has greater potential for enriching and welding this nation together than the trans-Canada highway. I do hope that steps may be taken to hasten its completion, and the only way that will be possible for Newfoundland is by the government of Canada assuming a larger and more equitable share of the total cost.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is, first of all, my pleasant task to follow those who have spoken by referring in terms of admiration to the speeches of the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman). The mover, I thought, dealt with his subject matter extremely well and, of course, the seconder had a flying start with us, not only because of herself, but because of others in this house related to her who have been well known and highly regarded and to whom she herself referred in charming terms.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that those who are experts on these matters, namely the press and others, have announced that this debate constitutes a record for dullness, and that encouraged me to think I might take some small part in it myself. I think I can boast that, on that test, I can make quite a notable contribution. There have been some speeches made which seem to have drawn attention,

and those are the ones which criticize us in this house, in particular the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I was very interested in that because it seemed to me to raise certain interesting questions.
Last year, as I recall it, he gained a good deal of notoriety for suggesting we were not paid well enough. This year he seems to be not so sure about that. He appears to have heard some expressions of doubt on that subject, and I was not quite sure where he finally left us. I was very interested to know, however, how he valued members of parliament. This seems to me to be a question which we might all really consider. If we are to have price tags, then it seems to me we should know how they are to be given. We should know whether, for example, a man gets so much for everyone who stays in to listen to him; whether he gets so much more for everyone who stays in and who does not read a newspaper; whether he gets so much for every question; whether he gets so much if a question is deemed, by a competent tribunal, to be a witty question.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) took a different line. He did not go in for the value of speeches, but he considered the cost. This is an interesting point, too. I think he calculated that his speech, taking the whole cost of parliament, was going to cost $600 and he was rather troubled by that. I think we all might be a bit troubled. This raises another interesting question as to whether, if you were offered the $600 right away, on the nail, before you spoke, you might say, I do not believe my speech is worth that, so I will take the $600. These things are points of interest if we are to be criticized as being not very good, and we often do have moments of heart searching when we are really troubled as to whether we are as good as we would like to be.
I pass on from that, now. I do not propose to go around the course again. By that, I mean I do not propose to answer all the points which have been raised. In my opinion, of course it may be biased, the opposition has not made any real dents. They reminded me a little of the first war, when a great splurge would appear to the effect that we had made a great attack and had won a victory. When you began to examine it, you found, however, that we had advanced 100 yards or 200 yards with a loss of men which was quite shocking. I feel this is true of the opposition. I feel sorry for them.
Looking back to our time in opposition I would say the situation was very different, with one exception, no one of us had ever been in the seats of the mighty before; we were just enthusiastic amateurs. We had got elected, and were doing our best. Of course, 79951-0-41
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell it is very different now. We have sitting opposite people who had been in power for years and years, who felt that it was not only proper that they should be in power but it was really almost unthinkable that anyone else should.
A number of years ago-quite some years ago-in the depth of what I call the depression, and by that I mean the depth of our depression, we had actually won three byelections. At that time one of the members opposite wrote me a nice note congratulating me. But then he went on to say, "but of course, this could not happen in a general election, could it?" That was the spirit that was displayed, the idea that we might have a little success in a by-election but as for thinking that we could ever form a government, that was out of the question. Indeed, I once undertook to apply to the present opposition when they were in power the story of the Presbyterian minister who in the course of his prayer-the extemporaneous prayer that we go in for in the Presbyterian church-prayed: "Oh Lord, if it be possible, make us worthy in small measure of the high esteem in which we hold ourselves". I do not want to leave the opposition without comfort and I would say to them with great sincerity that the first ten years are the worst.
I cannot resist making some very mild comment. Unfortunately I have no skill in real cut and thrust. However, as I say, I cannot resist making some mild comment on some of the front bench members opposite. I often feel sorry for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I think the Leader of the Opposition, if possible, should be fairly tough and rough and gruff. If you search back into his career you will find that in this respect he made a fairly good start because originally he was greatly interested in baseball and football. I think he was a football coach. In those sports, of course, the language is rough and tough. But then, unfortunately, in the course of his life he went to Oxford and while there, I understand, he took up the genteel pastime of archery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement should be instantly denied.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To me archery suggests diplomacy. To me it suggests gentle, mellifluous words in which diplomats, no matter what is in their heart, used to sign themselves "Your obedient humble servant". I am sure those words were often used in the practice of diplomacy. So when I read in the Toronto Star that "Mike is fighting mad", I am not wholly convinced.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have abandoned archery.
642	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Even though the Leader of the Opposition comes into this house and takes his seat loaded for bear, I fear that he is apt to go off after the first coon he sees.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are a great many of them over there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is not here because I always serve a useful purpose for him. He says that I can put him to sleep quicker than can any other person in the house. I was flattering myself that I would give him a nice quiet afternoon, but unfortunately he is not here.
I now come to the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). He is always very interesting to me and sometimes very attractive. I bracket him with Joan of Arc. They both have voices. As hon. members will recall, Joan of Arc had voices which got her into trouble. I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has voices. First of all, he has the voice of Joey. The secret of his electoral success is said to be that he is Joey's boy. I even understand that he does not repudiate it. Neither would I, as a matter of fact.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was the first one who told the story.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, yes; that is right. Then there is another voice that is no longer with us in the flesh but nevertheless is with us still. I refer to the voice of Mr. Mackenzie King's diary. As we all know, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is working on the biography of Mr. King. To me it is interesting to think that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is going to be immersed in the atmosphere of Mr. King's diary for the immediate years to come. I should have thought it must have some kind of effect; there he is in that atmosphere, with all the gifts, good and bad, which he knows the then prime minister had. I imagine that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will have the fate of reading a good many references to himself in the diary. It is quite possible because he was close to Mr. King.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And references to the hon. gentleman.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I say, it seems to me that you cannot ignore that situation and that we should have it very much in our minds. After all, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is a very formidable man and a shrewd opponent. He understands cut and thrust. It comes quite naturally to him.


As I said, I am not going to go around the course again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman suggested that I had voices as did Joan of Arc. Does he predict that I too will be burned at the stake?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. We are merciful men and we will think up something much more subtle than that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: From his vast historical knowledge does the hon. gentleman recall that it took Joan of Arc only three and a half years to liberate France?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will take it in my stride. We will wait for these voices. As I say, if he liberates Canada in three years, I myself will put it down much more to Mr. King than I will to anybody else.
As I said, I am not going to go around the course again. I am not going to repeat things which have been said in criticism of the opposition because I want to turn to something different.
I was interested, of course, in those parts of the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) which were controversial and which dealt faithfully with the opposition. However, I was even more interested to note that they were not content just to say that everything in the garden was lovely, that we are having a properous year but that they went out of their way to warn us that there were very serious problems facing us and that we should be astute and watchful to meet them.
Some of these speeches were made in the House of Commons and some were not made in the house. For instance, the Prime Minister referred to Khrushchev's boast in which he said he was going to bury the west economically through production and trade. Again the Prime Minister referred to economic and trade forces "of hurricane proportions being launched against the free world." Those are words that I think we might all remember. He spoke again of the danger of the soviet world selling abroad at unreasonable terms dictated by political consideration and selling into our traditional markets.
I now want to come to the Minister of Finance. After urging that we pay attention to the danger to our foreign trade, he said this:
We are so dependent upon foreign trade, and so closely linked in many ways with the fortunes of the United States and our other trading partners

that we are bound to be affected, for good or ill, by the swings of economic activity originating outside our own borders.
My purpose this afternoon and the sole point of my speech, if there is one, is that we should not leave this entirely to the government alone. The great Lord Lothian once said in the United States that in a democracy responsibility comes clearly down on the shoulders of each and every one of us. That is something we should remember. Public opinion should always be alert and astute because, as we still know, public opinion can govern a nation. As I said, it should not be left to the government alone. Speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers Association the Prime Minister used these words which I should like to quote:
I would urge you to create whole new industries to produce things we have never seen before. The businessman as the great innovator can do more than just stabilize the economy-he can change its entire course. Canadian businessmen, as well as the nations political leaders need an Elizabethan sense of grand design-the vision and faith on which the future of nations and fruitful enterprise is built.
I want to quote a word here from a Canadian businessman Rhys Sale. Speaking the other day in Vancouver, Mr. Sale said things that interested me very much coming from a Canadian businessman, because often I feel there is a great tendency among Canadian businessmen to rely consciously or unconsciously on the maxim "Nothing is but thinking makes it so," and to say things which they like to hear. But Mr. Sale spoke out very clearly. He spoke about world trade and he spoke about a new dimension and- this is a thing we should all recognize-"a fantastic renaissance of European, Asiatic and African competition." I feel that if we do not take this seriously we are just not being realistic. He used other searching and eloquent words. He said that Canada faces a major challenge to its "growth and survival." No wonder the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is calling for an Elizabethan sense of grand design. I commend those words of Mr. Sale. Incidentally, the same day, came an indication from British Columbia that the industrial commission was also urging people to step out of the country and carry on business abroad. Mr. Sale also had another point I should like to mention. He spoke of the serious maladjustment of economic revenues, and said:
The benefits of economic growth must be fairly distributed between those who buy the products of industry, those who make them and those who simply supply the risk capital.
What are we doing? We are making gifts under the Colombo plan and I was glad the press yesterday reported a further indication 79951-0-41J
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell of help resulting from a meeting in Washington a couple of weeks ago. This new help, I understand, is in the form of grants. I want to refer to a couple of distinguished United States witnesses; first, to Dean Acheson, who urges America to step up aid to underdeveloped countries. He gives some astounding figures. He is talking of investment, and he says that the United States, in order to make investments comparable having regard to its economy with the British investment abroad of 1913 would have to do 30 times as much as it is doing at present. He does not suggest that the United States could do anything like that amount, but he does suggest they should be doing more than their present hand to mouth action.
I want to refer also to Paul Hoffman, formerly successful administrator of the Marshall plan, later president of the Studebaker Corporation and now head of the special assistance department in the United Nations. He says the world is shrinking so rapidly that there must be global development, and goes on to give some astounding figures, figures which make one feel uncomfortable. The less developed countries, he said, had a per capita income in 1950 of $110. They hoped to have raised this by the end of the fifties by about $20 which, he says very truly, is not enough. The increase in per capita income in the western nations between 1950 and 1957 amounted to $300, and the increase in the United States to $530.
I am not going to dwell on these figures, but they do make one feel terribly uncomfortable. I want to stress, however, the fact that Hoffman does not put forward his argument on the ground of humanitarianism. He puts it forward on the ground of investment. He says that if we do not assist the underdeveloped countries, if we do not assist in the development of new markets, it is going to be the worse for ourselves.
I shall not worry the house by giving figures in any detail, but he gives figures of the amount he thinks is required in order to assist the underdeveloped countries, and according to him it is something which should be within our capacity. He thinks the amount of $20 billion over the next 10 years, shared among the wealthier nations and added to his reckoning of $180 billion which would be produced by the countries themselves, would make up the $200 billion which would be required. He points out that according to the present figures Canada and the United States are themselves planning to spend $500 billion in this 10-year period on the matter of defence.
I want to draw attention to these words from Hoffman and also words from B. K.
644	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Macdonnell Nehru, the brother of the prime minister, who is India's commissioner general for economic affairs.
I want especially to refer to India because it is of special significance to us, first of all because of its size and, next, because of its key position. What India thinks today, the rest of southeast Asia might very well do tomorrow. At any rate it would be an influence; it might even hold the balance for or against communism. Second, I should like to refer to India because India is a fellow member of the commonwealth and, third, because it is in an exceptional position to make use of loans. I want to explain that. One of the important things is that loans be given to countries which can make use of them by reason of their political stability, their economic organization, their possession of skilled engineers, and so on. The argument could be made that India, with all its weakness, is in a position to do this. After all, the British when ruling India, allowed Indians freely into the civil service so that when they left many Indians were skilled administrators. They have a democratic system of government. I was in the Indian assembly a couple of years ago and it was interesting to observe that they were even more closely based on London than we are.
I have here a speech by B. K. Nehru begging for assistance from Canada and the other advanced countries and saying that India should be able to provide itself 80 per cent of what is needed, but that they do require assistance. The remaining 20 per cent, he says, will have to come from outside, mainly in the form of loans and substantial amounts in the form of United States agricultural commodities and so on. Then he speaks very strongly. He says:
There are many factors which are required for economic growth and the chief among them are a stable government, an efficient and honest administration, managerial and organizational ability, technical competence and capital.
And again:
What is holding up India's development is, therefore, the shortage of capital and of nothing else.
He goes on to urge private investment, saying that the climate of India is favourable to it, and he stresses another point very strongly. As to profits, he says:
As to profits, those of you who have any experience of India would bear me out that the opportunity for profits for any reasonably well-managed concern is enormous. Demand is continuously and rapidly rising and the market is virtually completely protected for with our present shortage of foreign exchange, which will continue, we have perforce to limit our imports to those commodities which are essential and are not produced in India.


I had not thought of that before and it seems to me to be a very strong point addressed to the investor.
As I said to you, the annual report of the department of industrial development of British Columbia recommends to firms in British Columbia that they try to establish branch plants in Europe. That has reference to Europe, but there is no reason why it should not extend to other areas.
The great question is this. Here again let me remind you that according to Hoffman, it is self-interest and the building up of foreign trade of which we should be thinking. The great question is whether we are the kind of people who will do it. At this point I wish to read a short extract from an article written by that able woman, Barbara Ward, who was at one time an editor of The Economist. This is a paragraph which I think everyone should read, mark, learn and digest. I believe there is a great danger if we ignore these broad considerations and that if we do, we may years from now wake up and wonder if we were not like children playing in the sand. This is from an article which appeared in the New York Times a few weeks ago. Here is what she says:
As the world enters the nineteen sixties one fact seems sure. The pace of revolutionary change in every sphere of human affairs will gather momentum.
The breakthrough accomplished in the fifties in weapons, in space research, in every type of scientific advance: the political breakthrough of a score of new nations; the emotional breakthrough of a third of humanity hungering for economic growth-all these forces will expand explosively to make the sixties a period of challenge and change unequalled in human history.
What, in these circumstances, will be the response of the western powers? The answer depends not only upon the new political leadership available in the west. It depends profoundly upon the sort of people the free nations have become as they face the mounting crises of their age.
So we return to the question, what sort of people are we? I suppose it is fair to say that when we look at the underdeveloped countries we cannot possibly look at them purely as a business problem because, after all, we are humane people and the spectacle of hundreds of millions of people starving is appalling to us. I want to stress again that Hoffman whom I heard speaking in Toronto in October put it forward on the grounds of self-interest and the building up of foreign trade. I read to the house what Mr. Sale said about this stupendous competition which is arising not only in Europe but in Asia and Africa. The Prime Minister mentioned it too. Therefore, I ask whether people of intelligence can ignore these things?
I suggest that the government is entitled to the support of public opinion. I have already referred to the item in the press

today based on what was done in Washington recently whereby loans are going to be made. As far as I am concerned, I regard that with enthusiasm and I hope the public will regard it with enthusiasm. I hope the government will not be left to feel that it is away ahead of the procession and the response is only grudging. I hope that public opinion expressed through such agencies as the churches and educational and business institutions will make it clear that the people of Canada are back of the government in indicating that we cannot tolerate distressed, hungry and cold conditions among ourselves and that when it happens among other people it also leaves us moved.
I will conclude my remarks by saying this. We should base our thinking on what we know ourselves and on what was said by these distinguished United States writers I have quoted who have made a study of the question and base it also on the action of our own government which has some of the most able experts in the world to advise it. I hope that we as members and the people of Canada will look at this realistically and recognize this great danger described by a well known journalist who asked the question whether we are tough enough to face Russian competition in peace. He stresses the great danger for us in our present soft society where we have so much comfort and so much in the way of amusement that we may not be able to take things seriously.
All I can say is that I hope it is not so. We have been able to take things seriously up to the present time. No one is able to suggest that in war time we did not realistically face the serious issues that confronted us. No one can suggest that the Canadian people were not capable in those days of carrying burdens and making the sacrifices that were necessary.
If we do not look at the present situation in the cold light of its challenges, if we are not impressed by what the Prime Minister has said, if we are not influenced by the United States writers I have quoted, if the words of Barbara Ward I have cited fail to move us, then I earnestly suggest that the time may come when we may look back on this decade which we are assured is so tremendous in its possibilities and wonder if we were not like children playing in the sand. (Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the mover of this motion on having been selected to deliver the first speech in this debate.
(Text):
I should like to say to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) that
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin she acquitted herself in a manner that has won wide approval from all sections of the house. I am sure it was a source of great satisfaction to her father, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), to listen to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas make such a fine contribution in her maiden speech. (Translation) :
I also wish to associate myself with other hon. members in congratulating the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment to the office of vice chairman of the house. I am convinced-as are also all my colleagues, I am sure-that he will discharge his duties with fairness and equity.
(Text):
I am sure that the house has followed with great interest the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I regret that the heavy responsibilities of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) did not permit that right hon. gentleman to listen to this thoughtful address by a former colleague. I regret, too, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), particularly after his attack last night on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), did not hear the well-thought out observations of the hon. member for Greenwood.
The Minister of Finance said last night that the Leader of the Opposition because he dared criticize the government and expose its financial and other policies was creating a situation in Canada that would destroy the confidence that Canada should expect from so many quarters. I can only suggest to the minister that he read the speech just delivered and see whether or not the criticism levelled against the Leader of the Opposition last night was not somewhat uncalled for and not even tactful from the point of view of one who was defending the government's position.
Certainly I shall be accused by the Minister of Finance on the basis of what I am going to say of also destroying the confidence that many people all over have in Canada as a result of my singling Canada out as the one country in the western world where in spite of our resources and great industrial capacity and the capacity of our people there has persisted continuously since the fall of 1957 the most serious unemployment problem of any country in the western world. I hold in my hand an extract from the Montreal Star of October 31, in which Canadians are asked this question:
What do you feel is the most urgent problem facing the government at present?
Forty per cent of the people of Canada said that they regarded unemployment as the most important problem facing the nation at that time. The situation now, of course, is much worse.
646	HOUSE OF
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin


Mr. Hamillon (Noire Dame de Grace):: Forty-five per cent of them thought you were going to win the election in 1957.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: to the N.E.S. applicants for jobs group. The figure he gave us was 722,834 persons as compared with 549,000 only a month earlier. Then, last Friday, again after further prodding, he gave us a further figure as of January 14, when he said 755,000 people were out of work, were in this unplaced applicants category, according to the national employment service. I regret that the minister does not have at his disposal now the figure for January 21 which, on his own admission, he normally would receive every week, as he indicated to us when he gave us the latest figure of 755,000.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I clarified that situation with the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a
point of order. These figures were not given by our party.


Michael Starr: I rose on a question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: No, you did not, you rose on a point of order.


Michael Starr: Fine; then, I have the right to rise on a point of order. What the hon. member has said is certainly not in order. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked me that question and I clarified my position in that respect yesterday on the orders of the day. What the hon. member is saying is not right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a point of order. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will deduct this time from the time available to me. These figures were not produced by the Liberal party; they were not produced by me. They are figures which were produced by the unemployment insurance commission, handed to the Minister of Labour and announced by him. Yet he used the word "manipulate" in reference to those figures when speaking about me. This is the figure for registered unemployed. This figure of 755,000 is likely at any time to be larger than the figure for active claimants of benefits and this is a figure on which I want to pause. I asked the Minister of Labour the other day, when he gave us the number of people who were in the unplaced applicants list, whether he could tell us what were the latest figures of those who were actually in pay, what are called live claims, and he gave us the figure of
685,000	as of December 31. Those are people receiving benefits, Mr. Speaker; those are people in pay.
Under the Unemployment Insurance Act a man cannot be receiving unemployment insurance unless he is out of work. These are the figures of the Minister of Labour, and the

minimum figure that he can accept is not the D.B.S. figure but the figure of the number of people who are actually receiving unemployment insurance benefits. That figure, as I said, is merely a confirmation of the figure of the national employment service, the figure of
755,000,	because the claimants figure of
685,000	does not cover those who have lost their benefits, those who are in the working force for the first time. Consequently the likely situation is not the difference between the D.B.S. figure of 370,000 and the 685,000 people receiving unemployment insurance benefits, but somewhere between the 755,000 and the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits, 685,000 persons.
The Minister of Labour queries us, challenges us. First of all, he challenged our right, and spoke of me as having discovered unemployment only in 1958, forgetting, of course, that we never in the 22 years of office had the kind of unemployment that we have had since the fall of 1956.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Nonsense.


Michael Starr: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? What did he say when unemployment was 7 per cent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we refer to unemployment what does the minister say?


Michael Starr: He never knew anything about unemployment in his own area; he never looked after his own riding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He says that
criticism must not be levelled at the government. Here is what the Minister of Labour said in 1955 when he was speaking in this house as an ordinary member on unemployment, as reported at page 1695 of Hansard:
The important thing at the present time is to place the blame and the responisibility for unemployment on the proper government.
This is the hon. member for Oshawa speaking, the present Minister of Labour.


Michael Starr: Ontario riding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I continue:
Delegation after delegation is becoming fed up with the shirking of responsibility on the part of this government. We must place the responsibility with the federal government where it belongs. It is the senior government which must take the lead in respect to any national problem. Unemployment definitely comes within that category.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to do today, to place this responsibility on the doorstep of a government whose Prime Minister said, "I promise you this, as long as I am prime minister no man or woman will ever be allowed to suffer, deficit or no deficit; as long as I am prime minister the welfare of the average Canadian will be the first consideration."
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
So that places this problem exactly where the Minister of Labour said it should be placed, on the doorstep of the federal government of Canada as now constituted. The Minister of Labour says, of course, that our use of these national employment service figures is invalid. On January 13, 1958, the minister said with respect to these figures, as found at page 3241 of Hansard:
They do not purport to be a figure for the number of persons unemployed in Canada. The only such figure is the dominion bureau of statistics figure for persons out of work and seeking jobs.
He is taking issue. First of all, he is repudiating the unemployment insurance commission. He repudiates the position taken by the hon. member for Greenwood, the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe and the former leader of the opposition, all of whom argued that the correct figures to use were the national employment service figures, and in this particular context that figure stands at this time at
755,000	as of January 21 last.
Not only that, but I call the attention of the Minister of Labour to page 14 of the statistical report on the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act for November, 1959 where the bureau of statistics points out that these 685,000 people in the claimants' list, live claims, are to be characterized-I hope the minister will listen to this-as "a count of all unemployment registers, regular, seasonal, fishing, in the 'live file' at the close of business on the last working day of the month" -here are the significant words-"and used as a measure of recorded unemployment among insured persons at a point in time."
In spite of this the minister says that the real figure is the lower figure. But he forgot that he made a little slip on January 13, 1958, and this slip will be found on page 3242 of Hansard for 1958. At that time he said, with reference to the N.E.S. figure:
There is no doubt, too, that it is a useful indicator of unemployment-
That being the case, then this 755,000 figure is, in the language of the minister at that time, a useful indicator of unemployment. I suggest that the figure given by him in the house of 685,700, a figure given to him by the unemployment insurance commission, is a measure of recorded unemployment among insured persons, and when you allow for those who are not insured, those who are going into the working force for the first time, there can be no doubt that unemployment today, as the minister indicated, is in the neighbourhood of
755,000.

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin
Look at the words of the Prime Minister as found at page 2036 of Hansard for 1955. He preferred the N.E.S. figures, and likewise the Minister of Finance. Then, of course, there is the well-known statement of the former leader of the opposition which will be found all through Hansard, and the statement of the Minister of Labour himself, the hon. member who says I have no right to use these figures. Let him recall what he said in 1955 as found at page 1694 of Hansard when he criticized the government of the day and referred to unemployment in terms of the national employment service figure.
So I think we may as well recognize now that this is the figure to use. We might as well recognize it for a number of reasons. It is apparent to anyone who examines the table that the discrepancy between the D.B.S. and N.E.S. figures grows particularly wide in the winter months when unemployment is at its highest. But I have discovered, as a result of some research with some of my colleagues during the past few weeks, something that was not apparent before, and that is that this sampling process of the dominion bureau of statistics is inadequate in that it is a sampling process applying procedures in every community where sampling takes place on the same basis.
The hon. member for Greenwood is an authority on this subject because he has likewise given consideration to this matter. I refer the house to what he said as found on page 6122 of Hansard for June 17, 1954. Here are his words:
I want to raise the question ot the extraordinary discrepancy which exists between the figures put out by the dominion bureau of statistics, being a part of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Labour in the matter of employment and unemployment. It seems to me to be obvious that unemployment is one of the most important matters which face us at the moment, and it seems an extraordinary thing to me that we have this terrific discrepancy in figures. It has been explained in a way but not in a way with which anyone in my opinion should be satisfied.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will at the end
of my speech. It is clear now what is wrong with this D.B.S. measurement which is but a sample. The sample used by D.B.S. is a general purpose sample, that is to say it tries to measure unemployment and employment on the assumption that the characteristics of the population it is measuring are evenly distributed throughout the total population. The assumption of an even distribution of unemployment throughout the population is quite invalid, as we well know, because areas of primary production are more prone to

seasonal unemployment. There is in this mode an uneven distribution of unemployment in the population and a procedure which does not take this fact into account in designing its sample will underestimate actual unemployment in those months when seasonal influences reach their peak. It is this technical defect then that makes the D.B.S. system of measurement inadequate and, as a matter of fact, the bureau of statistics recognizes this in the quotation I have just given from the statistical review.
I want to come to the positive side of this program. I say that there are, in the words of the Minister of Labour, 755,000 people in Canada without jobs. I say further, on the basis of information given to the house by the Minister of Labour, that 685,000 people in Canada are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits and that under the law no one can be receiving unemployment insurance benefits unless that person is out of work. If that figure is not right, then there is a responsibility on the part of the government to ascertain why it is not right. If fraud is being practised by anyone it is the responsibility of the government to detect it. I am told that the error at best in that figure is 3 per cent. In any event, the figure stands out along with the N.E.S. figure of 755,000.
We ask ourselves, what is the government going to do about this problem? I asked the Prime Minister today by way of a supplementary question whether he had given consideration to the suggestion made by Mr. Jodoin, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, who proposed that the government sponsor a conference of industry and labour. The Prime Minister's answer to that was no. I say, what is this government doing about unemployment? The minister says that he has his winter works program. Last year that anaemic child gave work to 33,000 people at a time when there were over 600,000 people out of work. Is that the way we are to see realized this promise of the Prime Minister, that "no man or woman will ever be allowed to suffer, deficit or no deficit; so long as I am Prime Minister, the welfare of the average Canadian will never be forgotten."
Where would we be today in this country if it were not for the social security legislation, unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age security, old age assistance, blindness allowances and a whole series of other measures, every one of them placed on the statute books of this country by a Liberal government?
Now, let us deal with the situation. Something has got to be done about this problem. I suggest a program to which I hope the government will give consideration. I suggest- I am glad the Prime Minister has come in

-first of all, that responsibility for unemployment, in the face of the present emergency, should be taken from the ministry of labour and transferred to the responsibility of the government as a whole, particularly to the Department of Finance, including the Bank of Canada, labour, trade and commerce, national health and welfare, public works, national defence and defence production, under a vigorous ministerial chairmanship to be determined, of course, by the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Is that how you did it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, we did that
sort of thing.
Second, I propose the establishment, as did the Leader of the Opposition in 1958, of a national advisory board on economic development, automation and employment, to help in dealing with the long term problems of production and employment. This board should include representatives of labour, industry, agriculture and the universities, as well as representatives of the departments immediately concerned.
Third, there should be set up now, as was proposed in 1955, in an amendment introduced in this house by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), a special parliamentary committee to explore ways and means of dealing with this problem and to assess the facts. If that proposal had validity when the hon. gentlemen were in opposition, surely it has greater force now when they are sitting in the ministerial benches.
Fourth, we propose that a federal-provincial conference on unemployment, as proposed in 1955 by the present Prime Minister and by the former leader of the opposition, Mr. Drew, as well as by the present Minister of Labour, be called. The words of the Prime Minister will be found on page 2037 of Hansard for March 15, 1955:
As to our suggestions, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) suggested that there should be a dominion-provincial conference on unemployment. Why could it not be held? Why could not this conference in April be held with reference to this matter and plans made respecting other fiscal matters? That is the first question I ask.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister. We called such a conference. We discussed unemployment with the provinces. I am asking the Prime Minister now, in the face of this former attitude of his, to at least take this step since it is consistent with a recommendation made by way of amendment when his party was sitting in opposition.
Five, we propose that the government should call a conference of industry and labour to discuss and examine this problem, along the lines suggested by the president 79951-0-42
The Address-Hon. Paul Martin of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin, and, yesterday, supported by the syndicats Catholique. This proposal is in line with the exhortations made by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada during recent months. What is there to fear from such a conference? Is it not desirable that we should seek to work out these problems on the basis of common responsibilities. When labour offers this, it is difficult in the face of the present high level of unemployment to understand why the Prime Minister does not readily accede to the suggestion.
Then, six, I propose immediate consideration should be given to the utilization of the services of a leading member of the business community of Canada, a man of the calibre of the late Arthur Purvis, who was chairman of the Canadian national employment committee which was appointed in 1936 to deal with unemployment, a man with his knowledge of the problem and the capacity to provide leadership in supplying jobs. Hon. members will find that this particular report in 1936 served as the basis for the action taken by the government in 1938. I ask the Prime Minister to look at this report to see whether, in his judgment, this is not a suggestion he should adopt.
Seven, there should be a modification of the winter works program to make it more acceptable to the municipalities, thereby providing more employment.
Eight, there should be concentration by the government as a whole, not only by the Minister of Labour, on surplus areas of unemployment, to assess the economic factors and to establish methods of providing employment in those areas. In that connection, the current annual report of the Department of Labour ought to be examined.
Nine, there ought to be intensification of the vocational training program to provide necessary skills for the unemployed in these surplus areas and generally throughout the country.
Ten, this government for instance might decide at long last to accept the undertaking they gave to the Canadian people to abolish the excise tax on automobiles. Prior to the imposition of dollar restrictions by the sterling area and during the tenure of the Liberal government, Canada was developing some export markets for motor vehicles with a number of overseas countries. Now these restrictions are being removed what is the Minister of Trade and Commerce going to do to help this industry recapture those markets? The answer is obvious. Our trade figures show that nothing of any account is being done, except to drive up our purchases of automobiles from other countries, including

The Address-Hon. Paul Martin the Soviet union if one is able to judge correctly from the stories v*ie hears from time to time. In any event, if that should eventuate, I hope the government will bear in mind the necessity of taking into consideration a similar basis in terms of the cost of production of that exporting country in relation to countries with economies more like our own.
Now, the most persistent unemployment in Canada is to be found in the maritimes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you explain that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will at the end
of my speech. The most persistent unemployment is to be found in the maritime provinces. If one looks at the figures one finds how they have increased since the hon. gentlemen came into office. I suggest the time has come when this government should, as this party proposed in 1958, establish an Atlantic provinces capital assistance fund for the purpose of financing those large projects essential to sound economic development of the primary industries in these provinces. Then since transportation is one of our main problems, special assistance should be forthcoming from the federal government for the provision of trunk highways in all four Atlantic provinces for heavy traffic to and from central Canada and the United States. This would promote trade and the tourist industry. The cost of road maintenance per capita in the Atlantic provinces, as the house will recognize, is the highest in Canada.
Then, as has been proposed several times from this side, an intensive program of scientific and industrial research as to the possibility of the use of coal resources should be undertaken as a means of expanding opportunities for employment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a program which I have suggested. It may not satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite, but at least it represents some of the things that they urged should be done when we were sitting on the other side. These things at least the hon. gentleman must do: call a provincial conference; set up a parliamentary committee; turn over to the government as a whole a responsibility which a well-meaning Minister of Labour is no more capable of coping with than would be the lowliest servant in the public service. This is an emergency. That is how the Prime Minister looked at this problem when he was talking to the Canadian people. What has eventuated since then to warrant the government's taking a relaxed attitude and proceeding about this matter as though it were going to be corrected in a few months? The prognostications of the research division of the department of the Minister of Trade


and Commerce indicate that unemployment on this level may continue certainly beyond 1962.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Where did the hon. member get that information?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read what Dr. Firestone, your own director of research, has had to say. If that is the picture, how can this government sit idly by, enjoying its present responsibilities and not addressing itself vigorously, with a sense of urgency, to a problem that affects thousands and thousands of people in this country who are demoralized because they have no work? That is the picture. Because that is the situation I say this to the Prime Minister, using the very words that he himself used in this house in this kind of debate on a previous occasion. These words are to be found at page 2039 of Hansard, 1955:
Will the Prime Minister-not state that he realizes that if we continue to deliberately delude ourselves concerning the unemployment situation we shall bring about a fear complex in this country which will have serious results in the future?
Those are the words of the right hon. gentleman. I ask him to bear in mind those words and to apply them to himself. I ask him to put the question to himself and give an answer; and the answer that the Prime Minister will give will, in large measure in days to come, determine his own personal fitness and that of his party to remain in power in Canada.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said he would answer a question at the conclusion of his speech. I wonder whether he would do so now? It has to do with the rather vague remarks he has made with regard to the import of automobiles from Russia. He said something about determining the cost of production of those vehicles. Would he explain what action he would take with regard to that matter and with regard to automobiles coming into this country from elsewhere than Russia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could very well ask my hon. friend what action he has taken with regard to the situation in China. There was, of course, no need for the amendments to the dumping legislation in order to do what I recommended. The power was in the existing legislation when we were in office. I was not suggesting that we should fail to recognize that where you sell, you must buy. But when you buy, I was simply pointing out, you must buy on terms that are not unfair to other exporters from whom Canadians import, that the transaction must be done on a basis that is fair and that it does not consist of the kind of situation that could develop from the preferred treatment of a

country with a lower priced economy taking advantage of other countries with a higher priced economy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It appears to me that the hon. member is discussing a hypothetical matter. Would he tell us exactly what he would do?


An hon. Member:: What are you doing about China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have told you what I would do. Let me ask the minister a question. What does he propose to do? Is he proposing to allow Soviet automobiles to be imported into Canada without bearing in mind the kind of reservation that I have just indicated? Will he answer that question? Thousands of my constituents want to know.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have one final question. I want to know what are those reservations that the hon. member is talking about.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be glad to deal with the question. Obviously my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce now is so preoccupied with his house duties that he cannot possibly ascertain all the problems that should concern him as Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would advise him that some of his officials at the present time are engaged in carrying on negotiations with certain countries. The Soviet union is one of them. My hon. friend may not have seen his associates for many months but when he returns to his office at six o'clock, if he will call up his deputy minister-whom he has not seen, I am sure, for some time-he will ascertain from him that these negotiations are under way. They have been under way now for many months.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A year and a half.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have been under way for a year and a half, someone suggests. This house and this country, including the constituents of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour and those in my own area, are extremely anxious to know what are the results of those negotiations. It might be possible for the minister to leave the house at least for 24 hours so that he could ascertain this information.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I asked the hon. member a simple question which he failed to answer. I simply say to him that he is completely false in his accusation that I am not in touch with the affairs of my department.
79951-0-42J
The Address-Mr. Lafreniere


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it parliamentary to make the allegation that a member of this house is completely false?


An hon. Member:: Surely; if you can prove it.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: If you say that a statement is untrue, I think it is parliamentary.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker-


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel too touchy about this matter. If the minister says that it is a false statement, and if he now says that he is in touch with his department, I am very happy to know that is the case.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He not only is in touch with his department but he has been in touch with it all along.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How is the Russian treaty getting along?
(Translation):


Mr. Robert Lafreniere (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members who addressed the house, I wish to extend my own sincere congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the member for Rimouski (Mr. Moris-sette). I compliment him on the fine literary quality of his speech, and also on the clarity and precision of the figures he supplied to his colleagues on both sides of the house. Those figures have revived our optimism with respect to Canada's immediate economic future.
I also offer sincere congratulations to the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man) for doing a fine job. I was particularly impressed with one sentence in her speech. Referring to her constituency and its historical past, she said: "We have preserved the best of the past and we are always looking for the best of the future".
That sentence reminded me of the present state of affairs and the government Canada has elected. We have kept the best men who, prior to 1957, were in the opposition, and have brought in on the government side, men of great ability-perhaps with the exception of yours truly-and we are looking for the best of the future.
Mr. Speaker, may I also congratulate you on your appointment. In the last few years, I have personally had the opportunity to appreciate your proficiency in legal matters; your friendship has enabled me to appreciate


Mr. Caron:: The 700,000 unemployed are also pessimistic.


Robert B. Lafrenière: It must be admitted that today the unemployed according to dominion

bureau of statistics figures, are somewhat in the same position, if not in a better one, than those of 1955, as I said a moment ago, and I am directing this remark in particular to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), for whom I have great respect.
I do not share the hon. member's views on unemployment and I want to tell him again, in case he was not in the house earlier, that in 1955, 7.4 per cent of the labour force was unemployed, while in December 1959, according to the same source of information, the proportion was only 5.9 per cent.
Thus, there is improvement in this field and I maintain that it is due in great part to the government's action and to the encouragement it has given to the Canadian people.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Mr. Tremblay:: Sit down.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could the hon. member just give me the figures for December 1956?


Robert B. Lafrenière: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Hull is interested, I could give him figures proving that there has been a cyclical increase in unemployment since world war II. However, I did not intend to put those figures on the record because I am always reluctant to quote figures, especially when they tend to disprove opinions voiced by my hon. friends.
Even so, there was unemployment in this country in 1948. The proportion was 3.2 per cent, then it went up to 4 per cent in 1949 and to 6 per cent in 1950.
As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) said in this house a few days ago, that is on Friday, January 29, the Korean war in 1950 helped to relieve the problem, one for which the government of the time was responsible to a certain extent.
The cycle again operated in 1951: the proportion was 3.3 per cent, then it increased to 4 per cent in 1952, decreased to 3.4 per cent in 1953, to increase again to 6.1 per cent in 1954, and to 7.4 per cent in 1955.
Then, Mr. Speaker-


Alexis Pierre Caron: I asked for the figures published in 1956.


Robert B. Lafrenière: Unfortunately I do not have those figures; if the hon. member would be kind enough to supply them to me-
The Address-Mr. Lajreniere


Alexis Pierre Caron: I wanted the figures for December 1956.


Robert B. Lafrenière: I thought the figures supplied to us would have shown him clearly enough that when he was sitting on the government side, there was a problem.
I was referring a moment ago to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Yet at the time, that is in 1955, no solution was proposed; in fact, there were no complaints from members of the government in power. I might address myself in particular to the hon. member for Hull, who appears to be following my remarks with special interest -for which I thank him-and ask him this question: Why, since the fall of the former government, have attempts been made to display before the Canadian people a situation intentionally described as deplorable, while under the Liberal administration, before the Conservative government came into power, things were even worse, according to figures from the dominion bureau of statistics? I might say that the present government has made commendable efforts to improve the situation. It has tried, for instance, to suggest so-called winter works to every municipality in the country, without encroaching upon provincial jurisdiction.
This new venture has been criticized by the opposition, but the record is there to show that winter works have afforded relief to the people.
In addition to this step taken by the Conservative government, may I also mention that the Department of Labour is now very effectively persuading unemployed workers to take up special training courses. Those people may take those courses-there are 500 of them and even more-and continue to draw unemployment insurance benefits.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a measure designed to improve the situation in the country, thanks to this government.
A moment ago I mentioned the winter works program. Last year that program made
40,000	additional jobs available to Canadians and to date this year more than 34,000 Canadians got employment that way.
I feel that the government deserves credit for its action and, since the hon. members opposite want figures showing at least the situation, I can say that the number of Canadians working this winter is 18,000 higher than last year.

The Address-Mr. Lafreniere
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell any longer on this aspect of my remarks, but I simply want to stress the fact that those who are here, on parliament hill, should create among the public-which would indeed be in accordance with the facts-an atmosphere of optimism and confidence which, added to the work and effort of the government, would improve conditions.
May I, as we often hear critical comment on the subject, remind the house of the wise decision taken last year by the Conservative government to abandon production of the CF-105, which, to my mind, has not been sufficiently discussed in this house. May I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, recall an excerpt from an article by a journalist of the name of Lorenzo Pare, which was published on January 22, in the paper L'Action Catholique.
That article which I am quoting in part, says:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker took the risk. His decision provoked a storm, even among his most faithful followers. But the government persevered in its decision. The most recent developments- and more particularly the decision of Soviet Russia to abandon the traditional air force in favour of missiles-proved that Mr. Diefenbaker was right.
Canadians will not fail to note it. For the true measure of a government is in such acts of courage, accomplished in spite of great difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate the government for taking that decision.
I do not want to criticize the previous government too strongly for making decisions in 1945 which cost billions of dollars to the country for national defence purposes and which proved almost useless.
We should at times keep in mind certain basic principles, Mr. Speaker, and there is one which says that to govern is to foresee. At that time, the government had not foreseen, and we must be thankful that the present government, in spite of rumours heard last year concerning the decision it was about to make, had the courage to cancel the CF-105 in order to avoid unnecessary expenditures to the Canadian people.
It is with this remark, Mr. Speaker, that I want to bring this short speech to an end. I hope I shall have the opportunity when other items are under consideration to point out once more the lack of consistency and the lack of vision shown by those who are today in the opposition, regretting as they do their failure to adopt measures they insist we should be taking today. They express regrets

over the past and the present gives them little cause for comfort in the cold region of the opposition.


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, together with my colleagues, I am very happy to see you back in your position as Speaker of the house. I know that last summer you represented our country in many other areas of the world, and those who accompanied you-at least, those I know-did not hesitate to say that you did so with great dignity, which did not surprise me at all.
I should also like to congratulate, even if it is a little late in the debate, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment to the deputy speakership of the house. Like all hon. members I know of his intelligence, his impartiality, and I am sure he will fulfil his task with devotion, competence and dignity.
Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) for the great honour which the Prime Minister conferred upon him in asking him to move adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He did so with much intelligence. I should like also to stress that the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) has brought the house a particular charm when she seconded the address in reply.
As did my colleagues, I too would like to welcome the two new members who have joined us lately, that is the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif).
And in closing my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the two new ministers who are now part of the cabinet, and congratulate all parliamentary secretaries who have been nominated, during the parliamentary recess.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening, I listened very carefully to the stump speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who told us at the beginning of his remarks that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was meaningless. Yet, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, spent all his time refuting everything the Leader of the Opposition himself had told us, when he spoke during the debate on the address. The Minister of Finance, as usual, went in for sarcasm and irony. Now I know that sarcasm and irony are usually what people fall back on when they are

short of genuine arguments, and I know that it is the favourite argument of the Minister of Finance.
I know the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, their cabinet colleagues and every Conservative member in this house hate to be reminded of their solemn pledges to the Canadian people in the 1957 and 1958 elections. We often hear this objection: "What did you do when you were in power?" However, that is beside the point, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. members opposite came to the people in 1957 and 1958, they told us of the problems which, in their view, were threatening Canada's economic life, and said to the Canadian people: "Put us in power, and we will put an end to those problems."
That is the reason why we are making a point to remind them of their promises, and to say: "Well, you committed yourselves to make this a better land to live in, so let's see you deliver the goods". That is what we are after. We were judged on our record, and we recognize it. But now, it is your turn to deliver to the Canadian people what you promised in the 1957 and 1958 elections.
When we picture Canada's present situation, we are accused of being prophets of doom. We are accused of speaking ill of Canada when we expose its true condition with respect to the economy, unemployment and other matters.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, when a child makes a mistake, I do not think it is running him down if you show him his mistake and tell him he should try to improve. You do not run down a child when you tell him his mistakes. And so, it is because we love Canada that we are drawing these things to the cabinet's attention and ask it to consider the problems and seek a way out. That is what we are aiming at.
We are not trying to run down the country. Oh, this is an expression I have often heard, "running down the province", but I repeat, when you want to help a child you are educating, I do not think it is running him down to show him his weaknesses and urge him to try to correct them.
That is what we are doing with this government.
Mr. Speaker, I also listened closely to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere). I had previously been reading the speech made in this house by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), from which I should like to quote a paragraph.
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard It is on page 515 of Hansard for Friday, January 29, 1960:
(Text):
We find that in 1946 the figure for unemployment was 4.7 of the labour force. These are all D.B.S. figures. In 1947 the figure was 3 per cent; in 1948, 3.2 per cent; in 1949, 4 per cent; in 1950, 6.1 per cent. That was the first cycle. Korea got them off the hook. In 1951 the figure was back down to 3.3 per cent. In 1952 the figure went hack up to 4 per cent. In 1953 it was 3.4 per cent. In 1954 it was 6 per cent in February and 7 per cent in March. The second cycle was in full swing again. In 1955 it was 7.4 per cent in March. Hon. members opposite still had not discovered unemployment. There is no evidence that they recognized this trend and did anything about it. In 1956 they had taken no action and unemployment went down to 5.5 per cent and up to 5.6 per cent in 1957. Once again there was that rise moving into the next cycle as their economists predicted it would. In 1958 it was 9.4 per cent.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what method the Minister of Labour uses to determine the percentage of unemployed in Canada. I should like to have some advice from him and his staff on this matter.
I have been looking through a publication entitled "Canadian Statistical Review", for the year 1957, published with the benevolent authorization of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill). What do we find on page 26, Mr. Speaker? We find table number VII, under the heading "Canadian Labour Force".
I have a copy here which I should like to read to the house.
In 1946, the Canadian labour force was
4.829.000,	of whom 143,000 were unemployed and seeking jobs. If we divide 4,829,000 by
143.000,	we get, according to our arithmetic 2.9 per cent and not 4.7 per cent as the Minister of Labour said last Friday.
And I shall continue to discuss this table. In 1947, the labour force was 4,942,000, whereas the number of people without work looking for jobs was 98,000; the proportion of unemployed was therefore 2 per cent, and the Minister of Labour told us that it was 3 per cent.
In 1948, the figure for the labour force was
4.988.000,	and 102,000 were jobless and looking for work; which means a proportion of 2 per cent, whereas the Minister of Labour maintained last Friday that it was 3.2 per cent.
In 1949, the figure for the labour force was,
5.055.000,	whereas the number of unemployed which were looking for work amounted to
132.000,	i.e. 2.6 per cent. But the Minister of Labour told us that it was 4 per cent.
656	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard
In 1950-


Mr. Drouin:: This figure has decreased since the Korean war.


Augustin Brassard: Later, I will have some very sweet remarks for my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Drouin).
In 1950, the labour force was 5,163,000, and the unemployed in search of work were
166,000.	Now-and this, you will see is quite something-the percentage of unemployed was
3.2	per cent. But what percentage did the Minister of Labour give us? Well, he told us, last Friday, that the percentage was 6.1 per cent.
In 1951, the labour force was 5,217,000, while there were only 106,000 unemployed seeking work, that is 2 per cent. Again, the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, gave a figure of 3.3 per cent.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am drawing this information from a book which was published by authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In 1952, the labour force was 5,315,000, of whom 129,000 were jobless and seeking work, which represents 2.4 per cent; the Minister of Labour, in his estimation, claims that it was 4 per cent.
In 1953, the labour force was 5,383,000, of whom 137,000 were jobless and seeking work; the percentage was therefore 2.5 per cent, but the Minister of Labour told us it was 3.4 per cent.
In 1954, the labour force was 5,426,000, while there were 232,000 jobless people seeking work, which represents a percentage of
4.2	per cent. I believe the Minister of Labour did not give any percentage for 1954.
In 1955, the labour force reached 5,558,000, of whom 230,000 were jobless and seeking work, that is 4.1 per cent; the Minister of Labour told us that it was 7.4 per cent. Besides, that is the percentage referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere). I hope he will correct his notes.
In 1956, the labour force was 5,705,000, while there were 179,000 jobless people seeking work, that is, a percentage of 3.1 per cent. The Minister of Labour, no doubt tampering with figures, arrived at a percentage of 5.5 per cent last Friday.
In 1957, of a labour force of 6,300,000,
257,000	were out of work and seeking employment. This was a percentage of 4.3 compared to the figure of 5.6 per cent quoted by the Minister of Labour.


In 1958, we find 405,000 unemployed workers in a labour force of 6,127,000. The proportion established by that publication was 6.6 per cent, whereas the figure of the Minister of Labour was 9.4 per cent. Yet, this was in 1958 and he might have manipulated the figures-


Mr. Bourdages:: Which month was this?


Augustin Brassard: I am giving you the figures for the whole year 1959, I shall tell the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay), who has been silent throughout the discussion of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that the figures I am quoting today are from a book-this is the third time I am saying so

but if my hon. friend did not hear me-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Lamontagne did not put them on.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Roberval deplored the plight of the 755,000 Canadians seeking employment, instead of concerning himself with the figures I gave him, he would show some measure of humanity and some sense of duty towards his fellow citizens.
In 1959, Mr. Speaker, the labour force comprised 6,228,000 people, of which 350,000 were unemployed and looking for jobs, which means a proportion of 5.6 per cent. Those, Mr. Speaker, are the true figures. I had no intention of quoting them in my remarks-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, if it is as silly as some other remarks of the hon. member, I can dispense with it.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Thank you.


Mr. Bourbonnais:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Augustin Brassard: No, I shall let him do so when I have finished my speech.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor has not yielded and I am afraid the hon. member who wishes to ask a question has no right to do so.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite happy to answer the questions the hon. members will want to ask me when I am through with my speech, but if they do not stop interrupting me, I will not be able to go on with my remarks.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: It is of no importance.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I know very well that the unemployment problem has no importance for the hon. member for Roberval. It is one of the reasons why-


Mr. Habel:: Why don't you tie him down?


Mr. Dupuis:: I wonder why he was not born dumb, that one.


An hon. Member:: He should have been born dumb.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: The comedy is over.


Augustin Brassard: Yours is over, but it is not a comedy we are playing.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: It was not serious, the
comedy.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope that what seems to be a chorus will refrain until the solo is over.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, after analysing the promises that were made to the people of Canada in 1957 and 1958, I came to the conclusion that they were of two kinds. On the one hand there were promises that could increase our economic standard and, on the other hand there were other promises which appealed to the ideals, to the noble feelings of the Canadians.
May I first deal with those appealing to the noble feelings and to ideals, and then with those having to do with the economic life of our country.
This could be used as an appendix to a small book entitled "Two Years of Great Achievements". If we could publish those promises at the end of this small book, we would have the real picture of the situation in Canada, of the sincerity of our leaders and of the little care they show for the most solemn pledges they made to the people of Canada.
On April 25, 1957, according to a report in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 26, 1957, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)., then leader of the opposition, had this to say:
(Text):
A Conservative government would abolish closure. (Translation):
On May 13, 1957, according to the same newspaper, dated May 14, 1957, the Prime Minister said this:
(Text):
A Progressive Conservative government would move to abolish the parliamentary rule of closure.
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard (Translation):
Here, Mr. Speaker, is one of the promises which, I believe, appealed to the noble feelings of the Canadians, to the desire and to this house. The Prime Minister, who had made this solemn pledge, has repeated it all across the country. However, we have not heard much about it since, except for a small resolution put on the order paper in 1958, as well as a reference made recently in the house, when he said: "Now that the Conservatives are in power, there is no longer a danger that this might be used". But why did he not tell the Canadians, in 1957: "If we come to power, we will never use closure", instead of giving them the solemn pledge of removing this rule from the statute books? I think that, perhaps unwittingly, the Prime Minister, misled the people of Canada when he made that solemn promise.
What did the Prime Minister have to say about the automobile tax during an election campaign? According to the Windsor Star of May 10, 1957, the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, said:
(Text):
Removing the excise tax would aid not only the automotive producers but also the feeder industry.
(Translation):
In Oshawa, home town of the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister said on May 29, 1957, according to the Toronto Telegram of May 30, 1957:
(Text):
He told the automotive town audience his party would lift luxury taxes from cars because they are an essential part of public and private transportation. There is no more justification for a luxury tax on automobiles than there would have been for one on the horse and buggy 50 years ago.
(Translation):
That is what the Prime Minister said in Oshawa on May 29, 1957; and what did he do to fulfil his promise? He decreased it by 2\ per cent; but he had promised to lift it completely.
(Text):
Removing and lift.
(Translation):
In the words of my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Boivin):
When the Conservatives change places they also change faces.
And what did the then leader of the opposition say in Winnipeg, on May 14, 1957:
(Text):
The Conservatives, he said, would repair a serious omission in the federal health plan which does not include tubercular and mental institutions.
658	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard (Translation):
In Saskatchewan, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail for May 27, 1959:
(Text):
Mr. Diefenbaker said the Conservative party still believes that hospital insurance should cover patients in mental and tubercular institutions.
(Translation):
What action has the Prime Minister taken to fulfil that solemn pledge, now that the Canadian people have given him their confidence, to an extent never seen before in Canada's political history? He has turned his back and has ignored his pledge to the Canadian people.
Here is what he said on tight money on February 19, 1957, in a speech to the Montreal chamber of commerce and I quote:
(Text):
Federal government expenditures constitute the biggest inflationary factor in our economy. Credit restrictions that have been introduced in our country apply only to individuals-They have forced provincial governments, municipal and school administrations to either discontinue necessary and vital improvements or pay excessive interest rates to finance them.
(Translation):
I also remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister of Finance sat on this side of the house, he too used to speak with great feeling on the tight money situation. He cried over the plight of the small wage earner.
One might have expected, now that he is in charge of government finance, that there would be no more credit restrictions. However, restrictions were far less severe and far less serious under the former Liberal administration.
When the St. Laurent government handed over its powers to the present administration, I think it was on June 26, 1957 or rather on June 21, the rate on treasury bills was 3.81 per cent. Then it rose to 5.12 per cent and finally, on August 12, 1959 reached the alltime high of 6.16 per cent.
The Prime Minister keeps telling the Canadian people, either at public meetings or on television, that the Conservative government, his government, has no tight money policy.
When public bodies, corporations and small businesses started to react, he hastened to go on television and lay the blame on chartered banks, ignoring his own responsibility in this field as leader of the government and as Canada's first citizen.
Canadians, and even some Conservative party organizers, have realized the tight money situation. I need only refer, in this connection to an article which appeared last October 2 in the Toronto Globe and Mail reporting on a meeting of organizers and 

supporters of my good friend, the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee). The article had the following heading:
(Text):
Two Party Members Blast Fiscal Policy
A member of the Progressive Conservative party challenged Prime Minister Diefenbaker Wednesday night to disguise himself as a small businessman and try to get a bank loan.
The challenge came from Frank O'Byrne of the Agincourt Progressive Conservative association at an association meeting called to hear the member from York-Scarborough.
Mr. O'Byrne was commenting on a statement attributed to the Prime Minister recently when questioned about tight money. "Tight money? I don't know what it is,'' Mr. Diefenbaker is reported to have replied. "Mr. Diefenbaker," said Mr. O'Byrne, "should disguise himself as a small businessman and walk into any bank in this country and try to get a bank loan. He may be fooling himself about tight money but he is not fooling us," Mr. O'Byrne said.
(Translation):
I think that this evidence is much more conclusive and acceptable than mine is to my hon. friends opposite.
With regard to government policy on credit restrictions, I should like to read also a short article published in the September 7, 1959, issue of the Letter Review:
(Text):
Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Finance Minister Fleming have added nothing to the stature of the government or the enlightenment of the public by their recent utterances on the current tight money situation. This is unfortunate. It is unfortunate in the first place because both Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Fleming consciously, or otherwise, appear to be suggesting that the difficulties facing borrowers are mainly attributable to the policies of the chartered banks. This is both untrue and unfair.
(Translation):
Again on the matter of credit, Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Gazette, which is not necessarily friendly to the Liberal party, had this to say in an editorial dated October 5, 1959. Please note that this is an editorial and not a news report.
(Text):
The government cannot sit upon the fence and exhort or criticize others. Its own role in what has happened, and will happen, is very real.
For, as Royal Bank president James Muir pointed out recently, "it must be made clear to everybody that the Bank of Canada and not the chartered banks controls the volume of money and credit within our country-so long as the money supply is not allowed to increase with the demand for loans, the chartered banks must resort to the curtailment of loans through direct restriction (and rationing) of bank credit."
(Translation):
There is something else I want to say about the Bank of Canada. I very well remember statements made by the present Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister himself before June 1957. If my memory is correct, we had credit restrictions in 1955.

At that time, we really had a credit restriction policy, Mr. Speaker, because the Liberals who were then in power had the courage to make decisions and to make them known to the Canadian people.
The previous government, Mr. Speaker, was not in the habit of weighing each of its actions or each of its decisions according to the number of votes they might bring; its first objective was the welfare of the country and not that of the Liberal party.
About credit restrictions-indeed Mr. Speaker I am thinking again of the Bank of Canada-I repeat what I said on November 23, 1959 in a televised broadcast at home, that the Bank of Canada, if my memory is right, was set up by a Tory government, in fact, under the Bennett administration. If the government of today feels that the Bank of Canada is not discharging its functions properly, why then do the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues not introduce amendments in this house-and it would be their responsibility to do so-why don't they introduce amendments to bring the Bank of Canada to play the part it should play in our economy?
Not very long ago, the city of Montreal borrowed $13 million at a 7.58 per cent interest rate. The city of Chicoutimi paid 6.49 per cent interest to float a $235,000 issue on November 10, 1959. On October 27, the municipality of McMasterville floated $443,000 at a net cost of 7.07 per cent. When this municipality borrowed money in 1955 it had paid only 4.01 per cent.
Interest rates are high, Mr. Speaker. In my humble opinion, those rates do not particularly affect the big companies since such interest is for the most part deductible for income tax purposes, the remainder I think being paid by the consumers at least on goods, on labour costs, through an increase paid by the consumers. It is not the same thing for small enterprises having but little capital. Nor is it the same thing for lower-bracket salary workers, because they have to pay for higher priced commodities or labour, as a result of increased interest rates.
Government representatives have always given us the impression that they were looking after lower bracket salary workers. And they like to repeat that in their speeches. But what are they doing today? What are they doing to correct a situation which is detrimental to lower salaried people, to small industries? If my memory serves me right, the Prime Minister of Canada, who was then leader of the opposition, said in Brockville, on May 8, 1957, in reference to small industries, as recorded in the Ottawa Journal of May 8 of the same year, the following:
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard (Text):
Canada, Mr. Diefenbaker said, might well follow the United States in encouraging small business. It could do so by offering technical assistance, granting loans and making defence contracts available to the little fellow.
(Translation):
In fairness to the Prime Minister, I must say that the government has set up a committee to consider the possibility of assisting small industry. But last year-I still remember-somebody asked the Prime Minister in the house if this committee would lend money to small business concerns. The Prime Minister then replied, I also remember, that at the time it was out of the question. His answer gave us the impression that possibly the committee might, in the future, lend money to small businesses. But this promise was made in 1957. When it was made, it was meant to influence the vote. People throught that if the leader of the opposition became prime minister and set up a committee to assist small businesses across the country, it would provide a new stimulus to the whole Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? (Text):



CONDOLENCES TO MR. SPEAKER ON DEATH OF MOTHER

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me to do so, I should like to extend to you, on behalf of hon. members in all parts of the house, the sincere sympathy and condolences of all of us on the passing of your mother.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted on behalf of our party to join with the Prime Minister in expressing sincerely the sympathy we all feel.


Mr. Speaker:: I am deeply grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and to all hon. members for their sympathy at this time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an
660	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Brassard address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
(Translation):
Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
shortly after the six o'clock adjournment, one of my friends, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard) told me that I had used yearly statistics, while I should have used monthly statistics.
Having read over the speech made by the Minister of Labour, I should like to quote a sentence which clearly shows that the statistics given by the Minister of Labour were for years and not months. It is to be found in the record of January 29, 1960, page 491, and I quote:
(Text):
I would ask the house to examine with me the unemployment figures during the years when the present opposition was in office when this cycle was developing.
(Translation):
I am very glad that the hon. member for Chicoutimi should have made this remark, because I am now able to complete what I had to say about unemployment.
In the eleven years during which the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has been a member of the cabinet, the percentage of jobless people has been less than 3 per cent for seven years; as regards the other four years, it was about 3 per cent, for two years, and about 4 per cent for the other two years. It is therefore fair to say that the hon. mernoer for Essex East has no lesson to learn from the Minister of Labour.
And that also explains why it is so difficult for us to obtain from the Minister of Labour accurate statistics on unemployment, when we know that his own staff is unable to estimate the accurate percentage of jobless people who are seeking work in Canada.
While I am on this matter, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to point out to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) a situation which I have at heart, and which concerns my own constituency. It appears that the Canadian National Railways intend to have their cars repaired at Garneau station in future, while they are now being repaired at Chauvigny. Should that decision be implemented, Mr. Speaker, 50 heads of families in my constituency would be deprived of a job. I would therefore urge the Minister of Transport to reconsider the situation and see to it that unemployment does not increase in my constituency, where there are so many jobless people, both heads of families and young people who, through lack of work, are unable to earn their living.


I should like to say a few words to the hon. member for Dorchester with regard to Canada's external affairs. I would have liked to deal with other matters he discussed, but I shall refrain for lack of time. May I just read to him this statement from the Manchester Guardian for January 3, 1958, and I quote:
(Text):
When the Liberals were defeated in June, the most common reaction outside Canada was regret that this meant the withdrawal from office of Mr. Pearson at a time when he had greatly enhanced his moral reputation and influence. All sorts of countries had learned to respect Canada as a nation which threatened no one but which had a mind of her own; which had pulled herself up by her own boots, but had no axe to grind.
(Translation):
I should also like to quote this from an article which appeared in the News Chronicle for October 16, 1959:
(Text):
People are saying that the voice of Canada has been too silent during the history-making events of the past week-that some of the initiative previously shown by Lester Pearson in world affairs has been absent.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, surely the former minister of external affairs and now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has no lessons to take from the hon. member for Dorchester.
When you think, Mr. Speaker, of the tremendous number of promises which the present Prime Minister made to the Canadian people, and of how he has ignored those promises since he took office, I think these words from Lenin might well be applied to him:
(Text):
Promises are like pie crusts, made to be broken. (Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Who wrote that?


Augustin Brassard: That is how the
Prime Minister honours his promises.
I also think the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) had the same kind of attitude with regard to promises, when he said a difference should be made between promises made in the house and outside the house.
Mr. Speaker, having only two minutes left, of the time allowed to me I shall close my remarks by saying that I very much disagree with the Prime Minister as far as the administration of this country's business is concerned. However, there is something else I want to point out to the house before I sit down: In my opinion we are one of the rare nations in the world who force their Prime Minister to pay an amount of $5,000

to live in a residence belonging to the state. When Mr. St. Laurent accepted to go and live in that house, he himself established the rent he would pay at $5,000. Yet, I am sure Mr. St. Laurent did not intend to impose such obligation upon his successors.
To my mind, it is a shame for a country like Canada to make the man who devotes himself to his country's administration, pay an annual rent of $5,000. I hope that the parliament of Canada will consider the matter and take the necessary steps to remedy such conditions.
(Text):


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make my contribution to this debate. I want to offer my warmest congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address; the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and the hon. lady, the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman).
As I listened to the hon. member for Rimouski, my seat mate, I realized that here was a young Canadian already wearing the mantle of potential greatness. His potentialities were evident and much more will be heard from him in the future. Of the lovely lady from Grenville-Dundas, I would just say that she acquitted herself admirably and set a standard which will challenge the best of those who will take her place in the future. Her father and her constituents may well be proud.
Since I came to the house I think I have attended diligently. I have observed the members' conduct here and heard them in action. I think that perhaps my observations may be interesting to the house and I should like to say before I give them that, of course, they are made without prejudice. It is quite obvious that the giants of the opposition of yesteryear fitted into the seats of the ministry with much more ease and in a much abler fashion than those sad, sorry, forlorn, and frustrated souls who occupy the front benches of the opposition down here to my right. They have not yet realized that the Canadian public gave a verdict in 1957 and 1958. It just was not supposed to happen, and they have not yet got into the habit of being in opposition and doing the job they are supposed to do.
Some hon. members coming to this house in support of the government who have been put over here on the rump side and who rub shoulders with the deflated characters who sit over here may not be very happy to find themselves to your left, Mr. Speaker. But as a new member I have appreciated sitting on this side of the house because it has
The Address-Mr. More given me an opportunity to observe at first hand the great parliamentarians of the government benches in action.
I come from the wonderful province of Saskatchewan and I live in the capital city of Regina-the jewel of the prairie-an evergrowing jewel becoming greater and more sparkling every day and every year. I love my province, and I think my city is the finest place in the world in which to live and raise a family. It has been good to me for many years. I have spent all my life in my province; I have spent over 30 years in my constituency. I appreciate the confidence that they placed in me in sending me here in the election of 1958. I hope I will interpret their wishes in the manner in which they want them interpreted and I pledge myself to serve them in the most competent manner of which I am capable.
Sometimes when I listen to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) I wonder where in the world I have been living for 52 years.


Hazen Robert Argue: So do many people in Saskatchewan.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: But the hon. member should not be one of them. The picture which the hon. member for Assiniboia paints of my native province is not the picture I have in my mind at all. It is completely incompatible with my experience and with the facts as I know them.


Hazen Robert Argue: Eggs to you.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Pipe down, my friend; I have never interrupted you. I say that we have a great province and the finest people in the world. They are not whiners. They are not sorry for their plight. They are independent and resourceful and have contributed much to the development of Canada. I know they will carry their full share in the future development of Canada.
When they come to Ottawa to present their views I believe they have a perfect right to do so. We have had great areas of Canada grow under the benevolent protection of tariffs and the people of our province merely want to be given the same consideration.
From time to time I am informed that my friend the hon. member for Assiniboia goes back to my province and makes speeches and appears on television. He draws some fair audiences, too. It is interesting to hear the results of these and see how they are tabulated in certain quarters. According to the hon. gentleman we should not even be here, but I will leave it to hon. members of this house to determine whether or not the hon. member for Assiniboia is really the true voice

The Address-Mr. More of the prairies. We have 17 federal constituencies in that province. You can take a look at the membership representing the other 16 and decide for yourselves.
I have heard suggestions in this chamber, in the corridors and elsewhere to the effect that the throne speech debate is a great waste of time, that it is too long and does not contribute much of value, that it should be curtailed if not almost dispensed with. I am not one who agrees with those suggestions. A backbencher in this house does not get too much opportunity to participate in debates. The debate on the throne speech is one of the opportunities given to him to voice his views and to go freewheeling around his constituency or around the globe, if he likes. I think it is well worthwhile and that the backbencher is entitled to make his observations in this debate. Perhaps the 40-minute time limit is too long and could be reduced but certainly I feel that the throne speech debate should be continued for the length of time it now runs. If there is a move to cut 10 minutes from the speaking time of participants that could well be adopted and would serve the purpose of reducing speaking time and meet the criticism about waste of time.
Much has been said in this debate by the hon. members of the opposition about the omissions from the speech from the throne. They have been extremely critical, have spoken at length about it and treated us to many lectures on the subject. But I do not think they are making much headway because it is a weak attack. What does and will count with the people when they judge this session of parliament will be the accomplishments of the session. After all, there have been many throne speeches during the time this parliament has been in existence, many of them under a Liberal government, and in spite of the promises that were made in election after election by the Liberals we never heard in those throne speeches any mention of a national hospital insurance scheme or the South Saskatchewan river dam project. Here we are now after slightly over two years of Conservative administration and both these projects are in effect.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) is being very kind to me. I thought when I mentioned national hospital insurance and claimed that it was brought into effect by the Conservative government the hon. member would rise in his overexuberant, voluble fashion and defend himself by saying that the Liberals passed legislation for a national hospital insurance scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not want to interrupt your first speech.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I would have welcomed the hon. member's interruption because I wanted to remind the hon. gentleman that after the 1957 election when there were rumours that I might be successful on my second try at winning the election campaign the Liberals marched my hon. friend into Regina to bolster Liberal morale there. Of course, we were delighted and honoured to have him. He stepped off the plane in Regina and was very dignified, perhaps too dignified. A television fellow came up to him and welcomed him saying, "Mr. Martin, have you any comments to make?"
I am speaking from memory and I may paraphrase incorrectly but the hon. gentleman can correct me if what I attribute to him is wrong. The hon. member replied, "Why, my greatest concern at this time is that the Conservative party has no interest in hospital insurance. They have delayed and are making no progress. We passed the legislation and they have reached agreement with only one province. The Conservatives have no intention of following through because they do not want it."
The hon. member knows very well that we brought in agreements and the scheme became effective. We are all for it and are glad we have it.
Under this government much has been accomplished. In 1958 we went to the people and told them we had done the immediate things we thought were necessary to alter conditions in the country as they had been left us by our Liberal friends, those peerless hon. gentlemen who sat on the other side of the house for 22 years. They never got out of a scrape in all their years in office unless there was a total war or an event like the outbreak of hostilities in Korea that shook them out of their lethargy and got them off the hook. They never got out of any situation on their own.
I am not going to be like the columnist who on the front page of the newspaper under a byline said that the throne speech was meaty and full and it would be a long session, and in his daily column on the inside of the page said it was dull, empty and surely would not keep parliament very long. His ghost writers somehow just did not get together.
This has not been very dull for me up to date. There has been a lot of interest in this debate for me. One of the things that has been of real interest to me has been the final admission and publication of the fact that the great Liberal party is dead. Its demise has been acknowledged and admitted in the house by no less august a personage than the hon. member for Essex East, not once but twice. It has happened rather quickly. It is just

The Address-Mr. More
two months short of two years since we have been in office. It happened, as I say, extremely quickly. It is less than two years since they came from that great position of power which they felt was eternally theirs, given them almost by divine right and guaranteed for life. They then moved over to this side of the chamber to sit next to the small group of C.C.F'ers. We did a pretty good job of eliminating the splinter parties as they used to be called and only one remains. We have one member from Saskatchewan. We might have got rid of him, but perhaps next time. There are a few others from British Columbia and Ontario but all told there are only eight. However, in two months less than two years this small group seduced the formerly powerful Liberal party and the Liberal party succumbed to them.
For years the greats of the opposition of yesteryear sat on this side of the chamber before they assumed office. Hon. members of the Conservative opposition in previous years had 25 or 28 of these C.C.F. self-styled socialists sitting beside them on this side of the chamber. They had to rub shoulders with them and sit next to them, but they were not seduced and they did not succumb because they believed in their policies and their ideals. Finally, they reached the position to which they were entitled and they will stay there for a long time.
Instead of having a party in opposition now, Mr. Speaker, we have just two groups. I shall leave it to those in the public galleries and the people of Canada to make up their minds as to which is the most effective of the two groups. The C.C.F. know what the job of an opposition is, but the Liberals sitting here have not yet admitted that they are not the ministry. They have not learned and all they give us is a bunch of lectures. I have had the honour of their visits to my constituency many times. All these greats and former greats who are now in opposition have come into my constituency. The hon. member for Essex East has been there and he is a good friend of mine. He even got a fellow to drive him a few miles out in the country where I live to see me, but I was not at home. I was not at the $5 a plate dinner either which he attended to put a floor under Thatcher and to help the Saskatchewan Liberal party get going. I heard they got $2,100 out of it, but they did not get it at $5 a plate. I do not know how much my hon. friend from Essex East put into the kitty but the fact is we have not heard a word about Thatcher since.
This debate has not been uninteresting to me at all. There have been some very good contributions to it, and one of those contributions that I found interesting was that
made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). I had the opportunity to visit Japan last May. I spent a couple of weeks there. I saw in the resurgence of that country much to admire. They are under great pressure from the communist bloc, but they are resisting it with the strength that only free men in a free enterprise and capitalistic system can show. I found that they are great friends of Canada, and as their economy grows and as they develop it will present us with a great opportunity. With understanding and co-operation between our two governments I look with confidence to expanding trade on a mutually beneficial basis.
What about the communist world? In his speech the hon. member expressed the same old socialist nonsense. Every time you want something and the state does not look after you, then you are overwhelmed with anxiety and fear. I do not subscribe to that sort of nonsense at all. His only panacea is more statism. I am not a socialist. Surely, that is evident by now. I am not an apologist for our present capitalistic and free enterprise system because in this world as we know it there is no place on earth where the people have benefited more than those who live in the country of our neighbour to the south and those who live here in Canada. We have the second highest living standard in the world. That has been brought about under this free enterprise and capitalistic system that my friends always get up and apologize for.
They always say that it will not work. It is true it has its faults, but I ask the hon. member to tell me of one system in the world that has been more flexible and more able to correct its faults and go on to serve its people and do a better job than free enterprise. I say to the hon. member for Vancouver East that I am a firm believer in our free enterprise system and in the resourcefulness that it gives to the people who live under it and that with courage and working together as free men we have the ability and the will to meet any challenge, economic or otherwise, no matter where it comes from in this world as we know it today.
The hon. member went on quite a bit further. I was interested in what he had to say. I see where he gained some notoriety or notice in the paper. He said, "This is indeed a year for truth". I agree it could well be a year for truth. I do not know to whom he is implying dishonesty in past years, but I have a few questions I should like to ask my hon. friend. I think the people in Canada, and certainly the people in my province where there will be an election, probably in June, are very interested.

The Address*-Mr. More
I would like to ask him, what are the real objects and aims of this new party that is going to be put on the people as my hon. friend said in his remarks, from the top rather than from the bottom? What really are its aims and objects? He is giving his all to its formation, and giving it willingly. Is it to keep the cold class war going we have that pretty well taken care of in Canada. For years and years my socialist friends picked on the mortgage companies. Then it was the banks. Later it was private business. Now they stand up and say they are all for the little businessman.
I was a member of the retail merchants association in the early days of the C.C.F. They did not distinguish between them in those days. Any guy who was fortunate enough to make a little money and invest it and make a little profit in making his living, they were against him; they were out to get him. They have not changed so far as I am concerned. Then with the formation of this great new party-I see my hon. friend rising; I do not know, but maybe it is the voice of Stanley Knowles that is speaking-with respect to the formation of this great party, is it solely for the purpose of providing an exchequer for the next election which my hon. friends will have to face? Are they taking it out of the pockets of the labouring men to put it in the pockets of the hierarchy, so that they can put it in their coffers?
They talk about our publicity and our public relations. I leave it to the house to decide what would happen. They will have them screaming all over the country. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a year for truth. I am proud to belong to a party that does not believe in a nation whose people are divided because of race, colour, class or creed but believes in one people and one nation, free and courageous and capable of meeting the challenge of this decade and building to greater heights than ever before.
I believe, regardless of what the hon. member who just resumed his seat said, that our stature in international affairs is continuing to grow under the wise guidance of our beloved and capable Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green). I want to be brief and at this time I only want to put on the record a quotation from the speech he made in Vancouver on January 4, 1960, to the advertising and sales bureau of Vancouver. I think he summed up the position very well when he said:
Now I come back to my text, that no nation faces a greater challenge in world affairs than Canada and that no nation has greater opportunity for leadership. Perhaps Canada could play a decisive role in bringing world peace. In any event, let us go into this new decade with the optimism and the courage and the strength of


character of our forefathers. If we do, I believe that Canada will end the decade as one of the leading nations of the world.
There it is again, Mr. Speaker. Not the fear and anxiety of socialists. More statism is their only panacea. I repeat, not the fear and anxiety of socialists but the opportunity, the challenge and the courage of free men in a free society.
I now want to turn briefly to a subject in which I am greatly interested and which is of great interest to the people of the prairie provinces, particularly of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I am speaking now of a farm problem among other things. I am not a farmer. In our group we have many practical farmers who will say their piece. I want to speak on a subject that will bring benefits to the farmers of the prairies and that is the development of the port of Churchill. There are three doors open from Canada, as I understand it, to overseas trade and commerce. We have the door on the east coast and the St. Lawrence seaway; we have the door on the west coast with the harbours there; and we have a door which is the greatest door through which potential benefits of overseas trade could flow to the prairies, namely the door of the port of Churchill. I do not expect to get too much sympathy for my argument.
I do not expect too much sympathy for my argument from members of the Liberal party because in general they support their leader completely. Churchill is a little bit to the north and probably their view of it will be "from igloo to igloo". Any time they get away from the warmer regions of Canada to consider the north they look at it as nothing but igloos and igloos. The attitude used to be from tent to tent or from tepee to tepee when we were expanding from east to west but now it is from igloo to igloo as we go north. Such vision, such imagination, will never put them back where they think they have a divine right to be.
Churchill is past the stage of being an igloo town and it is going to go places. I have no criticism of the great developments that have taken place for the doors to markets in the east and in the west. But I do say in all seriousness that much of the problem we have in the prairie provinces could be removed if at this time the real potentialities of Churchill were considered and projects undertaken to develop them. I do not think this should be left to the government alone. I think private enterprise, business and corporations should give this matter their attention.
Churchill today is a thriving town of 1,500 people. It has schools, stores, hotels and an active chamber of commerce. It is the location of Canadian and United States military

bases and a rocket base and it has a five million bushel grain terminal. It has daily railway passenger service and daily air schedules from an excellent airport.
The open season for the port runs from July 25 to October 15 at the present time which is complementary to our harvesting and delivery season. With modern techniques and facilities such as radar, radio, ice patrols, helicopters and other marine aids, there is no reason why this season cannot be greatly extended. There is no longer to my mind any reason for maintaining the discriminatory differentials in freight rates and marine rates or for confining the area which can make use of this port to the present small area of the prairie provinces. I understand that the shipment of wheat through Churchill means an 11cent greater return to the farmer and 7 cents less charge to the consumer because the port is 1,100 miles nearer to Europe and our markets than shipping through the St. Lawrence seaway. That is a total saving of 17 cents per bushel.
I do not want to take too long, Mr. Speaker, because other members want to speak but I should like to refer to an article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of September 24 where it is pointed out that ocean transport, provided the bottoms carry a full load, is the cheapest in the world. It is also pointed out that at that date 15,980,000 bushels of wheat had been shipped through Churchill in 42 vessels, or an average load of 380,475 bushels each and that direct shipments to Europe in ocean bottoms through Fort William had amounted to 13,500,000 bushels in 70 ships or an average of only 192,860 bushels in each ship.
I think the farmers of western Canada have a right to have their wheat delivered to market in a way that will bring the greatest return to them. I do not think that development at Churchill from now on will in any way affect the St. Lawrence seaway picture. I think its future is assured. The shipping that is going to come in and go out over that route will develop it. But in the meantime I do not think we should have to wait for development at Churchill.
I want to put on the record certain recommendations that have been made by the Hudson bay route association, a voluntary organization representing individuals, business, towns, villages, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, rural and urban municipalities and the provinces concerned. There is need at Churchill to make the most of these potentialities and the association points out that the first need is for additional grain storage space. Second, there is need for the extension of ship berthing and docking space.
The Address-Mr. Roberge Third, there is need for the shipment of grain from C.P.R. points to Churchill. The C.P.R. lines cross other lines where shipments of grain could be diverted over the Churchill route, and I see no reason why that cannot be arranged. Fourth, there is need for the establishment of competitive freight rates with respect to incoming freight on the Hudson bay line. Fifth, there is need for the extension of the marine insurance season at competitive rates. Sixth, there is need for an investigation into the possibility of establishing a port of transshipment in Newfoundland with storage facilities which would be open all year. Much more grain could then go through Churchill and could be placed in a position where it would be available for onward shipment throughout the year and not just for five or six months as is the case now in shipping through Churchill.
Finally, sir, I want to say a few words of appreciation to our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of his cabinet. They are capable, earnest men with the vision and wisdom that the nation needs at this time. I have confidence in them and trust them. I feel sure from what I know, and I travel throughout my constituency and province a lot, that the people of Canada have that same trust in them. I pledge to them my loyalty and full support.
(Translation) :


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with previous speakers in this debate who have followed tradition and offered well deserved congratulations to those who have been entrusted with new responsibilities.
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) deserves congratulations on his appointment as Deputy Speaker of the house and your assistant, Mr. Speaker, as well as chairman of the committee of the whole house. I had the privilege of knowing the member for Quebec South when we were reading law together at Laval University, and my experience is that he will fulfil his new task with much dignity, wisdom and savoir-faire.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who very ably discharged the thankless task he had been called upon to do.
(Text):
I should also like to pay my compliments to the charming lady from Grenville-Dundas who made a very good contribution to this debate.
(Translation):
My hon. friend from Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) should also be congratulated on his

The Address-Mr. Roberge appointment to the office of Associate Minister of National Defence. We wish him a great deal of courage and success.
(Text):
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) on his appointment to the ministry in the capacity of Minister of Public Works.
(Translation):
One of the first problems, Mr. Speaker, with which I would like to deal tonight, concerns a situation now facing independent telephone companies. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has probably received, during the year, hundreds of letters from small independent telephone companies. You, yourself, Mr. Speaker, have probably received some from companies located in the vicinity of Quebec city.
The Independent Telephone Companies Association of Canada represents 650 telephone companies in Quebec and Ontario. Those companies serve more than 280,000 patrons, which is evidence of their importance in the economy of those two provinces. It also means that the government should help them out in some way or another.
At the time of the Liberal administrations of Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent, independent telephone companies benefited from grants paid to them by the Department of Transport, when they proceeded with projects to improve their services or with some major repair work. The government came to their assistance through special grants as soon as the projects had been approved.
But since the Conservative party has been in power, the subsidies have been discontinued and the smaller independent telephone companies have to face very real financial problems.
I suggest that the government consider the possibility of restoring those grants to small telephone companies. If, on the other hand the government feels that this help is not justified, I suggest, as did those who wrote to the Minister of Finance, that the relevant provisions with regard to the Industrial Development Bank of Canada Act should apply to small independent telephone companies.
There is another problem upon which I want to draw the government's attention, Mr. Speaker, which more particularly affects the constituency of Megantic and deserves to be dwelt upon a few moments, and I now more particularly direct my remarks to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). The town of Black Lake in my riding has two post offices, one being classified as rural and the other as semi-staff.
For this fiscal year 1957-58, the revenue of those two post offices amounted to $12,000.

Some people in the city of Black Lake feel that a public building should be erected to house the post office. If the government finds that such a building is necessary, I must warn public works officials to be careful in choosing an appropriate location for the proposed post office.
Mr. Speaker, in 1959 Robertsonville post office became a semi-staff office and, following the resignation of the ex-postmaster it was necessary to move the post office into a private home. Thus a public building is required also in Robertsonville and I urge the Minister of Public Works to note my recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, the most important problem facing the people of Megantic constituency, and more particularly the people of Thetford Mines, is that concerning asbestos.
The problem is of particular concern to me because it involves a large number of people in my constituency. I should like to deal with it from two angles: the production of asbestos, and Canada's external trade.
In view of the fact that this is probably the first time the problem has been discussed in this house. I think I might briefly go over the background of the situation.
Asbestos is not a new mineral. Its history goes back as far as Herodotus, the father of history. There was even mention of it at the times of Plutarch and of Marco Polo. It was identified in those days by its special properties rather than by its present name.
Asbestos was first discovered in Canada, around 1870, by a farmer named Jos. Fecteau, from the township of Ireland in Megantic county. In fact, a monument has been erected in his honour in the city hall square of Thetford Mines.
It was only around 1874, however, that serious efforts were made to extract this mineral from mines located in my area. Asbestos mining was quite different in those days from what it is today, and perhaps it might be interesting, in this connection, to quote from a publication entitled: "Asbestos, the strangest of minerals," published by the Quebec asbestos industry information service, in co-operation with the main asbestos mining companies:
In the very first days of asbestos mining in Quebec, the mineral was delivered to the market on horseback.
After being separated from the rock by means of tools, the fibres were put into small bags. From time to time, the miners, who doubled as farmers, took their horses out of the pasture and, having loaded the bags on their back, drove them through woods and swamps to the closest railway stop. In winter, transportation was easier; they used to put the bags on sleds drawn by oxen.

This transportation system lasted from 1875 to 1878, until a railway line was brought into the asbestos country. Since then, asbestos shipments have been an important and stable source of revenue for the Canadian railways.
The Quebec Central Railway has also benefited by it.
At present, asbestos deposits are mined by many companies, the largest being the Canadian Johns Manville, with head office in the town of Asbestos, in the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Dubois). In the district I have the honour to represent here, many companies share this natural wealth and co-operate with a view to efficient extraction. Evidently, this will extend the life of those mines and will give employment for many more years to increasing numbers of workers. For instance, during the last decade, the Asbestos Corporation Limited, the Bell Asbestos Mines Limited and the Johnson's Company Limited have joined forces to move part of the city of Thetford Mines in order to develop mineral deposits which before could not be mined because of the presence of the railway, the national highway and many houses.
The Quebec Central Railway line has been rebuilt a short distance from the asbestos deposits, for a length of about nine miles. Fart of the national highway which crossed the city of Thetford Mines has also been closed to the public. A new section of this highway has been built almost exclusively at the expense of those companies. As to the merchants or others who occupy mining sites, their commercial establishments or residences were transferred to another part of the town and hundreds of houses have now been moved in this way.
The whole move was almost entirely done at the expense of those mining companies who have spent at least $5 million on the relocation project. During the same decade, new plants have been set up, more particularly by the Asbestos Corporation Limited and by the Johnson's Company. This short list does not of course, take into account the new companies which have settled in the district, and more particularly the Flint-kote Company of Canada Limited, established about 1945, nor the Lake Asbestos of Quebec Limited, the National Asbestos Limited and Philip Carry Company in the riding of Beauce.
When the Prime Minister toured the province during the summer of 1959, he was able to see for himself at Black Lake, a town in the neighbourhood of Thetford Mines, the
The Address-Mr. Roberge tremendous work that had been carried out by the Lake Asbestos Company Limited, at the cost of $35 to $40 million, prior to going into operation. They had to dry up a lake there and remove large quantities of soil and sand, in order to uncover the asbestos fibre. It is said that they removed more soil and sand from that place than in the Canadian section of the St. Lawrence seaway.
This brief outline of ancient and recent history will show, therefore, the capital importance of the asbestos industry in that area of Quebec and Canada.
That fact,, however, was surely not unknown to the government and especially to the Department of Trade and Commerce, nor to the Department of Labour.
If I have chosen to deal with this problem today, it is that at least 800 asbestos miners are now jobless, and will remain so for a few months, and that, of course, raises a
problem of capital importance.
All these considerable outlays were made, as I have said before, in order to better our productive capacity and thus create jobs for more Canadians over a longer period. Unfortunately, conditions on the external market have not followed production trends.
If we read the reports of the commission an Canada's economic prospects and more particularly the volume entitled "Mining and Mineral Processing in Canada" by John Davis, we shall understand all the significance of that industry with regard to our export trade.
May I be allowed to quote some excerpts from this work. I quote the following from page 212:
Asbestos continues to lead by a considerable margin all other industrial minerals produced in Canada. Its value of production is currently in^the order of $100 million: that of gypsum, the next non-metal in line, is $7 million. All of ^Canadian produced industrial minerals together were valued at $145 million in 1955. These statistics, together with the fact that 95% of the nations asbestos output is exported (and is therefore an important earner of foreign exchange) underline the important part played by this industry in the

Further on, Mr. Davis considers future mmercial prospects. On page 241, he says: Df equal interest to Canadians is the share of the ,rld market which will fall to producers in this untry. Over the years it has varied. Usually, it s ranged between 60 per cent and 70 per cent, eluding the U.S.S.R., it has historically run ound 75 per cent, though since 1945 it has shown
And he adds the following:
Increased competition is expected from countries *ehind the iron curtain. Already Russian asbestos 5 often offered at prices lower than Canadian and
668	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Roberge Is sold for payment in local currencies under conditions of barter or within trade agreements negotiated between the governments concerned. At the expense of markets for Canadian long fibre, it has been freely exported to West Germany, France, Holland and Belgium. Although, traditionally, asbestos from this source has lacked care in treatment, present-day Russian fibre is well prepared for the market, of excellent quality and uniform in grade.
As indicated by the figures already quoted, Canada, properly speaking, has no asbestos products industry. We extract the mineral itself. And I quote here from page 221 of the same report:
Since the 1930's a modest asbestos products manufacturing industry has grown up in this country. Absorbing about 4 per cent of total Canadian mine output, its sales have been directed increasingly toward products like automotive brake linings, pipe, siding and paper used principally by the construction industry.
If we refer also, Mr. Speaker, to figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics for this year, we note important facts. This year production has increased as foreseen, and in relation to previous years; shippings have also increased, except in January.
According to volume 28, No. 1, of the dominion bureau of statistics for January 1959, including asbestos statistics, total production and shippings reached 54,668 tons, as compared to 57,450 tons in January 1958.
For the year 1959 exclusive of December, Canadian deliveries to foreign markets reached a total of 978,655, as compared with 862,550 tons for the same 11-month period in 1958.
This trend towards increased production and increased deliveries, both on the domestic market-which is small-and on the external market-which is considerable-had been forecast in the Gordon report. However, competition on the foreign market has grown, mainly due to asbestos mines in Russia.
I personally know that our mining operators have been trying to find new markets, and that their agents have been covering the world in an attempt to open up new markets; however, Russia now sells large quantities of asbestos on the European markets, so it is hard for Canadian industry to maintain, and even more to increase its trade. I also know that from time to time agents from the Department of Trade and Commerce call on our asbestos industries to collect information on the subject.
However, it is my impression that co-operation between this section of Canadian industry and the departments concerned is inadequate.


It is also my impression that our foreign agents do not have enough contacts with our dealers or with prospective buyers.
The trend towards increased production must surely have been known to the people in charge of our external trade, because it was anticipated in the Gordon report and was also expected by experts in the mineral industry division of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Do the experts of the Department of Trade and Commerce have frequent enough contacts with the industry in general and with the asbestos industry in particular, to try to forecast production in the years ahead? It would seem that they do not, for this year, as last year, asbestos workers had to be laid off for a few months. There is a foreign trade problem which must be studied by the department.
Personally, I suggest that contacts be established by the officers of the department with all the components of the Canadian industry in order to promote our foreign markets. More frequent contacts should also be made between our official representatives in foreign countries and the representatives or salesmen of the Canadian industry in the countries which do trade with ours. As a matter of fact, and to sum up my opinion, our consulate agents should be travelling salesmen rather than diplomats.
I hope such contacts, which have been lacking in the past, will exist in the future and will produce results. Canada is the major world producer of asbestos and must remain so. It is only through sincere cooperation between the government, asbestos producers and our foreign markets that the asbestos industry can hope to retain the position it has always held in Canada's economy.
(Text):
Before resuming my seat I should like to explain the attitude which this party will take when we divide in a few minutes time on the motion now before the house. I was asked by my leader to make this statement on his behalf.
Normally, we would accept the formal motion to adopt the address in reply to the speech from the throne out of respect to the throne itself. However, in view of the fact that the government has shown so little respect for the throne as to exclude from the address very important matters of government policy which were introduced in this

debate later by the Prime Minister, we feel that on this occasion we must express our strong disapproval of this procedure and our condemnation of the government's attitude by voting against the motion.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: At the outset I should like to associate myself with the others who have spoken in this debate by extending my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to your high office, and also to the mover and seconder of the address.
Among the announcements contained in the speech from the throne is one to which all hon. members must attach great importance-the announcement that a department will be created to concern itself with affairs relating to forestry in Canada. A great part of the Canadian economy depends largely on forest products and the need for conservation in this field is great. It is not my intention to elaborate on this aspect of our economy as others are far more qualified to do so. Indeed, I am not qualified at all.
However, conservation ties in with what I consider a very vital question and one to which I would ask the government to pay close attention, namely the difficulties confronting the Nova Scotia coal industry. Coal is the lifeblood of many towns in my constituency and surrounding areas, towns such as Glace Bay, New Waterford and Dominion. For a number of years, miners have been faced with grave uncertainty and I should like to ask all hon. members of this house to give them the consideration they deserve rather than to take advantage of their plight for the sake of political expediency.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) recently made a trip into my constituency. The coal critic of the official opposition as advertised in the Cape Breton Post of December 10 offering the people of Cape Breton some straight facts. Mr. Speaker, there are some straight facts that are not in possession of the representatives of the men. But I do not hesitate to say that the official opposition coal critic is not in possession of them either. That is very obvious from the statement appearing in the Cape Breton Post by the hon. member following his first look at coal mining as carried on in Cape Breton. It is as follows:
I was terribly impressed by the extension of coal mining as I witnessed it in No. 26 colliery this morning. I am not surprised now at the cost of producing Cape Breton coal and I can easily realize why the industry is facing such a crisis.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
This does not tie in with the hon. member's former statement in which he placed the blame on this government. In his speech he advocated a more intensive research program to find more extensive uses for coal, something which, as he is well aware, all the Nova Scotia members are asking. He also advocated a more flexible use of subventions to move coal to markets, a matter in which this government has far surpassed any efforts made by the previous Liberal administration.
The hon. member criticizes the government, and myself for supporting the government, and accuses us of preventing a debate on coal from taking place. At the time the motion was made he was well aware of the fact that it was out of order, but that does not mean a thing. What he fails to realize is that any such criticism must also be directed at the union executives, mayors, councillors and other interested citizens from the mining areas who attended the coal conference when a committee was suggested, which they agreed, was the most logical way to handle the situation. I might also say that among the people present at the coal conference were strong supporters of the hon. member's party and of the C.C.F. party, but as a coal critic he himself was conspicuous by his absence. It is also a well known fact that the hon. member and his party passed up the opportunity to debate the coal issue within a few days of his infamous motion and when it was brought up later he used up the better part of the hour allowed at the time.
Further, his solution-and I quote from page 1574 of Hansard for March 3, 1959-was:
It is true that fewer miners would mean less production, but it would also mean that the problem of the surplus would not be so great and the stock pile would not be so formidable.
Fewer miners, less production, less trouble, Liberal policy.


An hon. Member:: Read on.


Malcolm MacInnis: One more quotation from the Cape Breton Post of December 11:
Mr. Robichaud said he was in Cape Breton largely in the interest of the Liberal party. He explained that because of the lack of Liberals from Nova Scotia circumstances had caused him to become an opposition critic on coal.
There was no mention of personal interest, no mention of the miners and no further mention of the problem. Just circumstances. The hon. member has an approach which is in line with that of the hon. member for betwixt and between, that is, between Newfoundland and Manitoba who, as I understand today, has let the house know that he has now built a house in Newfoundland. There is no mention of whether he is going to make a home there,
670	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis but at least he has a house, which I understand has been under consideration since 1949.
Mr. Hicks, the Liberal opposition leader in Nova Scotia also criticized me for my stand last session, my stand which only agreed with that taken at the coal conference when the committee was suggested and agreed to. Mr. Hicks has a short memory where it applies to Cape Breton miners. His attitude toward the miners during a tie-up in 1956 was different. At that time when meeting with delegations of miners he said, "You do not expect me to forgo my election commitments to meet with you fellows."
I might also say it was not easy to arrange this meeting with Mr. Hicks with what he referred to as "you wildcatters" meaning at the time miners who had been appointed from a union meeting to meet with him. That is the attitude of the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia and his attitude toward coal miners at the time.
This afternoon we heard from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). What surprises me most about this hon. member is his very short memory. It is not unfair to say that I think he gives me a few years. And speaking of memory, my memory takes me back to 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939. Speaking from personal experience I can recall working only two days a week. There was no more work for me. I would get $1.50 for that and if I was lucky I would get the second dollar. The hon. gentleman quoted many figures and told us about the unemployment situation. I should like to quote a few figures myself, starting with June of 1936.
It will be noticed that these figures are all for the month of June when unemployment is at its lowest. On June 1, 1936, there were
571.000	unemployed, 12.8 per cent of the labour force; on June 1, 1937, there were
411.000	unemployed, 9.1 per cent of the labour force; on June 1, 1938, there were 522,000 unemployed, 11.4 per cent of the labour force; on June 1, 1939 there were 529,000 unemployed, 11.4 per cent of the labour force; on June 1, 1940, there were 423,000 unemployed, 9.2 per cent of the labour force. It is not surprising he could not recall when he was minister of labour.
As has already been referred to on a couple of occasions in the house today, it is obvious that world war II certainly got the Liberals off the hook and there is no doubt but that the Korean conflict had the same effect for them in 1951.
Any hon. member speaking in the interests of coal and the energy supply of the nation is speaking from a position of strength. This country certainly has plenty of coal. In fact,


the problem faced by Nova Scotia miners is that we have more of it than we can dispose of under present marketing conditions. A recent United States publication states that the proven reserve of petroleum and natural gas hit an all-time high in that country, yet these figures must be considered in comparison to the demands for these products. In other words, the life index of the proven reserves. On the basis of these figures the proven reserves of crude petroleum are equivalent to 12.87 years of production at the present rate. Proven reserves of natural gas have a life index of 22.13 years.
In Canada the picture is not much different. Crude oil and natural gas liquids have a proven reserve of 3.6 billion barrels or a life index of 22 years, while natural gas is in a much more favourable position with a proven reserve of 23.3 trillion cubic feet, or a 150 year life index. However, these natural reserves of the so-called superior fuels do not compare to the life index of our coal reserves. Our proven reserves of coal total 49 billion tons, good for centuries, and the coal reserves of the United States for 800 years at favourable recovery costs, plus another 500 years at costs ranging from 1J to l j times present costs.
It is estimated that even with atomic energy coal will be required to fill from 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the future energy demands in the United States. This puts coal in a very strong position. According to the Chase Manhattan bank the cost of producing a barrel of crude oil has increased 71 per cent in the period between 1948 and 1957, and in all probability will grow steeper.
Canada is rich in natural resources, but the supply is not unlimited. We must utilize wise conservation measures or we will find these resources exhausted, perhaps when we need them most, especially those in short supply, and although I realize that Canada can look forward to further discoveries, this potential is about exhausted in the United States which, in all likelihood, will be turning to our nation for supplies in the future. It therefore follows that wise conservation would serve the national interest best by concentrating the use of each fuel in the market it is best fitted to serve.
Coal has many uses, but it is particularly well suited to serve as a boiler fuel in the utility and heavy industrial field, as well as space heating. Since transportation is one of our greatest problems, I would suggest that markets should be coming to coal. Indeed, the Nova Scotia government has made it attractive to industry setting up in that

province. The electric utilities should establish at the pit head and transmit their power to the heavily populated areas.
The importance of coal in the future has been strongly emphasized of late by the chairman of the Ontario hydro commission and, more recently, by Mr. James G. Macgregor, chairman of the Alberta power commission. Alberta produces more oil and gas than the rest of Canada, yet Mr. Macgregor said:
Alberta power plants, now users of natural gas, are swinging rapidly to coal as more electric power is demanded.
The reason is that big plants can produce more power cheaply by burning coal than they can by burning natural gas at today's prices. I cannot imagine a stronger argument on behalf of coal than this statement made in the province of Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the national security requires a stable and economically sound coal industry, one whose peacetime production base is large enough to permit the expansion necessary to meet accelerated demands of a national emergency. Coal cannot successfully meet such a challenge so long as it is periodically relegated to the role of a standby fuel, and neither could any other energy source.
We have a road to resources program on which we will spend millions. We need roads to our resources. Granted they are underground, but any effort on the part of the government to assist the coal industry to complete plans that have been partially carried out, by completing underground tunnels which will greatly alleviate production costs would be in the interest of the Canadian economy. I will say now that I am grateful to the government for the assistance it made available last year to the coal industry in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada. Whether Dosco has taken advantage of it for this purpose or not I am not aware at the moment, but I know this is a matter for which the union is pressing at home, and especially for the establishment of a coal plant in the area whereby Nova Scotia coal would be made better suited for the market where it is in demand.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to make some reference to the letter received by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) from Dr. J. H. L. Johnstone, professor of physics at Dalhousie university, regarding the use of Nova Scotia sandstone. The hon. member for Cumberland and I have been in touch with our minister for public works, in the hope that Nova Scotia stone could be used and utilized in the maritime provinces. Dr. Johnstone's letter brings very clearly to our minds what
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis is necessary, and we are very grateful to Dr. Johnstone. It is something to which all Nova Scotians should pay particular attention.
I am quite sure that the very energetic body, APEC, will in the near future, if they have not already done so, be taking action in this regard. Part of Dr. Johnstone's letter reads as follows:
I am interested in the matter not only as a Nova Scotian should he but also because I have been involved during the past two years in the construction of a large university building, in which about 500 tons of Wallace stone have been used.
May I point out that my recent experience leads me to the conclusion that the chief reason why Wallace sandstone is not competitive with stone imported from the United States and central Canada, is that there does not exist in Nova Scotia a modern facility for finishing and cutting the Wallace stone. At the present time, stone has to be forwarded either to New Brunswick or central Canada for finishing, and then returned to Nova Scotia. The exorbitant freight rates (two ways) are such that our stone is not competitive with the imported article.
It appears to me that the solution is to have modern cutting and finishing machinery established at or near the quarry. If this can be done, I feel that Wallace stone can be made competitive.
It has been further pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that not only should this stone be used in Nova Scotia, but it is superior in quality and for that reason efforts should be made to carry out the wishes as expressed by Dr. Johnstone. With respect to the transportation problem, as was indicated in Dr. Johnstone's letter, this Nova Scotian stone has to pay exorbitant freight rates both ways, I am reminded of a statement of President Eisenhower, as quoted by Mr. Arthur Johnstone, president of APEC, in a recent address in Halifax:
Equality of opportunity must be speedily reestablished so that all parts may share proportionately in the productivity of the national economy. As national policy, assistance must be given any group of citizens from whom equality of opportunity is being withheld through no fault of their own.
I appeal to the government to take a close look at the advantages of further promoting our coal industry, in the light of a statement made by Sir Thomas Sopwith who, as head of the Hawker Siddeley Corporation, of which Avro is a part, and Dosco is a subsidiary of Avro, had this to say in his last annual report, published just this week in the Montreal Gazette:
However, in an industrial group such as we have in Canada, results cannot be judged on a year to year basis, and a rather longer view must be taken. We invested in Canada for the future and are confident in the eventual success of our enterprise and the growth of Canada is unimpaired.
This statement came from the president of the Hawker Siddeley Corporation, which, as I indicated, is the parent body of Dosco. It is contrary to those statements being made

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis in the coal industry today. The miners today are not asking for things on a year to year basis, as was indicated by Sir Thomas Sop-with, who indicated they are not operating in Canada on a year to year basis. We are operating on a week to week basis in the Cape Breton coal mines. Coal at one time was the backbone of the whole Dosco enterprise and, until recent years when the policy was adopted that coal stands alone, there was hope that the over-all corporation would carry coal. I feel this is a responsibility that belongs to Dosco. As I pointed out, for years coal was the breadwinner of this organization, and coal continued to carry the other subsidiaries.
In the light of the arguments for the future of coal and the fact that other nations such as Belgium, which has thrown in excess of $61 million into the coal mining areas are taking action, and the statement of Sir Thomas Sopwith, that with the co-operation of the company and governments and the ever-present co-operation of the men, I feel a new deal should be worked out for the coal miners in this country. We in Nova Scotia are certainly part of the Canada and the Canadian future to which Sir Thomas Sopwith refers.
I feel it would be in the interests of the Canadian economy and of the directors and manager of Avro and of Dosco if they would take this statement into consideration which was, as I indicated, just recently published in the Montreal Gazette and possibly in all the other newspapers across the country, in which Sir Thomas Sopwith indicated that their investments in Canada were not made on a year to year basis but that they are looking toward the future, which is certainly what the Cape Breton miners want to do. It is not the future they are looking toward the same as Sir Thomas Sopwith refers to. Their future is only a day, and possibly a week ahead of them. With this attitude that the company has adopted in recent years that coal must stand alone there is the threat hanging over the miners that possibly this week or next week the mines will close.
When speaking of closure, Mr. Speaker, the members of the opposition have made much of the fact that never in the postwar period under a Liberal administration was there a cutback. I will have to agree with them; I will have to go along with the hon. gentlemen that there was not a cutback, but there certainly were closures. Up to 10 mines closed over the period from 1946 to 1956.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being the 10th appointed day for this debate and 30 minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment, it is my duty, pursuant to section 5 of standing

order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.


John George Diefenbaker: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill):
Business of the House
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I wish to move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill):
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and the rest of the
week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow we will consider the following six items of government business. No. 1 is No. 6 on the order paper, namely the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) dealing with an amendment to the Railway Act. No. 2 is No. 7 on the order paper, namely a resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) dealing with an amendment to the Department of Justice Act. No. 3 is No. 8 on the order paper, namely a resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) dealing with an amendment to the National Housing Act. If those items are completed we will deal with No. 4, which is second reading of Bill No. C-2, an act to amend the Indian Act; No. 5, which is second reading of Bill No. C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and No. 6, which is second reading of Bill No. C-4, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. Thursday is a private members' day dealing with public bills and orders. On Friday we anticipate that we will take supplementary estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: When may we expect the supplementary estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The supplementary estimates will be tabled tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
674
[Stage Direction]
Questions