1960-01-25

COLUMBIA RIVER


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house that negotiations between Canada and the United States for the co-operative development of the water resources of the Columbia river system are to commence in Ottawa on Thursday, February 11.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) will be the chairman of the Canadian delegation, other members being Mr. Robertson, deputy minister of the Department 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.
The United States delegation will have as its chairman Mr. E. F. Bennett, undersecretary, department of interior, other members being Mr. I. B. White, assistant secretary, department of state, and Lieutenant General E. C. Itschner, chief, United States army corps of engineers.
An announcement similar to the one given by me will be made simultaneously in the United States.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is of such great importance to British Columbia and to the people of Canada generally that I cannot resist making a few remarks in regard to the Prime Minister's statement.
The Prime Minister's important announcement indicates that Canada is ready to make her contribution to the energy needs of British Columbia and the Pacific northwest. All power development has a price but, under the right conditions, this can provide a bargain for the people on both sides of the international boundary. The Prime Minister's announcement shows clearly that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and his colleagues have worked successfully in this direction in a spirit of equity and justice for all governments and peoples concerned. It is doubtful, in my opinion and in the opinion of a good many others, whether anything in recent times affecting the national interests of Canada and the United States will prove of much greater importance in 79951-0-17
the years to come than agreement reached by the governments of Canada and the United States on the equitable and scientific development of the Columbia river.
We congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his skilful and persistent efforts to make a long standing dream come true. I did not quite hear the Prime Minister correctly as to who was to be the chairman of the Canadian team.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thought so but I was not quite certain. Anyway, I might say that we are most interested in the personnel of the negotiating team for Canada. It may interest the house to know that the father of the Minister of Justice, Hon. Frederick Fulton of Kamloops, chief commissioner of lands for the province of British Columbia under Sir Richard McBride's administration, blazed a trail for the development of conservation policies in British Columbia, and was also a member of the first royal commission on conservation established by an act of this parliament.
We think it most fitting that his son, the present Minister of Justice and a native British Columbian, will head the Canadian team. We know all members of the house, regardless of party, will wish them every success for a speedy and successful conclusion of their labours.
While the Prime Minister's announcement will be received by all members in this house and the people of British Columbia with satisfaction and high hopes that the great projects envisioned for the development of the Columbia in Canada will soon commence, we trust it will also chill the enthusiasm of Mr. Main-waring and his associates for premature and less desirable developments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the personal observations made by the hon. gentleman, I am sure he will permit me to say that the epitome of all his remarks could not have been better made by any of us on this side of the house.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF FIFTH MEETING OF JOINT CANADA-U.S. COMMITTEE

John George Diefenbaker: I wish to make an announcement, Mr. Speaker, respecting the fifth meeting of the joint Canada-United States committee on trade and economic affairs. This meeting will

Inquiries of the Ministry be held in Washington on February 16, and 17, the last meeting having been in Ottawa in January, 1959.
Canada will be represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. The United States will be represented by Hon. Christian A. Herter, secretary of state, Hon. Robert B. Anderson, secretary of the treasury, Hon. Fred A. Seaton, secretary of the interior, Hon. E. T. Benson, secretary of agriculture, and Hon. Frederick Mueller, secretary of commerce. This meeting, sir, is a regular meeting of this committee for the purpose of discussing economic and trade matters of mutual interest to our two countries.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister of Japan at a press conference last Friday of the desire and the hope of Japanese interests to invest in Canadian development, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to make this possible by a more elastic application of the immigration regulations, as is reported to have been requested by Mr. Kashi?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the situation is that the plans of the Saskatchewan government are still tentative, and of course they have not yet evolved any principle, proposition or proposal to submit to the federal government. The Japanese prime minister mentioned the possibility of the admission to Canada of a very limited number of managerial and technical personnel in this connection, and this question is under consideration. I discussed the matter with him at some length and we arrived at the conclusion that further discussion should take place on this subject.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingaie):: May I ask a supplementary question. Has any consideration been given by the government, or was any consideration that the Prime Minister would care to speak of given in this conversation, to the restoration of the pre-war gentleman's agreement?


John George Diefenbaker: I speak from memory but I do not think there was any consideration given or any discussion of that subject.



FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is there any substance to the reported rumours that an amalgamation of the immigration offices at Fort William and Port Arthur is under consideration by the department?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I understand that some consideration was given to that matter about five years ago, but it was not proceeded with. There is no present consideration.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the reports that the Soviet union has fired a missile a distance of 8,000 miles with great accuracy, can the Minister of National Defence say whether Canada has any defence whatsoever in the event of an attack in which such missiles, equipped with nuclear warheads, are used? If not, can the minister say on what our national defence and survival now depend?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the latter part of the question opens up too broad a subject. If the minister wishes to deal with the first part it seems to me that is all right.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I would think that an event so important to the very survival of our nation, and involving all the problems raised as a result of the Soviet union firing a rocket 8,000 miles, is a fit subject on which to inquire whether or not there is any defence for Canadians at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: In the course of the present session we have spent some hours on the discussion of defence policy with full knowledge of this matter that the hon. member raises in the minds of hon. members. Undoubtedly it is very important. The objection I took was that to answer the second part of the question would take far longer than would be proper at this time. I leave it to the minister to answer the first part, and perhaps the hon. member may have a supplementary question.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated many times in this house during last session, there

Inquiries of the Ministry
is no defence against the missile at present Mr. Herridge: -would the minister inform once it has been launched. It is for this reason the house whether, due to this practice, on that the western powers emphasize the im- his own secretary's part, there is any risk of portance of the deterrent so as to prevent a similar comedy of errors being enacted war.	under like circumstances in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister feel that what he has said just now is in full accord with what the Associate Minister of National Defence said over the air the other night?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have to confess that I did not hear what the associate minister said.



REPORTED PRODUCTION OF ROCKETS AT WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister comment on press reports to the effect that projectiles have been manufactured or assembled at Winnipeg and tested at Fort Churchill?


George Randolph Pearkes: There was a press and radio report over the week end with reference to the Black Brant, which is a rocket some 12 inches in diameter designed for the testing of a solid propellant being developed by the Canadian armament research and development establishment at Valcartier. This project was reported to the estimates committee in 1958.
The nose cone in which the test instruments are housed and the launcher were supplied by Bristol Industries of Winnipeg. Test firing took place successfully on September 5. This rocket has been referred to as a missile which is quite misleading. Canada has not developed any ballistic missiles.



ATTENDANCE AT CEREMONIES BY MINISTER AND SECRETARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for not having given him notice, but this concerns me so much that I feel impelled to ask it now.
In view of reports to the effect that the first lord of the admiralty, Lord Carrington, and his private secretary attended an inspection of the great naval base at Portsmouth dressed alike and, on this account, by mistake, the honours were paid to his secretary; and in view of the fact that the minister and his private secretary appear at defence forces inspections and other functions dressed alike-top hats, etc., etc.,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
79951-0-171


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's desire to brighten up a Monday morning, but the question is entirely out of order.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister bring the house up to date on the present position of the dispute between the brotherhoods and the railways over wages and working conditions?
Hon Michael Starr (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the only reports I have are those I have read in the newspapers and heard over the newscasts. No official report has been made to me, although I do expect that there will be some request now by either one of the two parties or both parties combined for a conciliation board, at which time of course we will grant that request.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question directed to the Prime Minister. May I ask whether the freeze on freight rates announced by him at the last session will be lifted in the light of the dispute now pending between the labour unions and the railways?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot at this time make any observation on the question propounded by the hon. gentleman.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: On Thursday last the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) inquired regarding reported changes in medical requirements for employment on the Canadian National Railways.
The management advise that the company's medical requirements for applicants for employment are the same as those which have been in effect for many years, and are in accordance with the standards of fitness in use by other railways. In view of the wide

Inquiries of the Ministry range of positions in the railway industry there must be various medical standards to meet different job requirements. The management further advise that they have received no complaints from the Canadian brotherhood of railroad transport and general workers.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: This is a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport in reference to C.N.R. medical examinations. In the event that a physical defect is of a very minor nature-and I know that many of these defects are-will a worker, when it is corrected, be given the opportunity for a reexamination? Further, in a case where a worker's own physician says he can find nothing wrong, will the man be given a reexamination by the company?


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to pass these questions along to the C.N.R. and obtain an answer for the hon. gentleman.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: On Friday last the hon. member for Fort William asked whether amalgamation of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific telegraph offices is being contemplated in any particular locations.
In leading up to his question the hon. member stated that the two offices in Fort William had been amalgamated, but the management of Canadian National Railways advise that the amalgamation has not yet taken place although it has been receiving consideration, as the hon. member knows.
The management also advise that the establishment of joint offices and joint operation of telegraph services by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific is not a new policy, but the Canadian National state they are not in a position to say what may be contemplated in this regard in the future.
The management add that when such action is taken it is done in the interests of economy and to avoid duplication of service.



MONTREAL-STATEMENT AS TO STEPS TO ALLEVIATE CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Laurier asked me a question on Friday, and I have the

answer here. The slight flooding which took place yesterday-this is a report made on Saturday-on one or two roads on the south shore at Montreal was due to an ice shove west of Montreal causing a sudden 8-foot rise in the level. This has now subsided by two feet. Two icebreakers have been working westward toward Montreal from Sorel for some time, and a third is joining them tomorrow-that would be Sunday. Our original arrangements to reinforce the icebreakers in the area earlier were upset by a mechanical problem and a delay due to weather.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. Has any consideration been given to the study of the bubble gun, which I understand-


Some hon. Members:: Bubble gum?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is g-u-n-which I understand consists of pushing the warm water from the bottom of the river up toward the top, and has been effective in breaking ice jams on more than one occasion?


George Harris Hees: I read the same news report the hon. gentleman read in Saturday morning's paper, and inquired of my departmental officials this morning about its effectiveness and whether this new method had proven any more effective than those developed in the past. They are looking into the whole matter and I shall be glad to report to the hon. member when I have further information.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of newspaper reports to the effect that agents of the unemployment insurance commission are being appointed on a patronage basis to fill out unemployment insurance forms for a fee of $1 per form, paid by the government, will the minister inform the house of the arrangements being made to provide this very necessary service to small communities; and will agents be appointed on the basis of merit?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: In answer to the last part of the question I wish to assure the hon. member that the agents are being appointed on the basis of merit and will continue to be so appointed.
The appointment of agents to act on behalf of the unemployment insurance commission in areas removed some distance from local offices has worked out very satisfactorily to the advantage of claimants, in that it has facilitated the processing of insurance claims. The unemployment insurance commission

makes the appointments of these agents, and the person appointed is one who has the facilities and the time to perform such work.
Up to the present time these appointments have been very satisfactory. I understand that the unemployment insurance commission receives recommendations for the appointment of such agents from many sources.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. Before the commission appoints such individuals is the Minister of Labour notified about a proposed nomination? Likewise, or in addition, can the minister say what further contribution he makes toward the appointment of these individuals?


Michael Starr: If the commission are satisfied with a certain person, then they have the wholehearted support of the minister.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that his office has accepted some of the recommendations of opposition members of parliament forwarded to the commission, and that favourable action has been taken?


Michael Starr: That is right, Mr. Speaker. We take recommendations from any members of the House of Commons, regardless of the party they are affiliated with.



REQUEST FOR BENEFITS PAID IN DECEMBER, 1958 AND 1959

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I am sorry I did not send him notice, but he may take this as notice. I should like to know the amount of money paid in unemployment insurance benefits during the month of December, 1959-


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: -and also in the month of December, 1958 in order to make a comparison of both.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member suggested that the question be taken as notice. I suggest that it be put on the paper, because it asks for purely statistical information.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With regard to the Prime Minister's offer of a mutual
Inquiries of the Ministry Arctic inspection plan, has the government made an official approach to the Soviet government in this regard? If so, can the minister indicate the results of such representations?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: This announcement was made quite a few months ago, and of course it is very well known to the Soviet authorities. There is taking place today in Washington a meeting of the representatives of the five western powers that are on the ten-nation disarmament committee. I would think this proposal and various others will be considered by this committee that is making preparations for participation in the east-west meeting taking place on March 15.


Erhart Regier: If I may, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Since this offer is now a number of years old, does the government consider it proper to expect a reply to approaches made by way of headlines in our newspapers?


Howard Charles Green: I think there is no need to answer a question of that type, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of reports that the government's deficiency payment plan on hogs as presently operated is causing great hardship and a serious loss of business to local locker plants. Will the government give consideration to the providing of deficiency payments on hogs purchased by locker plants in the same way as deficiency payments are now made on hogs purchased by packing companies?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, large numbers of operators of locker plants buy their hog carcasses from inspected plants; therefore there is no problem as far as they are concerned.
There are, however, numbers of local slaughterers in Canada, some of whom also operate locker plants, and in connection with these local slaughterers a certain specific problem was posed as far as deficiency payments were concerned. We have made special arrangements to inspect the products of these local slaughterers in all cases where it has been asked for and where they have any reasonable amount of slaughtering taking place. A man who slaughters only four or five hogs a week, for example, we cannot handle; but where you have a man slaughtering up to 40 or 50 a week we make special

Inquiries of the Ministry arrangements to send a man out once or twice a week to grade the hog carcasses after slaughtering.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Will the minister give consideration to having a travelling government grader or inspector inspect the firms that have smaller slaughtering businesses? I think the minister will agree that the maintenance of small businesses in our small communities is important, and this is a matter affecting the small businesses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I said, we have given great consideration to this problem and made special provision in order to look after a large number of these people. I have pointed out, however, that with regard to somebody who slaughters only four or five hogs a week, it is impossible to send out an inspector, and would be very expensive to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: A further supplementary question. What is the minimum number of hogs slaughtered per week to have a local locker plant operated and inspected?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, we have no definite minimum; but anyone in this business to any extent at all, as I said earlier, slaughters some 40 or 50 a week, and we have made arrangements to inspect those hogs.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that the lower limit?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already answered the question, and there is no specific limit.


NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Are recent newspaper reports to the effect that the national capital commission has been transferred to the Minister of Public Works correct? If so, why has that been done?


John George Diefenbaker: The transfer was made in the usual way to the Department of Public Works. The degree of co-operation between the Department of Public Works and the national capital commission is such that it was deemed more efficient to have the national capital commission come under the Department of Public Works and to have the Minister of Public Works report to parliament.
As a matter of fact I believe consideration has been given to the same matter in the past. I believe the former prime minister, Mr. King, thought he should be the minister responsible because, if my information is correct, he considered that the prestige of his


office would make it possible to secure an easier passage through parliament of the moneys necessary for the commission's requirements. Everywhere today, in all parts of our country, it is accepted that the national capital commission is necessary and that expenditures must be made, so that argument is no longer applicable.


Mr. Richard (Otiawa East):: A supplementary question. I understand, of course, that the Prime Minister will keep the same interest in the national capital plan that he has had in the past?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member may rest assured that the Prime Minister will keep that same interest. I am one of those who believe, as did my predecessors, that this is a matter of first importance.


LIVESTOCK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What steps are being taken by the federal Department of Agriculture to check the spread of the new parasitic disease called nematodiriasis, which has infected calves in Ontario?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is not a new disease, as the parasite nematodirus which causes the disease has been found in sheep and cattle in all parts of Canada for a considerable number of years. There is no intermediate host in the spread of this small intestinal worm, reinfection taking place directly from infected pastures. Normally, extreme cold weather destroys any eggs or larvae remaining on pastures over winter. A new drug, hepherium embronate, has been developed for use against this parasite.
This parasitic infection does not come under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; therefore no federal program exists for its eradication. Research workers of this department's health of animals division collaborate with veterinary workers of the provinces in identifying the parasite and in providing advice to practising veterinarians and livestock owners.
As indicated earlier, the disease is not a new one, and it is not thought to be on the increase. It is understood that the purpose of the press release from the Ontario department of agriculture was merely to draw to the attention of livestock owners and practising veterinarians that cases of scours in cattle may well be caused by this parasite.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he can bring the house up to date on the progress, if any, which has been made with regard to the elimination of lampreys in the great lakes.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: All I can report is that progress is being made and that there have been a couple of important developments as far as scientific research is concerned, among them the development of lampreycide, a chemical which is specifically capable of poisoning lampreys without injuring other forms of fish.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Can the minister inform the house if there is any move on foot to combat the lamprey in lake Huron this year?


John Angus MacLean: I think that is a question which could be more fully answered during the consideration of my estimates, but I will take it as notice in case there is something brief that can be said at this time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of his statement some time ago that armouries in Sudbury are considered necessary, and in view of the fact that a citizen has given the required property, will the minister advise the house if his department has called for tenders for construction of these armouries?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's interest in the problems of his constituency, but I think if we got into the questions of post offices and armouries we should open too wide a field.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a recent visit I paid to the Hamilton area. In view of the extreme concern both of municipal councillors and of many citizens of Stoney Creek, Ontario, can the Prime Minister inform the house if the government
Inquiries of the Ministry is contemplating any immediate action to preserve Battlefield park in Stoney Creek as a national historic site?


John George Diefenbaker: I am very interested in the question of national historic sites, and the question brought to my attention will receive immediate consideration.


Murdo William Martin: Is the minister aware that a building contractor has been given an option on property the town hopes to use to enlarge the present small park?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I will have to take that question as notice.



PAYMENT OF ASSISTANCE ON STORM-DAMAGED CROPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if he would review the alleged offer that it is indicated he made to the western provinces with respect to aid for storm-hit farmers who were unable to thresh more than 50 per cent of their last year's grain crops, in view of the report which came in over the week end from the Winnipeg press to the effect that even yet no inspections of loss have been made in Manitoba under P.F.A.A. Would the Prime Minister use his well-known influence with the premier of Manitoba to try to speed up these payments before someone starves out there, or before the farmers get a return from next year's crop?
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, to the little political speech the hon. member has just made I would reply that P.F.A. payments have been made to a considerable amount in Manitoba. I shall be glad to bring in tomorrow, if the hon. member would like to ask a question then as to the amount which had been paid in the various provinces, the amount of P.F.A. payments; I will be glad to have the information here and give it to him.


Mr. Benidickson:: I think the Minister of Agriculture did not understand my question. It has reference to the 50-50 assistance plan announced by the Prime Minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member said P.F.A.


William Moore Benidickson: Press reports indicate that the inspections will be made by P.F.A. officials. No inspections have been made yet.


Mr. Speaker:: I question the propriety of now dealing with that proposal, which has been the subject of discussion already this

The Address-Mr. MacLellan session and which apparently is to be dealt with when the estimates are before the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, in order to prevent any misapprehension over the last statement made by the hon. member, P.F.A. officials are not making the inspections in Manitoba or in any of the three provinces; the inspections are being made by the provinces themselves, using different means in each case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether any payments are being made under the 50-50 scheme in the province of Manitoba.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have received no information from Manitoba that they have actually made payments up to date. This is a matter which is in the knowledge of the provincial government, not within mine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. Have any payments been made in the other two prairie provinces under this particular 50-50 arrangement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker; payments have been made in Saskatchewan.


Murdo William Martin: Federal funds.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: No.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr. R. S. MacLellan (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I had very nearly completed my remarks, and I merely wish to conclude by repeating that I congratulate the government on the appointment of the royal commission to examine into our coal problem, because of the many misunderstandings that exist concerning coal in Canada.
As I was closing on the last day I mentioned that a tariff against United States coal in itself would probably not do very much for the Nova Scotia coal industry. The most serious competitor of Nova Scotia coal is residual oil which is imported from Venezuela and, in recent months, natural gas. A tariff against Venezuelan residual oil would be of much more benefit to the Nova Scotia coal industry, particularly in our natural market of Quebec, than a tariff against United States coal. Of course an increased tariff against United States coal would in some areas be of

assistance to us, but certainly would not be as valuable as a tariff against residual oil.
I am glad to see that this very important problem of coal is being gone into, and I do hope the people of Canada will realize that coal is the energy fuel of the future; it is the long term cheap fuel, and therefore it is a wise investment for Canadians, as they are doing now in the present subvention program, to assist the movement of coal to market and to protect this resource industry for use in the development of Canada in the future.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, during the hon. member's remarks, at page 253 of Hansard, he referred to me as having suggested that the answer to some problems he had posed was for the Bank of Canada to print money. Mr. Speaker, I made no such suggestion. What I said by way of an aside earlier was that the government had done just that the previous year in order to pay off its deficit.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to ask a question, based on remarks the hon. member made the other day in the middle of his speech. In view of the remarks he made about tight money, does he agree now that there is no tight money situation in Canada, and has not been in the last few years?


Robert Simpson MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, of course there is a tight money situation in Canada, but not necessarily a tight money policy on the part of the government. The important thing is that, under the big demand for money in the nation today there is a high interest rate that cannot be controlled by this government or any other single borrower in the nation, because rates are set by the lender or by negotiation between the lender and the borrower and no one agency, the government or any other, can of itself alone set the interest rates in the nation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the Prime Minister said in the election campaign.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I shall dispense with the formalities of complimenting the mover (Mr. Morissette) and the seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the newly appointed ministers and parliamentary secretaries by associating myself with the compliments which our leader has already extended on our behalf.
Most speeches from the throne are described as being more notable for what they omit than what they contain. I doubt whether in the history of this parliament there has been an emptier speech from the throne than the one under debate. The beginning of a new decade seems to me an appropriate time to review the past and take stock of ourselves,

to determine our mistakes and take whatever decisions are necessary to avoid repeating them in the future.
One would have hoped, therefore, that this particular speech from the throne above all others would have told the people of Canada some sober truths; that it would have pointed out where we have gone wrong in the past as a people and a nation, and that it would have challenged and inspired us to gird our loins and go forward with faith and courage to take the necessary action to get back on the right road. For it is clear that we cannot go travelling the old road of expediency as we have done in the past, engrossed in our own selfishness, living beyond our means, building up a standard of living beyond the capacity of our economy to support, trying to establish a little island of prosperity for ourselves here in Canada with little thought or regard for the starving, poverty stricken millions in other parts of the world and in some parts of our own country. The road we have been travelling leads to destruction, and the action necessary to save ourselves involves painful and courageous decisions.
For my own province the decade just ended has been the most important in our 450 years of history. In 1949 Newfoundland made the momentous decision to give up her independent status as a British dominion and become a part of Canada. It was an act of faith, because once in there is no way to get out. We came into confederation realizing that we were putting ourselves completely at the mercy of the Canadian government. Should the government of Canada choose to place a narrow interpretation upon the terms of union, or to ignore the spirit in which they were made, we knew that we had no means of redress and would be helpless to do anything about it. Our security lay in the Canadian constitution, which we thought would never be violated, and in the honour and integrity of the Canadian people, which we believed would be a sufficient guarantee that our simple trust would be respected and that the solemn treaty between our two peoples would be fully implemented both in the letter and in the spirit.
That trust has been severely shaken by events which have taken place during the past two years, and many sincere people in my province are wondering whether it was ever justified. We must all make it our first duty and responsibility to do everything possible that this division may be healed and good faith restored, and a new spirit of unity created between us.
Our first ten years as Canadians have brought us many blessings but also many disappointments. Our cost of living, which 79951-0-18
The Address-Mr. Carter was already high before we entered confederation, went up instead of down as we had expected; Canadian capital has not been forthcoming for the development of our resources. Our system of communications, despite improvements, still leaves much to be desired. But our greatest disappointment has been that the government of Canada so far has refused to recognize the fact that, having missed for 80 years the benefits of confederation which enabled the mainland provinces to develop a relatively high standard of public services, the position of Newfoundland is therefore different from that of any other province and should be treated as a special case.
We have many deficiencies in our public services, especially those of health, roads and education. But with an economy based on primary industries and a rapidly expanding population we cannot maintain even our existing standards, let alone improve them, unless we receive special consideration. As a group, our fishermen have benefited least of all from confederation. Like the farmers, their cost of living has steadily increased year by year while the price of their product has remained the same and indeed is lower than it was during the first world war. The premium on the Canadian dollar penalizes our chief exports of fish and paper, and the freight rate structure handicaps our manufacturing industries and prevents them from competing in the mainland market.
As a result we always have the largest percentage of unemployed in all of Canada. Our total of unemployed is now as large as it was last year, which was abnormal, and the projected closing of Fort Pepperrell will make that situation even worse.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing is being done about it, either.


Chesley William Carter: These are the problems which face our province as we enter the sixties. But as we look out over the nation as a whole we see even greater problems-tight money, inflation, unemployment, labour-management relations, dominion-provincial relations, wheat surpluses, defence problems and trade deficits. These formidable problems face the Canadian people as a whole, and unless we can find solutions or make reasonable progress toward solutions during the next ten years there is great danger that our economic structure may collapse.
The common factor in all these problems is the money problem. During world wars I and II we saw nations accumulate debt burdens until they collapsed. Then we saw these same countries, having got rid of their debt burdens, make an economic recovery so strong and so rapid that within a few

The Address-Mr. Carter short years they were able to compete successfully with those nations whose economies had suffered no set-back whatsoever. Germany has demonstrated this phenomenon twice in less than 50 years. On the other hand the creditor nations suffered no lasting ill effects from their failure to collect these huge debts. Then there are cases where interest charges are such that the original loan is repaid several times over and the borrower still finds himself in debt. No thinking person who ponders these facts can help feeling that there must be something wrong with a system which produces such results.
Money is a man-made device. It was invented to facilitate the exchange and distribution of the things we produce. Money was meant to be man's servant, but it has become his master. From a relatively simple concept as a medium of exchange it has become more and more complex, until today it has become a sort of Frankenstein which men can no longer control, a monster capable of exercising the power of life and death over man through its influence on employment and other economic factors upon which his livelihood and welfare depend.
To me it is significant that not a single new idea for the improvement of our monetary system has emerged during the past 100 years. It has become a sacred cow. Surely the human brain, which can make atom bombs and put man-made satellites into orbit, is capable of developing a simpler and better monetary system than we have today, one that is simple enough for the average Canadian to understand and that will at the same time satisfy our economic requirements without the disadvantages and paradoxes of our present system.
One of Canada's greatest needs today is a dollar that will remain stable, that will not penalize our exporters, that will not restrict industrial development and the utilization of resources in the underdeveloped parts of our country. Our present monetary system makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. It tends to make big corporations bigger and small firms smaller. It facilitates the development of those parts of our country where industrialization is already high and retards the development of those parts where industrial devolopment is low. It puts a premium on imports and penalizes our exports. I suggest to the government that the time has come when a royal commission or some other body representing all sections of our society should be set up to study our monetary system and make recommendations for its improvement.
Next to a stable currency Canada needs people. Our best protection against overdependence on external trade is to build up


our home market as rapidly as possible. Since the natural growth of our population cannot do this fast enough we shall have to abandon the rather cautious and selfish immigration policy which we now pursue. We need people so desperately to expand our domestic market that we can no longer afford to insist on bringing them in at our own convenience and pleasure, and in such limited numbers.
Those who fear that the immigrant may put a Canadian out of a job should bear in mind that if that immigrant does not come to Canada some Canadian will lose his job anyway. Large scale immigration may work hardships on a few Canadian, but unless it takes place all Canadians will ultimately suffer.
In the field of international trade forces are coming into existence that will make Canada's position more difficult than at any time in our history. If we do not assess these forces correctly and take the proper course of action we may very well find ourselves squeezed out of our overseas markets. Since 20 per cent of our jobs depend upon external trade, this would be fatal for the Canadian economy. We must diversify our foreign markets, but we cannot take the risk of permitting ourselves to become dependent on trade with the communist bloc. We should make a special effort to expand our trade with Japan, which promises to become an important market for our surplus wheat and coal. Japan already buys more from us than we do from her, and it is obvious that she cannot increase her purchases from Canada unless we buy more of her products.
However, as soon as we increase our imports from Japan our own industries cry out for tariff protection keep Japanese goods out. We should bear in mind that the lower priced Japanese articles benefit the Canadian consumer and leave more money in his pocket to spend on local products. This problem illustrates the conflict of interest between different groups of Canadians. The interests and welfare of Canadians in the prairie provinces are directly opposed to the interests and welfare of Canadians in central Canada who depend mainly on our manufacturing industries.
Obviously such a conflict cannot be resolved without someone getting hurt, but the problem must be tackled, and at once. This involves an agonizing reappraisal of our tariff and trade policies. It calls for courageous action, and it requires a spirit of understanding and unselfishness on the part of all Canadians so that any resulting hardship to those affected will be minimized.
In working out solutions to our domestic problems organized labour will play a key role. The fate and the future of Canada rest



I960

[Stage Direction]
more in the hands of labour than in those of any other group. This puts a heavy responsibility upon our labour leaders and demands from them the highest quality of statesmanship. But before labour can play its full part it must get back to fundamental principles. The fact must be recognized by both labour and management that every individual, whether he be a labourer or employer, has worth within himself as a created being, that he has certain God-given rights which must not be circumscribed or interfered with by the state, by management or by a union. The employer has the right to make his own decisions in accordance with his conscience in carrying out his responsibilities to the nation. The worker has the right to join the union of his choice. He has also an equal right not to join if he so desires. The right to associate is no greater than the right not to associate.
No organization, whether it be a corporation or a union, is more important than the individual. No organization can be permitted to place itself above the law of the land, and the national interest must always be paramount. Freedom is indivisible, and no individual worker or employer should be compelled to forfeit these inalienable rights or be penalized for exercising them. However, labour and management must realize also that their prime task now is to make the class war obsolete, just as obsolete as any other kind of war, and that the use of strikes in the settlement of disputes is just as outdated as the use of other forms of force. It is futile to try to settle a dispute on the basis of who is right because neither party is ever 100 per cent right.
On the other hand, there is no dispute which cannot be settled in a matter of hours, if not minutes, on the basis of what is morally right for the union and for management, both having regard to the best interests of the nation as a whole. Very often the barriers to settlement are not economic but human pride, greed, selfishness and the lust for power and prestige. Under those circumstances, no worth-while settlement can be reached without a change of heart and attitude on the part of every individual.
Granted good will and the right kind of human relationship, it should be possible for management and labour to work out agreements that would ensure that the benefits of increased productivity would be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices. Our dollar would then be stabilized and everybody would benefit from the increased purchasing power. Such a step would go a long way toward curing the problem of inflation, because it would reverse the forces that cause it.
79951-0-18i
The Address-Mr. Carter
While I am on the subject of labour I should like to plead with the government to give an early increase to those civil servants whose salaries are now too low to permit them to live and raise their families with the decency and dignity that befits a human being. I am sure hon. members were surprised, as I was, to learn that such a large percentage in the different categories of civil servants earn less than $300 per month, which is the very minimum upon which a family can live at today's prices.
I know the Minister of Finance is anxious to balance the budget, but the welfare of the individual and his family should be the first charge upon our economy, not for his working period only but during his retirement years as well. It has always been my experience that when we take a step in faith and do the right thing for the right motives, a way is always found to take care of the expenses incurred.
The problem of national defence changes so rapidly and has been rendered so complicated and costly by the rapid advances in technological developments that it is difficult to make any long term plans. While we must arm ourselves militarily with the best weapons our economy can afford, yet unless we also arm ourselves ideologically we cannot hope to survive. We must win the ideological battle or there can be no victory on any front. I therefore heartily concur in all the remarks concerning this topic which the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Kuche-repa) made a few days ago.
To any student of current events who has even an elementary knowledge of the forces at work in ourselves, in our nation and in the world at large, it must be apparent that the sixties may well turn out to be the most dangerous decade in our history, not only for Canada but for the whole free world. The fate of democracy and the fate of our children and succeeding generations may well, and in all probability will, be decided within the next 10 years. The question as to whether democracy will continue to endure or will disappear altogether, the question as to whether our children and their children will continue to enjoy our democratic freedoms and institutions or will become slaves of a powerful materialistic state, will quite likely be decided during the decade of the sixties. This is a fearsome thought, but it is much later than many of us care to think.
The ideological struggle between the communist world and the free world has now entered a final and decisive stage, and whether democracy will survive or perish will depend upon whether we of the free world will awake to our peril in time, and whether we will have the courage to arm
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Carter ourselves with an ideology that is superior to communism. Such an ideology does exist and is available. It has been developed in the moral rearmament centres at Mackinac island in the United States and at Caux in Switzerland. Its superiority over communism has been demonstrated over and over again. For a hard, realistic assessment of this ideology, what better authority could we have than the communists themselves? This is the appraisal that was given by radio Moscow itself in January, 1953:
Moral rearmament Is a global ideology with bridgeheads in every nation in its final phase of total expansion throughout the world. It has the power to capture radical revolutionary minds. It is contaminating the minds of the masses. It substitutes for the class war, the eternal struggle between good and evil.
The constant attacks now emanating from communist sources is evidence that this ideology is the one thing about the free world the communist leaders really fear. For us who live in the free world the question is, do we have the courage to embrace this ideology and arm ourselves with it? Here is an opportunity for Canada to lead the world. Are Canadians prepared and willing to give that leadership? Unless we of the free world make this decision soon we have no chance of winning the ideological battle, and our democratic freedoms and institutions as we know them will die. Mr. Khrushchev was not joking when he said, "We will bury you."
Peaceful coexistence is a beautiful theory and very attractive to those who do not wish to face reality. Let us not be deceived by it. Mr. Khrushchev has been extremely frank about what he means by coexistence. This is what he said in a statement following the Geneva conference in 1955:
Certain people misunderstand the Geneva spirit. They ought to remember, once and for all, that we never renounce, and never will renounce, our ideas, our struggle for the victory of communism. There will never be such a thing as our ideological disarmament.
Later in the same year he said, and I quote from the New York Herald-Tribune of September 18, 1955:
Russia's smiles are sincere, but this does not change our conviction that communism will triumph throughout the world.
We will win, but we will not have to go to war about It.
They say in the west that something has changed since the Geneva conference. They say that the Soviet leaders smile, but that their actions do not match their smiles. But the smiles are sincere. They are not artificial. We wish to live in peace. But if anyone thinks that our smiles mean that we abandon the teachings of Marx and Lenin or abandon our communist road, then they are fooling themselves.
We are for coexistence. But we are also for the growth of communism. The only reason we are for coexistence is that in actual fact we are confronted

with the reality of two different systems. You capitalists go your way, so long as you do not see that it is the way of the blind.
Victory for socialism? We don't have to go to war to obtain this victory. Peaceful competition will be enough.
What language could be plainer or more unequivocal? During the past four years Mr. Khrushchev has repeatedly made statements which made clear beyond any shadow of doubt that during this period of so-called peaceful co-existence the ideological struggle will continue unabated, and will be pursued with all means short of a shooting war until the victory of communism is complete.
During the past two years we have seen the communists gain a foothold in the Caribbean, right in our own backyard. It was done so quietly and unobstrusively that some of us do not yet realize what has happened. Certainly we have not shown any particular concern about it, apart from the academic question as to whether Premier Castro is or is not a communist.
That question is completely beside the point. The facts are that the control of the Cuban economy is now in the hands of Ernesto Che Guevara, a trained communist. The armed forces are under the command of Raul C. Castro, Fidel's brother, who was trained as a communist in Prague. The land reform institute, (INRA) is being run by three well known communists, namely Antonio Nunez Jiminez, Waldo Medina Mendez and Oscar Pino Santas.
The point is therefore that regardless of whether Premier Castro is a communist, the control of Cuba is now completely in communist hands, and they are consolidating it as a beachhead for the ideological invasion of Latin America. We must never forget that the victory of communism means the death of democracy. Coexistence leads to nonexistence.
So anxious is Mr. Khrushchev to sell us this idea of peaceful coexistence that his propaganda machine is working overtime trying to frighten us into thinking that we must choose between coexistence and war. These, of course, are false alternatives. There is another alternative. I should like to quote the words of Mr. R. Vaitheswaran, a lecturer in economics at Hyderabad university, India, a man so brilliant that he recently placed first among 23,000 candidates in the Indian administrative service examination. Speaking to an assembly in July of last year Mr. Vaitheswaran had this to say:
In the communist dictionary "coexistence" means take-over by every method short of a shooting war.
How can there be coexistence when the communists have decided to fight until they rule the world? Communism would not be communism if it were not a fight to the bitter end.

By "coexistence" Khrushchev means that Russia retains the right to rule unrestrictedly in her own sphere. He also means freedom for Russia to spread her own ideological poison through her state-subsidized theatre and propaganda and to engineer internal revolutions and crises through the communist parties of the world.
The communist party in every country is a united force fighting for a single world revolution.
Coexistence gives the Soviet the right to infiltrate the democracies without the democratic countries having the right to say what they like about Soviet behaviour.
Russia goes unchallenged when she publicizes on every continent the racial division of Little Rock and the decadence of Hollywood. But America is met by strong opposition when she expresses sympathy for the captive nations.
China is free to destroy Tibet, but America is not free to rescue Hungary.
And the most shocking thing of all is not that China and Russia are what they are, but that we have become what the Russians and Chinese would like us to be-their willing tools for our own destruction.
Moral rearmament is democracy's true ideology. It gives democracy the moral fibre it lacks today. That is why the choice for the world is not war or coexistence. It is moral rearmament or communism.
These words coming from a man who spent six years as a member of the communist party and who spent two and one-half years in jail for his convictions should carry great significance.
As we turn to the international scene we see still more formidable problems which affect the peace and security of the world, and for which solutions must be found during the decade we have now begun.
Most of the problems that we face, at home and abroad, are manmade. They are the result of our moral failures, and can only be solved by finding the answer to the human fears, hate, greed and selfishness that caused them. Such solutions are beyond human wisdom and cleverness. No legislation, no political manoeuvres, no party platform can provide the answer. They can be solved only through a change of heart in the people concerned.
Fortunately there is hope because, as we look back over the past decade, we can see many instances where this kind of miracle has taken place. A few years ago there were in Cyprus, in Lebanon, and in the Far East problems which seemed incapable of solution. They were examples of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Yet through a change of heart in certain people good relations have now been restored between Japan and the Philippines and between Japan and Formosa and Korea. The crises in the Middle East have subsided. The shooting has stopped in Cyprus, and great progress is being made toward finding a solution to that problem in spite of communist efforts to prevent it. These miracles of change in the human heart point
The Address-Mr. Harkness the way whereby solutions can be found to the Palestinian refugee problem and the problems of Algeria and Berlin.
If there is one lesson we Canadians should have learned from our experience in the fifties it is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We have persisted far too long in trying to do this. The day of reckoning has now caught up with us, and it seems to me that the speech from the throne missed an excellent opportunity to sound a clarion call to the people of Canada to take stock of ourselves, to assess our shortcomings and make up our minds to correct them, no matter how painful the consequences.
During this decade many young people will grow up and participate in the affairs of our nation. What better challenge can we hold out to the youth of our country than that they not only build strong and vigorous bodies but that they keep themselves clean, tough and strong mentally and morally as well. The strength of a nation lies in the character of her people. As I am, so is my nation.
Should a war break out today many of these young people would rush to offer their lives for their country, as their fathers have done before them. We hope the day will never come when young Canadians will again have to die for their country. But Canada today needs her people to live for her-really to live-selfless lives dedicated to making their country morally strong. This can often be more difficult than dying for one's country. There is a hunger for great living in every human heart. All mankind is longing for a world that will be free from fear and hate and greed. The only way to that kind of world is along the road of absolute moral standards and divine guidance. That means moral change for every single one of us, and that kind of change can be both painful and costly. However, our survival as a free people depends upon it. Unless we are prepared to pay that price, democracy as we know it will perish.
In a time of great danger Sir Winston Churchill could offer his people nothing but blood, sweat and tears, and they rallied and responded magnificently. Today our danger is not so apparent but it is no less real. There is still time for us to repair the deficiencies in the speech from the throne. The needs of the hour demand moral leadership. If we have the courage to give it, Mr. Speaker, we need not worry about the Canadian people accepting it.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the mover (Mr. Morissette) and the seconder (Mrs. Oasselman) of the address in

The Address-Mr. Harkness reply to the speech from the throne on the excellent speeches they made. I should particularly like to say how delighted I was at the very fine speech made by the seconder, as she is an old friend of mine. I have known not only her but her late husband and her father and have been very close friends with them over many years.
I should like to take advantage of the opportunity this debate provides in order to say something about our agricultural program and problems, and also to reply to the remarks on this subject made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
This distinguished hon. member of our house created something of a record, I believe, for speeches on agriculture on January 18, in that he was successful in making hardly one valid remark or using one correct statistic except when he was quoting directly from something I had said, or from the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada" for November, 1959. Unfortunately, while he gave the impression that he was quoting from this last mentioned publication, at times he was actually using the figures in a different way from which they appeared in that publication.
I might also say that the Leader of the Opposition accomplished this considerable feat in spite of the fact that his remarks on agriculture take up more than three full pages of Hansard. It is, I think, a remarkably good illustration of the truth of the old saying, "If you don't know what you are talking about, it is much wiser to keep quiet".
However, Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Leader of the Opposition in the situation in which he finds himself, for neither he nor any of his followers in the house have the knowledge, background or experience in agricultural matters to enable them to speak with correctness or authority on agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course that is nonsense.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The chief spokesman, of course, is the distinguished lawyer from Essex East, and I do not think many farmers in this country will pay much attention to his expertness or give him much credence when he speaks on agricultural matters.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister deny that I know more than he does about agriculture?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the laughter in the house indicates the answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The laughter on that side.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, in these circumstances the opposition have to fumble and bumble along as best they can, and I can only hope that they will learn more quickly in the future than apparently they have in the past. The Leader of the Opposition started to quote from a speech I made here on January 23, 1959, and his remarks appear on page 55 of Hansard for January 18, 1960. He quotes me as saying:
-the cost-price squeeze has been finally halted.
Then he proceeded to try to pour all sorts of ridicule and scorn on that statement in order to attempt to establish that it was incorrect.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the minister's statement of January 23, 1959?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That statement of the minister was absolutely incorrect.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, may I request the exuberant hon. member for Essex East to let me make my speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; I am sorry.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister interrupts
everybody else.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must ask the hon. member not to constantly interrupt me as he has done; he has much more on Hansard to date than I. I would also request that the time taken up be not subtracted from the 40 minutes I am allowed.
The Leader of the Opposition, as I was saying, quoted this statement of mine and attempted to establish that it was incorrect; and, I might say, jumped forward a year in his quotations and statistics in an effort to do so. 1 would like to indicate what the situation was when I spoke here a year ago, in order to show that the statistics bear out that statement absolutely.
The farm cash income in Canada during 1957 was $2,577.3 million, compared to $2,847 million in 1958, an increase of $269.7 million or 10.5 per cent over 1957. The Canadian index of prices of goods and services which the farmers had to buy in 1957-this is exclusive of living costs; it is the index of goods and services farmers had to buy- was 255.9 and 259.9 in 1958, an increase of 1.6 per cent over 1957. Also, farm net income in 1957 was $1,061.5 million compared to $1,277.6 million in 1958, an increase of $216.1 million or 20.4 per cent over 1957.
I think these figures show conclusively that the farm income went up very much more in 1958 than farm costs did; and, of course, I think it is apparent this means that the cost-price squeeze was not operating.

The income farmers received was up a great deal more than the costs of the goods and services they had to buy, so that the cost-price squeeze a year ago, as I stated during
1958,	had been halted. There is no question about that if anyone understands what the cost-price squeeze really is.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the matter up to date and quote the figures as far as we have them for 1959, just to show what the situation is now. We have the figures so far for farm income and for cost of services, and so on, that the farmer had to buy, for the first nine months; I expect that the figures for the whole year will be available within the next two weeks. However, I want it to be borne in mind that I am speaking only of the statistics for the first nine months. The figures show that the farm cash income for the first nine months of 1958 was $2,007.8 million, compared to $2,048.4 million during the same period of 1959, an increase of $40.7 million or 2 per cent over the first nine months of 1958. The index of prices of goods and services which the farmers had to buy in 1958 was 259.9 compared to 267.9 in 1959, an increase of 3.1 per cent.
In other words, during 1959-and I do not attempt to conceal the fact-the cost of goods and services which farmers had to buy went up more rapidly than their income; therefore you could say that the cost-price squeeze was operating again to a slight extent during
1959.	But as I say, unlike some of the hon. members opposite I do not try to conceal or misinterpret any of the statistics; I put them forward as they appear, and I take considerable objection to hon. members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, attempting to use partial statistics and full statistics to create a completely incorrect impression.
This is not the full story, however. I would like to go on and indicate what the situation is in 1959 over what it was in 1957 when hon. members opposite were on the treasury benches, to show that a very considerable improvement has taken place. Farm cash income for the first nine months of 1957 was $1,845.9 million and $2,048.4 million during the same period in 1959, an increase of $202.5 million or 11 per cent over the first nine months of 1957. The index of prices of goods and services which farmers had to buy was 255.9 in 1957 and 267.9 in 1959, an increase of 4.7 per cent over 1957. These figures, Mr. Speaker, I think make it abundantly clear that over this two-year period the rise in income was well over twice as great as the rise in costs.
I do not pretend that the rate of improvement in 1958 was maintained in 1959, but I
The Address-Mr. Harkness do maintain-and the statistics show this- that the situation is much better now than it was when the Liberal party were in office two and one half years ago. Also during this two-year period, farmers' income went up more than twice as much as the cost of the goods and services they had to buy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why does not the minister take a ten-year period, not one?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition then attempted to show that there was a disparity between my remarks at the dominion-provincial economic conference in November, 1959 and the agriculture department's publication "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada" put out at the same time. I quote again from page 55 of Hansard, where the Leader of the Opposition quoted me as saying:
Agricultural industry shared in the economic recovery that began in 1958 and continued into 1959.
Then he went on to say that this was completely at variance with what the department's review stated, and he quoted from that review:
In 1959, realized farm net income is expected to remain close to the 1958 level.
Well, the figures I have just given show that there is no disparity whatever between those two statements. I said that agriculture in general shared in the economic recovery that began in 1958 and continued in 1959. It did share in that recovery. The net income went up 20 per cent in 1958 as compared with 1957. The cash income went up over 10 per cent. Certainly agriculture shared in the economic recovery. That is not in any way at variance with the statement made in the review put out at the end of last year that realized farm net income in 1959 was expected to be close to that of 1958. I know the Leader of the Opposition can read English and can understand it. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand why he should try to make the case that two statements of this sort are at variance with each other, for it is clear that there is no disparity between them whatsoever.
Following that the Leader of the Opposition went on positively to gloat over the statement made in the review-a statement which I made myself, and which is to be found at page 56-to the effect that farm net income in 1960 will likely be lower than in 1959.
As I said, I do not attempt to conceal the true facts from the farmers of Canada, as some people do. I put them in the picture as far as I know it and can see it, and we in the department think that this will be the situation, and for very good reasons. First of all, the early snowstorm in the west will mean

The Address-Mr. Harkness that a certain amount of grain will be lost and that a considerable amount more will be poorer in quality, with a resulting lower price. That is one factor which will mean that the income of farmers will likely be lower in 1960 than in 1959, because they will be selling that grain in 1960. In addition, this year we expect, as a result of the policies we put into effect with respect to hogs and eggs, that marketing of hogs and eggs will be less extensive. This is essential if we are to get the hog and egg situation into a reasonable condition in this country; and when these two factors are taken into consideration it is easy to see why there may be some decrease in farmers' gross or cash income in 1960 as compared with 1959 and, therefore, some decrease in their net income.
However, the Leader of the Opposition went on to misunderstand me completely, and I can only say his remarks were bound to mislead anybody reading what he had to say. He did this by saying later, in the same paragraph on page 56, that I and other ministers had claimed that the farmers now enjoyed a fair share of the national income. I have never made that statement, and no other minister of this government has ever made that statement to my knowledge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Where did that appear?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is a complete misstatement. It begins on page 56 in the same paragraph as that in which the Leader of the Opposition said that farm net income in 1960 would likely be lower than in 1959. It is a complete misstatement, and it was never made by me or by any other minister. It was put in entirely for political purposes; an example of the general demagoguery which characterized his speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You said it all over the
country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I defy hon. members opposite to produce any report of any speech in which I made that statement. We have stated, and we continue to state, that all our efforts are designed toward reaching that situation and giving the farmers of this country a fair share of the national income, but we have never said we have succeeded completely in doing that. As I say, the hon. member was attributing to us something we have never said; an example of the general inaccuracy and misinterpretation of which he was guilty in the speech to which I am referring.
As a matter of fact there was a greater attempt at misrepresentation, one which I think was quite evidently designed to enable him to crawl out from under. An obvious misstatement occurs just after this, and then there are the remarks of the Leader of the


Opposition just after the dinner recess which are to be found at page 59. I will quote the two passages and compare them in order to substantiate what I am saying.
On page 56, after the hon. member had just made this statement to which I have taken objection, I got up and said:
Is the hon. gentleman aware of the fact that farm income increased in 1958 some 20 per cent over 1954 and 1955, some 7 per cent over 1956 and 10 per cent over 1957, and that 1959 saw the highest income farmers have ever had in the history of Canada?
That was for the first nine months, of course. Then the record goes on:


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am aware of that. I am also aware of this, that while farm income increased in 1958 over 1957 and some years before by the amounts the minister indicated the farm income of that year, which he has singled out, was over $100 million less than the average of the 10-year period before that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that another from the Martin bureau of statistics?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister deny it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I deny it absolutely. You had better have your staff look at the figures, because they have made a terrible error.
Now we turn to page 59. During the dinner recess the minister had two hours in which to look over what he had said before- his blue sheets-and decide what he was going to say later. If he had gone right on to make the statement he made on page 59 without having had those two hours in which to consider things I would not take such objection to what he said, but having this time available, he yet came back and tried to misinterpret the facts and state something different from what he had said in the quotation I have just given the house, trying to place it on the basis of net income instead of general income or cash income. And to show that the Leader of the Opposition did not know what he was talking about in connection with these things, may I point out that the figures I quoted were farm income, cash income; they had nothing to do with net income. If the Leader of the Opposition had known what he was talking about-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the minister would read Hansard again. He would realize that I was talking about farm net income before the recess, and I mentioned that in my statement before the recess.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All you have to do is refer to Hansard and read the sections I am quoting. As I pointed out, the figures I gave -with which the Leader of the Opposition agreed-are figures for cash income. Then, having seen during the dinner recess that he had made an obvious error, the Leader of the Opposition came back and tried to crawl out



[Stage Direction]
of it by making the statement which appears on page 59. I quote from column 1:
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was really quite vigorous in his denial of some of my statements this afternoon and took strong exception to a statement which I made that the average net farm income for the period 1946 to 1956 was over $100 million more than the net income in 1958.
If the hon. gentleman will permit me to say so, we were talking at that time about farm income, not net farm income. I thought the hon. gentleman had made a mistake, and I pointed this out to him for that very purpose. But the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) intervened as follows:
Paul Joseph James Martin: No, we were talking about net farm income.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What do you
think the farmer is interested in? He is not interested in anything else. The farmer is interested in nothing else but net farm income.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is quite evident, in spite of the sidetracks that the hon. member for Essex East is trying to go down, that the Leader of the Opposition, as I say, deliberately tried to make me appear to know nothing of what I was talking about. To cover up his own obvious mistake he did it deliberately, apparently, because he had those two hours to check his blues and prepare this new statement which he made. This is the type of thing which I think is completely irresponsible, the sort of thing which causes those of us who pay attention to these matters to lose complete confidence in members who follow that sort of practice.
As a matter of fact, following that he gave what he purported to be the correct figure. He said that $100 million was not enough. He checked it up; he admits he checked it up during the dinner recess, and he said it was $181 million. Well, once more, if he is talking of net income, which he apparently says he is, he is still completely wrong. Actually, I have the figures which I have had prepared by-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Look up your own returns.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -the department as to what the net income was for the period 1946 to 1956, and the average for that period is $1,424.7 million, which is $147.1 million more than the net income in 1958, not $181 million. Well, as I said at the beginning, the hon. member, except when he was quoting directly from me or from the Current Review, has used hardly one correct statistic or made one valid statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have not challenged any of them yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think, Mr. Speaker, the point is elementary; it is just a matter of
The Address-Mr. Harkness simple arithmetic and either the hon. member cannot, or his staff cannot, do simple arithmetic, or they do not want to do it. It is either one or the other.


George Harris Hees: That sounds more like it to me.


Lionel Chevrier: You should get into this
debate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition indulged in a considerable tirade on deficiency payments for hogs and eggs, which merely demonstrated that he does not understand the basic concept of price support by means of deficiency payments. I might point out to him that deficiency payments have now been in effect for a year, and two years in some cases, for a considerable number of our commodities. I might give as some examples soybeans, Ontario winter wheat, wool and sugar beets; they are some of the more important. The recipients of those deficiency payments on those products, Mr. Speaker, understand them and have expressed appreciation of them, especially the wool producers and the sugar beet producers. I have a considerable number of expressions of appreciation from those people on having put this system of deficiency payments into effect to support the prices of their products.
The basic concept of deficiency payments as a method of price support is that the producers are guaranteed a support price for the year. To the extent that their average returns fall below this guaranteed price the difference is made up by deficiency payments. The payment is not guaranteed for each individual sale made, as the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be arguing that it should be and complaining that it was not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And as was promised.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it was never promised; it was never in anybody's mind, and the people who have had deficiency payments on these products in the past year or two years know that is the situation and so does anybody else who knows anything about it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, such a system as the hon. members opposite seem to be talking about, that there should be deficiency payments made on each sale, is one which administratively would be just hopelessly expensive. And more important than that is that there would be no incentive to the farmer to get the best possible price for his crop. For example, if we had a support price of $30 for a hog and the farmer could sell his hog for $5 and know that he was going to collect another $25 to bring it up

The Address-Mr. Harkness to $30, there would be no incentive for him to try to get $20 or $25 for his hog. He would not care.
You have to have a system of this kind if it is to be workable at all; otherwise the taxpayer is going to pay the great bulk of the return to the producer for his hog. It is an absolute essential, and everybody who knows anything about this has always understood it. That is the way and the method by which deficiency payments operate both here and in other countries.
At page 57 of his remarks in Hansard the Leader of the Opposition was dealing with hogs, and I would like to quote what he said. He said the government now has a surplus of 201 million pounds of pork, and he purported to be quoting this from the Department of Agriculture's Current Review. He said, at page 41-I might say, Mr. Speaker, he cannot even get the pages right, for it is not on page 41. It appears on page 42.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is terrible.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apart from that most minor of the mistakes he made, the statement is just not correct. He should have noticed that this Current Review was put out in November, 1959; therefore it could not give the quantities the government held at the end of the year. All it could give was an estimate, and it is on page 42 where this matter is dealt with. In the column headed "1959 b" we find:
Estimated except for stocks at January 1, 1959.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what I said, an estimate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, you said we had a surplus at that time-


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, the minister has challenged the accuracy of the statement I made. Perhaps I can read the exact statement in Hansard at page 57.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is just trying to take up my time and save himself from this criticism.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity immediately the minister finishes his speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read from page 57.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Page 57; I will read it again. The Leader of the Opposition stated:
The government now has a surplus of 201 million pounds of pork.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is not what it says on page 57. Perhaps I may be permitted to read the text now, in view of what the minister has said. It reads:


The Department of Agriculture Current Review, page 41, estimates that 201 million pounds of pork had accumulated at December 31, 1959-
What is wrong with that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If they were estimates-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why do you not put it right?


Douglas Scott Harkness: If they were estimates, why did the Leader of the Opposition make this statement which I just quoted, and I quote it again:
The government now has a surplus of 201 million pounds of pork.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As estimated. That is what I said. Why do you not use the right words?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is absolutely wrong. He just does not understand the situation. That is the total stocks in Canada, not the stocks the government held. As a matter of fact I can give the house the exact amounts the government held on that date. At the end of the year the exact amount was 139,770,834 pounds. The Leader of the Opposition said we were holding 201 million pounds. What he does not understand, as I said, is that these are total stocks; that there has to be a pipe line, as it is called, of pork in the hands of the retailers, the wholesalers, the cold storage people and the abattoir people, and this generally amounts to around 40 to 50 million pounds. Therefore he is completely inaccurate in saying that the government now has a surplus of 201 million pounds of pork, and this has created a completely false impression throughout the country. This is another of his extremely irresponsible and incorrect statements.


George Harris Hees: Better leave it to Paul.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition went on from there to accuse me of bringing on the surplus situation as far as hogs and eggs are concerned by increasing the support prices for purely political purposes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question before he leaves that particular matter of deficiency payments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am not leaving it. I am
going to be on it for a long time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would he explain the quotation recorded on page 58 of Hansard for January 18, 1960, which is taken from page 2581 of Hansard for April 10, 1959:
We will pay the farmer the difference between what he gets in the market place and the price support announced.
Will the minister explain that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I will explain it very
readily. I was speaking there of the farmer

The Address-Mr. Harkness as a whole, which we do very frequently, around the country promising higher support The Leader of the Opposition is merely trying prices to farmers in an effort to buy votes, to raise a dialectical argument.	Mr. Hees: And lower taxes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You deceived the Canadian farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There has never been any
deception. There has been no confusion in the minds of people who understand the deficiency method of payment with regard to how it was going to be carried on. In fact it has been in effect for two years on a considerable number of commodities. There is no question about that at all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You should be more careful
of your language.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a matter of fact, after
the terrific number of misstatements the Leader of the Opposition made I think he is the first one in the house who should take that advice himself and be more careful of his statements and his language. On page 57 of Hansard for January 18 he said:
What brought about this startling increase? Last year the Minister of Agriculture was not saying that this was brought about under a Liberal policy. Instead he was taking every credit for bringing about this 201 million pounds surplus.
Of course this is completely wrong. There was no surplus of that amount a year ago. There was no surplus at all a year ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is right. You brought it about.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Therefore this is another
complete misstatement.
The increase was brought about because of the fact that on April 1, 1958, without consulting farm associations, the support price was increased to $25 for purely political reasons.
That is about as wrong as it could possibly be from every point of view. Practically all the major farm organizations made representations with regard to what the support prices should be not only for hogs but for eggs and all kinds of commodities at the time the stabilization bill was being debated in the house, and after it had been debated, and not one of these organizations ever recommended any decrease in support levels. They all recommended that they should be considerably higher, and so did hon. members opposite. They were complaining bitterly because the support prices on eggs and hogs were not high enough, not that they were too high but that they were too low.
With respect to the charge that the increase in the support price for hogs was made for political reasons, I would point out that it was announced after the election, not before. At the same time, during the election campaign the Leader of the Opposition was going


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, we could have announced these support prices while the campaign was on but we did not do so. We did not make use of such a tawdry device as the Liberals actually did in 1957.


George Harris Hees: Shame, shame, shame.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Liberals did that in 1957, so 1 can understand why the Leader of the Opposition thought in the back of his mind that we might have done it. But this was self-accusation. As a matter of fact, in 1957 the Liberals increased the support price to 17 cents a pound for spray processed dry skim milk powder shortly before dissolution of parliament, and at a time when the election campaign was really already in swing. Shortly afterwards they announced a support price of 23 cents a pound for fowl. They announced both these prices for political purposes only. As a matter of fact, all our troubles with regard to skim milk powder have flowed from that action. The farmers did not ask for 17 cents. As a matter of fact the farmers asked for 14 or 15 cents a pound as a support price for skim milk powder, but for purely political purposes the Liberals established a support price of 17 cents a pound before the 1957 election. This was one of the most irresponsible actions of which any government has ever been guilty-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did you oppose it? You said it was too low.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -because they did not put on import controls at the same time. The result was that when I took over as Minister of Agriculture I found that supplies of milk powder, not only production in Canada but imports from abroad, were mounting up and up. Milk powder was being shipped into Canada by every producing country in the world because of this high support price. It was a completely irresponsible act, and it has taken us right up to just a few months ago to correct the situation and get out of the difficulties caused by this action, which was entirely and purely political.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did you not ask for a higher price at that time?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The same thing is true with respect to the support price announced at that time for fowl. So much for the charge that the support prices we established were put on for political purposes. Contrary to

The Address-Mr. Harkness the record of the Liberals when they were in office, they were put on after the election and not immediately before it.


George Harris Hees: Hear, hear; in a very honest way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that does not get into Hansard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, if you study the experience in Canada and the United States the inescapable fact is that agricultural price support by the method of purchase has proved a costly failure in the case of many products. It has not only not solved the problem of giving the farmer fair prices over the long run, but it has accentuated that problem and made it more difficult to solve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That very statement by you is a repudiation of your own policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Ours is just the reverse.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You ought to resign.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this is so because support by purchase does two things. It provides a floor price and a guaranteed market. The government is obligated to purchase all the product at the floor price. The result is that farmers produce to the utmost of their capacity without any regard as to how or where the product will be marketed. Inevitably the result is an unmanageable and unsaleable surplus in these circumstances. The method of purchase is the method the Liberals were using, and it was as a result of the programs they had in effect for skim milk powder, eggs, hogs and so on that we got into the difficulty we are in. Our policy has been reversed. We have been getting away from these things. Having recognized these facts, when we brought in the stabilization act we made provision for support by other methods than that of purchase, and during the past two years we have been employing these methods more and more, particularly deficiency payments. The use of this method for the support of egg and hog prices to the producer is not well understood, and to clarify the matter I should like to deal with the present egg situation in some detail.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It is one minute past one. I allowed the minister to continue, without objection from the house, because his time expires then.
At one o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hull.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Has the minister completed his speech? We understood at the recess he had something to say about eggs, and I am sure the house would be glad to give him time to complete his remarks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have, as I said, a statement on eggs which is in some considerable detail, and a few other remarks which in total might take about 15 minutes. I do not believe I should take advantage of the kind offer of the Leader of the Opposition and so trespass upon the consideration of the house. I shall find a future opportunity, fairly shortly, to deal with these other matters.
(Translation):


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) on the neatly turned speech he delivered in faultless French, which commends itself to the attention of the house.
I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man), who had prepared a lovely speech that was matched only by her personal loveliness. We listened to her with delight, and found that indeed, according to the English; she was
(Text):
-a chip off the old block.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, we are all glad to see you again performing your duties of conducting the business of the house with the same unfailing tact and kindness.
I take this opportunity also to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) for replacing you as Deputy Speaker of this house and committee chairman. I know that he has now acquired enough experience to carry out those duties most creditably. If he follows your example, he can be sure that every one will be satisfied with the way he conducts the business of the house.
Many developments have taken place since last session, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to list them all. One of those happy events was the appointment of last year's deputy speaker (Mr. Sevigny) to the office of Associate Minister of National Defence. I take this opportunity, even if he is not here right now, to congratulate him. He is a friend of mine and I hope that he will discharge his duties with tact and earnestness. I ask him to excuse us if we must



I960

[Stage Direction]
attack him at times, but we shall do it in good faith, in the same way he would if he sat on this side of the house and we were in his place.
Apparently, there has always been in this house a representative of the Quebec premier. When Mr. Duplessis was in office, we had the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), our Solicitor General.
Under Mr. Sauve's premiership, his representative seemed to be our Associate Minister of National Defence, since he went as far as announcing the Quebec election in a speech he made in Toronto.
Now there is a new government in Quebec, with a new premier, and since there is a vacancy in the cabinet, maybe the Prime Minister would consider it only fair to appoint a representative of the Barrette government, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). In fact, has he not been Mr. Barrette's secretary for quite a while? He knows him, he knows his ways and he could very easily be his representative in the cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, there is another event which has focused the attention here and there, and that is the very notable by-election in Russell. Perhaps was it only a by-election, but the Conservatives behaviour led to believe that they wanted to make it something like a small-scale general election, so as to make up for their loss of the election in Trinity.
So much did the Conservatives want to make it a general election that for the campaign they mustered at least a dozen ministers who covered the constituency, making speeches and even personal campaigning.
Some thirty Quebec members of parliament spent about a fortnight in the constituency sharing the work in the various communities.
I had the opportunity of running across the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. He had undertaken to win over the Liberals to the Conservative principles.
Thank God, he did not get anywhere, nor the others for that matter. But not only did those thirty members or so and the ministers mentioned tour the constituency, but they made promises. Never in my life have I heard so many promises and wild statements as I heard in Russell constituency. Furthermore, I saw so much money being spent there that one can hardly imagine how much, which proves that the Conservative party wanted to win the Russell by-election at all costs. I even saw an ex-minister of the crown-the ex-secretary of state-campaigning in East-view where he said: "If you want to get something, you had better vote Conservative; if you vote Liberal you won't get anything."
The Address-Mr. Caron And just to give them an example he would say: "Take Mr. Caron, for instance. He wants a bridge. Well the people in his constituency voted Liberal, and they won't get the bridge."
I am quite prepared to believe that this was not an expression of government policy. I am prepared to believe that the Prime Minister wouldn't go that far. Don't you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very inconsiderate form of politics, to travel all over a constituency, making such promises? And if this kind of thing had the approval of the Prime Minister or the cabinet, it would be a very bad concept of democracy, because democracy requires that even people in the opposition be entitled to all essential and necessary services. I am sure therefore that this is not in accordance with the views of the Prime Minister.
And, to prove that the intent was to make it a small general election, after the election, a prominent party member told me that they were fairly confident of winning the race, adding: "If only we had had a better horse." Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not expert on horses, but in the matter of election horses, I know quite a bit. Now, with the assistance of the Conservative party he represented, the same man had nevertheless cut down to 2,000 Mr. Gour's majority which had stood at 9,000. I know that our candidate in Russell was a rather exceptional man, an outstanding figure. Yet with the same Mr. Nixon as Conservative candidate that 2,000 minority again went up to 7,000. Therefore, the fault was not with the horse, but with the party backing it.
The people of Russell are close to the government. The constituency includes workers, professionals, executives, businessmen, farmers and civil servants. The constituency is made up of people from practically all walks of life but, being located close to the government, its people know what goes on in Ottawa. Well, those people managed to satisfy themselves that the Conservative party had lost the confidence of the people, and voted in favour of the member who now represents the Russell constituency. That election, which was fought as though it had been a general election, clearly shows to the Prime Minister that he should now go a bit further and consider calling a general election so as to give the people of Canada an opportunity to tell him whether or not they are satisfied with a government of deficits and irresponsibility, a government that is apparently blind to its responsibilities.
An hon. Member:: What about Hastings-Frontenac?

The Address-Mr. Caron


Alexis Pierre Caron: The member has mentioned
Hastings-Frontenac, a constituency which, of course, was carried by the Conservative party. However, if the Conservatives had shared their efforts between Hastings-Frontenac and Russell, they would not have given the impression that it was Russell that counted. At any rate, their majority was considerably reduced, which created the impression that in Russell, all Canadians-


An hon. Member:: That is just an impression.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is an impression in the
minds of the people. The people are just waiting for a general election to make a clean sweep and to elect people who know something about administration.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne in itself was completely meaningless. It was devoid of practically everything, and that is not only a personal opinion. In this connection, I should like to quote from an article which appeared in Le Droit over the signature of Mr. Poliquin:
The speech from the throne, as read yesterday afternoon In the Senate by the Governor General, is one of the most disappointing we have read since 1948.
It says not a word on national defence.
Farther down, the article goes on to say:
The speech from the throne preserves a sphinxlike silence on matters on which our national survival would depend in the event of war.
(Text):
Mr. Pallet!: Order. The source of this quotation is not identified.


Alexis Pierre Caron: What is that? It is not part of the debate? The hon. member, being a lawyer should be able to understand that it is an article giving an impression of the speech from the throne, not of the debate going on this afternoon.
Mr. Pallet!: The objection I was making is that the hon. member has not identified the paper.


Alexis Pierre Caron: You may make your objection but you are not the chairman. The Speaker is the one to decide.
(Translation):
It makes no mention of our uranium market.
And farther down:
Nor does the speech from the throne make any reference to the way in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce hopes to dispose of Canada's wheat-
It is also silent on our trade relations with Japan.
And again:
The speech from the throne makes no mention of the premium on the Canadian dollar, which is an obstacle to our export trade and a stimulus to imports.

And throughout the article, he goes on to show the emptiness of the speech from the throne.
Now let us see what the Citizen had to say on the speech from the throne.
(Text):
This session's speech from the throne is somewhat more subdued in its tone than earlier ones under the present government. There seems a greater disposition to recognize that even Conservatives cannot produce a magic formula for persisting problems. This is a refreshing change from the overwhelming confidence, at times amounting to cocksuredness, that was so marked during the first two years of Conservative rule.
(Translation):
Let us take a look now in a newspaper which is not altogether friendly towards the Liberal government, the Montreal Gazette, to see what Mr. Blakely has to say:
(Text):
As throne speeches go, this one had plenty of length but not much breadth. For all that it ran to some six printed pages and 34 paragraphs, the legislative program which it outlined in general terms was an extremely light one.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, that is the way-
(Text):


Mr. Palleil:: The article also states that this speech from the throne is better than any Liberal one ever delivered. Would you read the whole thing?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The hon. member wants me to read the balance of it. A while ago he was objecting.


Mr. Grafftey:: He is reading out of context.


An hon. Member:: Drop dead.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, as was reported in the press and as stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) when he addressed the house: "The speech from the throne is much more remarkable by its omissions than by its contents".
After the Leader of the Opposition had made his usual remarks on the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister announced certain specific measures. Mr. Speaker, this is an indication of lack of courage. It shows how much the Prime Minister was afraid of the power of the opposition, since it had succeeded in demolishing the speech he had given the Governor General to read. He came up with something new: the revision of the standing regulations. Everybody agrees that this is necessary, in so far as the contemplated revision is not a political one, designed to favour the government only, or again a revision of the standing regulations with a

view, perhaps to curtailing the debates in the house. A revision should give an equal chance to the opposition to voice its opinion. Everybody agrees, everybody approves such a thing.
He referred to the amendments to the constitution, to his intention of asking London to let Canada make a final decision, from now on, on all matters of amendments to the constitution. This amendment, as far as the provinces are concerned, had once remained unchanged because the government of the province of Quebec, at the time, opposed it, fearing that the rest of Canada might infringe upon the rights of the province of Quebec. Lately, I heard that the new premier of Quebec said he was prepared to accept such a change. Well, Mr. Speaker, I also am happy to see that, finally, the province of Quebec, under a disguised Conservative administration, has finally decided to join definitely with the rest of Canada.
Reference has been made also by the Prime Minister to the establishment of a royal commission, a Hoover-type commission, on civil service matters. We are in favor of such an inquiry; in fact, we favour an overall inquiry of the whole administration. We want to find the best possible administrative methods in all fields. However, about this matter of the civil service, I feel that the most urgent need now is to think of the fate of those people who, at this time, are having all kinds of difficulties in supporting themselves. We see today many people who are living in almost impossible conditions. Some civil servants, because of their insignificant salary, are forced to work at night as accountants, others as office clerks, others as typists. Some are even forced to work as barmen and waiters, and I know some of them. Those people are not doing this extra work because they like it, but because they are forced to do it by the rise of the cost of living and by the instability they are in because of their low salary. We urge the government to give immediate consideration to this problem. I am not asking the government to revise all salaries, as I understand that would perhaps be impossible. I know that all federal civil servants wish to obtain a salary revision, even those whose salaries are fairly high, because, having been used to a somewhat different standard of living that they have to maintain, it is necessary that their salaries be increased. I also recognize that specialists should get higher salaries, because if we do not pay them adequately, they will go to the United States. Those two categories of civil servants are perhaps
The Address-Mr. Caron able to provide for themselves more or less adequately, but what about the lower paid civil servants, those with children and who, because of the cramped quarters they have to live in with their large families, are unable to make both ends meet?
A federal civil servant, father of nine, told me recently that out of his monthly salary of $249, there hardly remained $200 to look after the needs of his family, after deduction of pension fund, insurance, etc. If a monthly rent of a $100 is deducted from that amount-because a family of eleven persons requires a fairly large house, which cannot be rented for less than $100 a month- there remains for the head of family hardly $100 a month to feed and clothe his children, to heat his house and to meet other expenses, as medical fees, drugs, etc. Therefore, he is left with a bare average of less that $25 a week to provide for all his needs.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a situation such as this is a physical impossibility, and I believe that a government that tolerates it behaves immorally.
We find that the cost of living has substantially increased since the last depression we had under another Conservative government, from 1930 to 1935. It is a recognized fact that we went through a depression at that time; it is true that the government had reduced civil servants' salaries by 10 per cent, but in spite of that, the cost of living had been dropping consistently, so that just the same we could look after our needs.
It will be recalled that, back in 1932, a house could be rented at $20 to $25 a month. I myself was living in an apartment costing me $23 a month; it had three bedrooms, a living-room, a dining room and a kitchen. Of course, I had to pay for the heating. But today, one could not rent the same apartment for less that $60 to $75 a month.
With regard to clothing, in 1932 we could get a decent suit of clothes for $21 or $23; nowadays, the same suit sells from $65 to $85, and those of better quality, which used to cost at the time around $35, now sell for at least $125.
With regard to food, at that time beef was selling from 15 to 25 cents a pound; now the price varies from $1 to $1.45 a pound, a price three times higher than the one we used to pay in 1932.
I am not asking that civil servants' salaries be trebled, because I admit that, during the depression, salaries were about sufficient,

The Address-Mr. Caron but I want the government to consider the case of small wage earners, those who barely get along, who earn $3,000 a year and whose take-home pay, after taking care of their pension fund, their insurance premium and a government bond, amounts to no more than $50 a week. I am speaking more particularly of those who get small salaries, because as I said a few moments ago, the others can always manage to get by with some effort and hardship. We have to look after those small wage-earners who are starving, while the government is looking at the situation, unable to find the means of solving the salary issue.
I have here copies of employment offers which have been made to the people for some time now, and if we look at the qualifications required we see that university level is prescribed for jobs carrying a salary of $3,750, $4,350 and $4,020 a year respectively. Here is another one with the same requirements providing a salary of $3,750, and I could go on indefinitely. I think such offers of employment are indecent in themselves, because if we really want to have capable people, able to perform their duties properly, we should offer higher salaries so as to be able to get university graduates.
What were the salaries in 1958? I asked for information, because I wanted to know what federal civil servants were getting less than $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year. These are the statistics I have been supplied with.
At the atomic energy commission, three employees are getting less than $4,000 a year.
In the auditor general's division, eleven civil servants get between $3,000 and $4,000 a year, and five between $2,000 and $3,000 a year, on a total of 45 employees.
In the office of the chief electoral officer, five employees out of a total of twelve, are getting less than $3,000 and six get less than $4,000 a year, i.e. eleven employees on a staff of twelve.
At the Department of Citizenship and Immigration counting 4,571 employees, 822 get less than $3,000 a year and 1,205 civil servants receive less than $4,000.
Now, if we consider salaries paid at the civil service commission, we see that on a staff of 658 employees, 196 get less than $3,000 a year and 183 less than $4,000.
At the external affairs department, on a total of 748 employees, 105 get less than $3,000 a year, 365 less than $4,000, and 73 less than $5,000.

As for the Department of Finance, on a total of 5,283 employees, 1,291 get less than $3,000 a year and 2,544 less than $4,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, is that not enough to show that those who get poor wages, starvation wages are not the exception but the vast majority? Then the civil service commission came along, recognized the situation and, in its report recommended that the government grant a salary increase to the employees of almost every department.
What does the minister say? He says: "That report cannot be published, it is a confidential report." Why is it so? Is it that the government would find itself on the spot if the report were published?


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a question?


Alexis Pierre Caron: Certainly.


William Heward Grafftey: Was it not the same thing at the time of the Liberal administration, when there was a report to publish?


Alexis Pierre Caron: The reports were published at that time. Besides, the civil service commission did not have to recommend an increase; we granted six of them while, since you've been in office, there hasn't been a single one.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not an answer to my question.


Alexis Pierre Caron: At the time the Liberals were in office, when I used to sit on your side of the house, and as far as I can remember, only confidential reports which were of the utmost importance for the welfare of the state were not published. Now, the government refuses to publish the report and says that the recommendations cannot be granted because the government has not accepted it.
How do you want the public of Canada to be in a position to see if the government is right or wrong, if the government refuses to publish this report? Besides, it is often an open secret, because everybody knows that the civil service commission has recommended a salary increase, maybe not a general increase, but certain specific increases for the lowest paid employees who are really in need.
But, since the matter of the publication of documents is raised, here is what Mr. Fleming had to say-in answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). It will be found at page 155 of Hansard, session 1955, volume I. I am quoting Mr. Fleming:
Throughout the government has shown the most blatant contempt for the institution of parliament. Upon the shoulders of every government supporter in this house rests the unhappy responsibility of

bearing whatever part he has played in allowing the government to impose this iron curtain that has denied to parliament and to the Canadian people information that ought to have been laid before them.
This was the present Minister of Finance speaking. What did the Prime Minister have to say? He said, during the 1955 session, as reported at page 1121 of Hansard:
Therefore when my hon. friend says that it is not in the public interest my submission is that such a doctrine cannot apply except when the security of the state is challenged or where a matter arises which, in the interests of security, should be denied to the house. Therefore I wish to press the motion.
These were the words of the present Prime Minister.
And what did the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) have to say at the time he was in opposition in 1955? He said, as reported on page 1121 of volume II of Hansard, 1955:
Speaking on the point of order, my understanding is that when that ruling was first laid down it was at a time when the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was prime minister, and he took the position as the responsible prime minister of the day that these documents were not producible because they were not in the possession of the government.
Well, this one is in the possession of the government. The present Prime Minister was then of the opinion, as was the Minister of Finance, three, four or five years ago, that those reports should be produced. Why then are they of a different opinion once they are in power? They are a bit embarrassed because they have placed the country in a precarious financial situation and because they can't do a thing to get it out of this stalemate. So, they do not want to make those documents available to the public for fear the people would know just what is in them.
Besides, newspapers have had a lot to say about this matter. We note for instance, according to the Citizen, what the Minister of Finance said:
(Text):
Mr. Fleming, the Minister of Finance, aggravated the situation. He refused to publish the report of the civil service commission recommending a wage increase, on the grounds that the document was confidential. Yet last year he published a similar report, when it recommended against a pay increase.



GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
Letter Carriers	 $2,850-$3,600
Laboratory Helper	 1,775- 2,220
Asst. Technician	 2,160- 3,270
Technician	 3,750- 5,730
Professional Engineer	 4,740-10,140
Geologist	 4,740- 9,420
Doctors	 5,880-14,000
Solicitors	 4,740-11,000
Information Officer	 3,900- 8,340
The Address-Mr. Caron (Translation):
And we also note in the Citizen:
(Text):
Finance Minister Fleming's arguments against a general civil service pay boost appeared to be minced, shredded and tossed to the four winds today.
(Translation):
And then he went on to speak of the report which was published by the civil service association.
Besides, what did the present Prime Minister say about civil servants, when he was in the opposition?
(Text):
For many years it has been generally accepted that two main principles should guide the determination of salaries in the service. First, the salaries must be enough to do the job, that is, to attract enough of the right kind of men and women into the service and keep them in it; second, they must be fair as between civil servants and people outside the service, the taxpayers if you will, which means that the salaries we pay for any class of work should be comparable with those paid by private employers for similar classes of work, taking into account the other terms of employment that are necessary to make a fair comparison. I think these principles should continue to guide us.
(Translation):
That was the Prime Minister speaking. Yet he now refuses to hear the complaints of the civil servants, since he raised no protest against the statement made by the Minister of Finance.
Let us take a look at the earnings of civil servants. In May 1957, civil servants on the average earned $69.35 a month. On May 1, 1958, they earned $70.94, and on May 1, 1959, the figure was up to $73.00. Against these figures, workers in private industry, working in similar jobs, respectively earned $80.00, $83.00, and $87.34. These are facts, based on published figures, not things we are making up. That is the comparative picture: instead of going from $70 to $89, the figures go from $72 to $93. And that was in October 1958.
Mr. Speaker, I find in Saturday Night a table showing comparative figures for similar jobs in private industry:
(Text):

[Stage Direction]
Hod Carriers	 $3,000-$4,000
Laboratory Helper	 2,000
Technicians	 3,100- 7,200
Technologists	 5,700- 8,000
Prof. Engineer	 4,800-11,000
Geologist	 5,500-12,000
Doctors	 8,000-20,000
Solicitors	 6,000-15,000
Information Officers ..	  5,000-12,000
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Caron (Translation):
I could go on reading from this list, but I shall stop here because I do not want to take up too much of the house's time on this matter. In fact, I could go on talking indefinitely if I started quoting statements made by the Prime Minister when he was sitting in the opposition, because flagrant contradictions are a habit with him. In Toronto, he even accused my leader of placing France, Great Britain and the Soviet union on the same footing as agressors, a statement which contains not an iota of truth. I realize he is so imperialistic at heart that he hopes to follow the same road as his leader, Mr. Bennett, and go to live in Great Britain, becoming the first lord John Prince Albert, of Saskatchewan.
Still, that is no excuse for uttering such falsehoods, as he did when he said he was not in a position to announce the appointment of the Deputy Speaker of the house because he had not yet consulted the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure he never consulted my leader on that matter. So when he said that he wanted to abide by parliamentary principle, which he usually does not bother with, it was just so much eyewash.
Well, the Prime Minister himself used to say that civil servants should have the right to negotiate. The proof is to be found on page 864 of Hansard for 1955, in which the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
I ask that information be given with regard to the railway employees who, because of the fact that they work for a government corporation, have not that freedom to speak which those who work for other than government corporations enjoy and have the right to expect.
He is the one who used to say that individuals should have the right to negotiate and the right to be represented. I shall not go as far as that.
Regardless of any solution that may be found, of any right that may be given to them, civil servants have a right, when their lot is at stake, to know what is going on in the civil service commission. I therefore suggest that when the civil service commission studies working conditions and the salaries of civil servants, that the civil service association be allowed to delegate two representatives to the civil service commission in order to defend the employees' rights when they are at stake.
The Prime Minister was of that opinion in 1955, but he has completely forgotten about it since then.
Mr. Speaker, I see that time is flying fast and I am afraid I won't have time to say all I wanted to say.
[Mr. Caron.l
Then, since the Russell election, we have seen, in operation, in some departments, a system of inquisition. Employees were summoned and asked:
Why did you vote Liberal?
And things were made hard for those employees. I say that such a system of inquisition, abetted or not by the government, should cease throughout the civil service. People have a right to their own freedom; they have a right to think. They are individuals having rights as any other Canadian citizens, and I say that if the government was unaware of such an inquisition going on, it is time it should give orders so that, within the civil service, freedom of the individual may be respected.
Mr. Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Give us names, give us names.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, I say-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Give us some names.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I know the mind-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are lying.


Alexis Pierre Caron: If I gave you some names, the hon. member would be only too pleased, because I know the mind of those members from Quebec.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are lying, you are lying.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I know-and you, from St.
Hyacinthe, would be one of the first, as you know, to do-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are lying brazenly, boldly lying.


Alexis Pierre Caron: May I pass on to another subject, because I am not very much interested, either in those interjections, nor in those who make them.


William Heward Grafftey: That is quite true. Do you think that-


Alexis Pierre Caron: 
Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I could refer to several
situations-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.
The Address-Mr. Payne


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time is now expired.


Alexis Pierre Caron: It is unfortunate that time is so short.


Mr. Martel (Chapleau):: Would the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) allow me a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-Jacques Martel: Would the hon. member for Hull allow a question?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. He is unable to answer questions on someone else's time.


Mr. W. H. Payne (Coasl-Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to associate myself with the congratulations already extended to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker, and also to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) on the splendid addresses delivered in moving and seconding the throne speech this year. I would also like to convey to the Quebec members the deep sorrow of those in Coast-Capilano constituency over the great losses suffered by the people of Quebec during the past year in the death of two great and distinguished Canadians while premiers of that province. But in doing so I would also like to bring to the members from Quebec a message of congratulation on the extremely splendid manner in which they stabilized their situation and performed in the traditions of responsible parliamentary government in a most commendable fashion. We welcome the new premier of Quebec and wish him long years of successful administration.
I should also like, Mr. Speaker, to join with the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) in his remarks of congratulations and thanks to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) in bringing to fruition the talks which are about to begin under the chairmanship of our distinguished and beloved Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), a native of our own province, in connection with the negotiations with the United States concerning the Columbia river.
While I am in a mood for congratulating, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to pass on congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the members of his cabinet, who are also practising what I should like to term a very high and responsible duty in administering the government of this nation. In this I refer to the manner in which he and his colleagues considered the report submitted at the termination of the last
284	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Payne session of this parliament by the committee on mines, forests and waters, in which the recommendation was made that this nation should have a department of forestry.
I noticed that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) perused the details of the throne speech, but it is with regret that I find his vision has failed him; for certainly here, if in no other place, there is great substance. I quote from the speech from the throne, as follows:
You will be asked to authorize the establishment of a new department to be concerned with affairs relating to the forests of Canada.
I would point out it is not surprising that the hon. member for Hull and those of his party have difficulty in finding substance in an announcement such as this; for in checking the minutes of the mines, forests and waters committee, as conducted during the days of the Liberal regime, I find that it sat, considered and reported after about one, two or three meetings. Never during the course of the former administration have I found that at any time that committee considered matters concerning the forests of this nation.
That, of course, may not be of too great interest to those hon. gentlemen, but in order to keep the record straight I would like to point out that in the year 1957, in gross value of production, the forests and the by-products that come from the forests of Canada were responsible for over $4 billion of Canada's gross national product. I think this, Mr. Speaker, is a very major part of Canada's economy.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in 1957, of total exports in dollars and cents of $4,839 million, the forests of Canada produced exports in excess of $1,456 million, or were responsible for producing more than one third of every export dollar earned by this nation. In 1958 a similar pattern was seen. Our total exports were over $4,830 million. Exports accountable for and produced by the forests of this nation were $1,413 million, and again accounted for one third plus of all the dollar earnings of this nation.
I have no final figures for the year 1959, but for the 11 months ended last November the total export figures show a sizeable increase over the previous year, being $4,584 million for the 11-month period. The forest industries of Canada accounted for $1,381 million, and again represent over one third in dollar value of all the exports from this nation. It is quite conceivable that the hon. member for Hull finds this of no interest, but if these are his thoughts I am sure they are not shared in my part of Canada.


I should like to point out at this time that Canada is approaching its 100th anniversary. Back in the early days of exploration of this continent explorers reported to their native lands, in all cases that there were two great assets to be found throughout the length and breadth of the known area of the North American continent. These were primarily forests and rivers. Last year the government of Canada recognized the need of vitalizing and appraising the energy sources of Canada, and included in that consideration, will be the vast potential hydro output of our rivers. Now in the year 1960 the government has promised to bring into being a department to serve Canada's major export industry, the forest industry.
I think it would be superfluous to go in great detail into the facts and figures surrounding this great industry, for they are familiar to practically anyone who lives in our land. I do feel that it would be advisable for us to consider at some length at this time what the proposed department of forestry can and should do for our nation. It should be made clear at the outset that no one in this house, I am sure, and certainly no one on last year's mines, forests and waters committee has ever entertained any concept whereby the proposed new department would in any way infringe upon the traditional and constitutional rights of any province.
As all members are aware, an industry that provides one third of Canada's exports in dollars and cents is a sensitive industry, an industry which reflects market conditions not only on this continent but throughout the world. Forcibly brought before our committee last year were the conditions of the United Kingdom lumber market. In a very brief way, in the past three years, the export of finished and raw lumber to the United Kingdom market has fallen from the point where once it was Canada's role to supply 20 per cent and, in some years 28 per cent, of the timber and lumber used by that nation is reduced to a point where last year it only constituted 10 per cent of the total imported by the United Kingdom.
In an effort to find out the reasons we discovered that a great many market factors come into play. Russia had entered the United Kingdom market and was selling on contracts embodying what is known as a fall clause. A fall clause, and I am perhaps overgeneralizing again for the sake of brevity, means that the Soviet union will deliver timber to the United Kingdom market at a price guaranteed to be below that of any other supplier at any given period. It is rather difficult for Canadian exporters to

compete when an undercutting of their bottom price is guaranteed by contractual commitment on the part of the U.S.S.R.
Norway enters the picture in a rather major way as far as United Kingdom imports are concerned. That country has an advantage over the Canadian exporter because of the shorter water haul. The greatest importer of Canadian lumber and far and away the greatest importer of Canadian pulp, raw, finished and in newsprint form, is the United States. From our studies last year we found that while, for instance, in the pulp field consumption by the United States market had increased 141 per cent over the past five years, Canada's exports had increased in this market, only 45 per cent over previous exports to the United States.
The state of Texas is an illustration of what is affecting that market. Up to only four years ago the vast consumption of pulp and newsprint in the state of Texas had been entirely supplied by Canadian sources, but in the last three years that market has been lost not only in part but wholly. Why? The answer is that scientific methods and the study of seeds and species of trees have brought into being forests in the southeastern section of the United States that produce a soft pine which today sustains a pulp industry that has replaced this traditional market of Canada.
To return briefly to lumber, I think it is surely right to say that the welfare and health of the pulp and paper industry, certainly in the province of British Columbia, is almost entirely contingent upon the health and productivity of our lumber industry; for in British Columbia, unlike most other areas of Canada, our pulp mills are supplied largely by waste from lumber production in the form of wood chips and sawdust. The falling off, of lumber, as I indicated earlier, in the United Kingdom market has had a very direct effect on the cost and the supply of raw materials to our west coast pulp mills.
Hon. members have asked me in discussions I have had with them-I am sure if the hon. member for Hull bothered to concern himself with the welfare of Canada's major export industry he might well ask the same thing- what a federal department of forestry should undertake to do and what role it can play. Certainly the first phase this would have to do with the administrative field, but a major and paramount need in the nation today is forestry research. We have a very minor undertaking in the forestry branch now administered by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Likewise we have a scientific study of forestry being conducted by the federal Department of
The Address-Mr. Payne Agriculture. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this industry, involved in woods operations and forest production, have great difficulty in finding one central source to which to come for information. This certainly holds true of the forestry branch, operated on a very limited scale, under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. One of its interests are the forests in our national parks. The industry runs into a great deal of trouble in having long term, scientific studies undertaken in a successful manner through the Department of Agriculture.
I say this without criticism, because it is merely human for ministers of agriculture, past, present or future, to consider that their role is concerned with agriculture. I do not think anyone in the forestry field, let alone any other field, would expect any emphasis on, or true appreciation of, problems that fall strictly within the forestry field. So it is that the federal government can play an immense part in bringing into being a properly emphasized and financed long term scientific undertaking to study matters of silviculture, to study the possibilities of tree growth, to study seed possibilities in different areas, the terrain and soils of our nation, and likewise undertake studies such as those which have been under way in the United States for the past 25 or 30 years and have brought into being the development of the soft pine forests of the southeastern United States. These, as I have already mentioned, are having a profound effect on Canada's exports to that country.
I should like also to draw attention to the fact that there is a need for a marketing division, a marketing division which will study and be competent to report upon the needs of our forest industry to our Department of Trade and Commerce. This is a highly technical field. Also there is a need of more studies being undertaken in connection with tree growth and also studies relating to other methods of utilization of our forest products.
I should point out to the house at this time that during the last session this committee heard witnesses from all across this nation, and from all provinces, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec and straight across the prairies to British Columbia. We heard the same story from this industry who were approaching the government requesting assistance in obtaining markets throughout the world. These witnesses also brought forcibly to us the extensive need for a contact point with the industry so that they could better answer the market requirements. I might say that all these people, without exception,

The Address-Mr. Payne wound up their briefs in about the same words as the committee report ended, which was as follows:
All witnesses concurred that the forest industries do not want a program of vast federal spending in their field. Their request is for equitable treatment and recognition of their vital role in the national welfare. Your committee agrees with them in their views.
I believe this was a commendable manner in which to present their problems, and I want to take this opportunity of commending this viewpoint to many of the other basic industries of Canada whose problems we hear discussed in this house from time to time.
Earlier in this debate I was listening to one of the speakers who mentioned the fall-off in demand for Canadian pulp and paper. I wish to take this opportunity of correcting the impression he left in this regard. The outlook for the export of Canadian pulp and paper today is excellent. Basically the problem in marketing has to do with lumber, just another indication of the necessity for this forestry department. Another such need is the recent ruling by the F.A.H. in the United States. The United States housing authority requested that Canada establish a standard marketing procedure for certain types of wood used by the authority. I believe that this was a firm requirement for Canadian imports one year ago, and this government was successful in having two extensions granted before it became effective. I understand that about five months from now this last extension will expire. This request is an ideal indication of the urgent need for a department of forestry to face up to the importance of establishing grades for Canadian lumber, such standards as would be suitable to the United States importers. If this United States market is ever lost as a result of neglect in this matter then this nation is in dire trouble.
Another field in which the department of forestry could operate in a major way, and I say this without any criticism of past administrations, has to do with such matters as the blackhead budworm program which has gone forward in co-operation with the provinces and industry on a one third, one third, one third basis, but in a rather hit-or-miss fashion. It is my understanding that within recent months my province has requested that the spray program on the Queen Charlottes, covering some 30,000 acres be undertaken this year. This is not to be done because of the small area affected. I feel it is fair to say that this would not be the case


if this program were administered by a department of forestry which would understand the problems involved.
These 30,000 acres on the Queen Charlottes will produce almost $150 million worth of wood products and the resultant taxes to the federal government would be quite substantial. The request, therefore, to make certain that this timber asset is not wasted is more than justified. I could not say what the exact tax value to the federal government would be, but I would assume it would be in the neighbourhood of $35 million, and the cost of underwriting this program on the one-third basis would be minute. I bring these matters to your attention as problems which could and would be administered much more effectively, and on the basis of understanding so necessary to the welfare of the forest industries of this nation, when the forestry department is established.
Then, too, soil and water conservation problems could become major studies for this department, as we are all aware that the run-off causes erosion and, basically, this results from the fact that tree growth has been removed. Above all, the establishment of such a department will recognize Canada's major industry and provide a liaison by means of which the industry's problems can be discussed and recognized.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn to another matter, a matter of an entirely different nature. I can assure you that the words I now use have received considerable thought. It is always a matter of judgement where the role of a member of parliament enters and where it cuts off. The other day in this house our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) read a quotation from the press. I should like to quote it again at this time:
China is ready unhesitatingly to commit itself to international obligations to which it agrees.
However, any international disarmament agreement which is arrived at without formal participation of the Chinese people's republic or the signature of its delegates cannot of course have any binding force on China.
I feel at this time that it is essential some representative from the west coast, who occasionally look at matters of an international nature with a different perspective than do others in this house, should discuss briefly this statement as it has to do with world disarmament. I am sure that every member of this house and every person in Canada wishes the government of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) all success in this great undertaking. But surely, Mr. Speaker, this brings

into focus the fact that today we have a changing picture of power groups throughout the world. I do not think this is anything to alarm us. Such regroupings have existed since the first recorded days of history. It is no more true today than it was in the days of Hannibal and Alexander.
The basic problem mankind always has is the ability to recognize a changing situation. Red China-if that term can be properly applied-with its 650 million people constitutes far and away the most populous nation in the world today. For the first time in its long and ancient history-longer and older than that of any other nation in the inhabited globe-it has joined together, whether we agree with its intent or whether we do not, and is today determined and set on a common purpose. It is in fact one of the major powers of this world. Surely the time has come, if we are to hope to arrive at any basis for practical disarmament, when we must be prepared to discuss with that nation all matters and to recognize them as the power, in fact, of that great area. If we are to be able to face the test this House of Commons must face tomorrow, surely we must be prepared to recognize the realities about us in the world today.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The Address-Mr. Deschatelets to the most important issue for this country, i.e. the problem of unemployment. The confusion and lack of homogeneity and balance in Conservative administration has been noted on a great many occasions. To use a figure of speech, one could represent the Conservative party as an indigestible salad. It is, in fact, a political party without any homogeneity of any sort and without any stability, as I said a moment ago, formed of the most ill-assorted elements, where one can detect an "aye, aye ready" type of imperialism which has always been so flourishing in that party; and, alongside that element, we find negativist autonomists from the province of Quebec who have no other alternative, when faced with certain bills introduced by their own leader, but to take refuge behind the curtains of that part of the house which we now call the "bull pen" of the Conservative party. You will all recall that preposterous incident which occurred last year, which shows so well the confusing and difficult conditions of business today, during the C.B.C. strike, when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) said the strike was illegal, while a few days later the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) said it was legal. And it we examined other departments of the government, we could find the same flagrant contradictions which the public cannot understand. In fact, I believe the Minister of Agriculture himself (Mr. Harkness) is not immune from that state of confusion. You will recall that, last year, a delegation of western farmers came here to submit their problems to the government, and particularly the difficult situation then prevailing in the prairies, and to ask for deficiency payments.
The Minister of Agriculture said here that those deficiency payments would not be granted, even before those farmers had set foot in Ottawa. I fully recall that the Minister of Agriculture, with his usual arrogance, had not even waited until the western farmers had come here, to parliament, to turn down their requests.
You will recall also, in this connection, that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) had promised, during election campaigns, to give that matter the most sympathetic consideration. On March 15, 1958, the Prime Minister said at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan:
(Text):
The Prime Minister also promised that sympathetic consideration would be given to making deficiency payments on wheat, barley-
And so forth.


(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I could point out such contradictions for hours, but since I represent a Montreal constituency inhabited mostly by workers, I should like now to dwell most particularly on the problem of unemployment, the problem number one, which more than 50 per cent of Canadians consider the major problem in the country, as indicated by the results of a recent Gallup poll.
Let us say, first of all, that on January 19, 1960, we received the report on the employment situation for the month of December 1959, in which the following figures could be noted. The dominion bureau of statistics estimated, by means of its unavoidedly incomplete sampling method, the number of unemployed at 370,000, an increase of 74,000 over the preceding month of November.
The figures provided by the national employment offices estimated at 549,084 the number of those who were seeking jobs, while on December 12, that figure was only 355,565.
As a result, we find that in December 1959, only a month later, there was a definite trend towards rising unemployment in Canada. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, unemployment has increased by 74,000, and according to the national employment service the increase from November to December 1959 was 194,319.
There is no point in discussing here the value of the two methods used for computing unemployment figures. I am satisfied that both methods show a startling increase between November and December 1959.
My concern with the unemployment problem arises first from the daily contacts I had with people in my constituency who, since 1957, have been thrown out on the street as a result of the unemployment situation. I also have a number of questions I should like to clear up. I hope that in due course, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) will be in a position to reply.
I now wish to ask a most interesting question. How many unemployed people can hope to find employment through our employment offices? In other words, how many orders are they getting from industry? Unless I am misinformed, which I doubt very much, I can say with regard to the situation in Montreal that the demand from industry is practically nil. I even believe that in the larger Montreal offices, there are less than ten orders on file that are likely to produce actual jobs. The unemployed are so much aware of that that they now would rather save a bus ticket than call at our employment offices. Things are at an absolute standstill.
I should like also to know from the Minister of Labour how many jobless people were

placed through employment offices, not only in Montreal but throughout the country, in November and December 1959. I think that would show that things are even worse today than the figures show, because in fact, there is today no possibility, no hope for unemployed people to find employment through our employment offices.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make myself clear. It does happen occasionally that unemployed people are hired to distribute advertising material for an hour or two, or even a day or two at the most, but those are the only jobs that are being offered. If I am given the statistics I have requested, I would not want such temporary jobs included in the number of regular placements. Also at this stage, I would point out to the Minister of Labour that the figures included in the reports he receives regularly on the number of placements, include people who are hired for just an hour or two, or for a day's work, whereas in fact, those people find themselves back where they were after only a few hours.
Another item on which I should appreciate information from the Minister of Labour concerns the amount of money paid in the form of benefits by our unemployment insurance offices in November and December 1959. I hope the minister is already aware that in some offices in the Montreal area, at this very moment, an amount of $66,000 is being paid out daily, as compared to a maximum of $40,000 daily at the same time last year.
If the Minister of Labour does not provide me with the information I am asking, I will put these various questions on the order paper in order to shed more light on this situation that, to our view, is not only dangerous, but also alarming. I also want to inform the Minister of Labour, while I am dealing with the matter, that the number of people who already have jobs and who go to the unemployment insurance office to get other jobs, is now inexistent and has been for a long time, for the employment office employees cannot even give a job to a person who is already unemployed. One can imagine how ridiculous it would be should a person having a job ask for another one. This being said, let us see now the attitude of the government towards this problem.
According to page 80 of Hansard of January 19 last, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who has always shown great interest in the solution of the unemployment problem, asked the following question to the Minister of Labour:
Mr. Speaker, I know the minister has not available any figures other than those that are in this release of the unemployment insurance commis-79951-0-19
The Address-Mr. Deschatelets
sion and the minister's department, but I am asking him if he will give to the house now, particularly in the light of the important debate that began yesterday, the latest figures he has at his disposal showing the number of unplaced applicants for jobs in Canada. I suggest that he give us the figures, let us say, for January 6.
And here is the answer of the Minister of Labour, on the same page:
The number of persons registering at our offices and applying for unemployment insurance was 722,834, as of January 7.
Well, these figures quoted by the Minister of Labour for January 7 thus show an even greater increase from December and, if we add this number to that of the unemployed, who do not receive unemployment insurance benefits and who do not even go to the unemployment insurance office to register-this class of people represents, it is said about a quarter of all the unemployed-then we can have an idea of the present situation.
When we talk of unemployment, the spectre of hardship appears, for we must never forget that the majority of these unemployed have dependents. Then in that light, it can be said without exaggeration that close to one million men, women and children are now suffering because of this calamity.
Then, this being said, I ask, once again, what is the attitude of the government towards this national problem?
Let us deal with this question from two angles. First, when January 14, 1960 was set as the date of the opening of the session the unemployed and their dependents have had slight hope, believing that the Conservative government would take immediately, in view of this problem, and right at the opening of parliament, the vigorous and spectacular attitude called for by the situation. Once again, it had to be an illusion, a cruel illusion, because in the first official document that was read by the representative of Her Majesty, the word that is most feared by the Conservative,-unemployment,-has been mentioned but once, and to put it more quietly, it was called seasonal unemployment.
Now I ask this to the government: How is it that on January 15-the date of the speech from the throne-you were talking about seasonal unemployment, while the most recent figures the cabinet had for January 7 indicated that 722,834 people were registered in the unemployment insurance offices and were seeking jobs, and while, at the time the speech from the throne was read, the government knew- and they alone knew, on January 15, along

The Address-Mr. Deschatelets with the officials of the department of Labour -that the number of registered people was 722,834 unemployed? Why did the government not point out in the speech from the throne the importance of that number, and why did they not indicate in it that steps would be taken to correct the situation?
Those are disturbing questions which have been left unanswered up to now.
That ostrich-like attitude of the government is not an isolated case, but a definite policy, as we saw as recently as January 19. Following the reply given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I asked the following question, as recorded on page 85 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In the light of the last figures on unemployment just given by the minister, and in view of the seriousness of the situation, does the minister not think a date should be set immediately for a general debate on unemployment? If so, when can we expect such a debate to take place?
And, Mr. Speaker, I think it was yourself who referred the question to the house leader (Mr. Churchill) who gave the following reply, as reported on page 87:
Mr. Speaker-
I am quoting the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as house leader:
-I have been waiting patiently to answer the question, and I was going to say that there will be plenty of opportunity to raise such matters during the course of the debate on the address, or subsequently on supply motions during the course of the session.
That was the government's official reply, and it commits both the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister-who remained silent in his seat. It also involves the responsibility of every member of the Conservative party.
And should the Minister of Labour or the house leader or the Prime Minister-who has definitely stated and repeated that no one would suffer from unemployment while he was Prime Minister-should any of these three happen to come face to face at some time with 2,000 to 3,000 unemployed, asking to explain why, on January 19, 1960, instead of granting the full dress debate asked by the opposition, they delayed it, I wonder what would be their answer.
Well, I think I understand, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After the promises they made.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: After the promises
they made, as the hon. member for Essex East is saying. I know that they would be in trouble and that they would look crestfallen, these representatives of the people who, after having called a session, have
[Mr. Deschatelets.)
refused a debate on unemployment, while we, of the opposition, all we can do is to take part in a regular debate. We could have asked questions to the government; we could have suggested some plans to help them.
And as the leader of the house said so well: "This debate may be granted later."
This is why I hope that, if ever the Prime Minister of this country, the leader of this house or the Minister of Labour have to face a meeting of unemployed, one of those men will care enough, and have enough sincerity and courage to rise and ask them: "Why did you refuse to discuss the matter at the opening of parliament, when, according to the figures supplied by the Minister of Labour, there were more than 700,000 unemployed in this country?"
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the refusal of such a discussion, a refusal which is in no way justified, engages the responsibility not only of members of the cabinet but of all other hon. members from ridings where unemployment prevails. It affects more particularly representatives from the province of Quebec, who cannot fail to know that more than a third of the unemployed in this country are from that province. For that reason, when the leader of the house refused to discuss the subject, I should have liked to see one of the Conservative members from the province of Quebec rise and say that such debate was justified under the circumstances.
But they remained silent. And this silence, I am telling them today, will haunt their political careers. As a matter of fact, this will be our subject matter at the very next opportunity we shall have during a byelection. Our chief criticism of the government is not so much unemployment, though a result of their policy, as their attempts to minimize, under every circumstance, the serious character of this unemployment, and their inability to cope with the problem.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out two newspaper reports I have here and which quite clearly explain what I just mentioned a few moments ago.
I shall read from an article which appeared in La Presse of July 22, 1959. You will see how well it applies to the party responsible for the present situation.
There are people who are always looking behind them and not where they are going. Others look too far ahead and fail to perceive the obstacle right in front of them.
The Prime Minister of Canada seems to belong to the second category. He got himself elected by touring the country with his "vision" of the future, and depicting the Arctic all covered with roads and industries-while unemployment was prevailing in the larger cities of our temperate zone.

This text was written in July 1959.
Here is another item from the same paper, dated January 20, 1960.
Just a few weeks ago, in their year end reviews or new year messages, federal and provincial cabinet ministers promised prosperity for all, displaying a degree of optimism that everyone would have liked to share. However, the latest unemployment figures, issued yesterday, deal a serious blow to such optimistic feelings. And they only give the picture for the beginning of the winter, covering only mid-November to mid-December. Furthermore, the darkest part of the picture is in the province of Quebec.
What has happened to the celebrated windfall of public works that had been promised by the Minister of Labour? And what about relief measures? Nobody ever talks about them now.
There was even no mention of it in the speech from the throne, which made only passing reference to unemployment, as though the problem hardly existed.
When will the government wake up to the reality of the situation? I have just quoted from a paper that is widely read in every town in the province of Quebec. Apart from all political considerations, it castigates the government for its ineptitude, and states that what the country needs is enlightened leadership, something our party would be able to provide.
Before closing my remarks, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) whether he is in favour of telling us exactly what is the number of unemployed at the present time in Canada. If he is in favour of doing so, I would suggest something in order to help him realize the full extent of unemployment in Canada at the present time. Since radio, television, newspapers and a whole publicity system are at the disposal of the Minister of Labour, I would ask him to launch an intensive publicity campaign in all provinces, in which he would ask all those who are unemployed and who are not getting any unemployment insurance to report at once to their nearest registry office in order to give their names; only then shall we be in a position, perhaps, to know the full extent of unemployment. If the Minister of Labour does not comply with my request, I hope my words here will be given enough publicity-at least this part of my speech- so that all Canadians who are getting no unemployment insurance, and who are unemployed, may be asked to get to their nearest national employment office and give their names.
79951-0-19i
The Address-Mr. Creaghan
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think some of my Conservative friends could ask me: "But you, who have just been so harsh with us, who have just condemned us on the question of unemployment, because we have no program, have you any yourself to suggest in order to check unemployment in this country?" Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a program to suggest, which would put a stop to the disastrous situation in which we are at the present time. It is a somewhat radical program, but I am sure it is a good one. Here it is: Let the government admit its incompetence at settling that problem, let it proclaim a general election in order that Canadian electors may choose between the Liberals who have always served them well and the Conservatives who have deceived them with unfulfilled promises.
(Text):


Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to answer in a very general way the remarks of the last hon. member who spoke on the subject of unemployment. He was most critical of the government for failing to permit a debate on unemployment at such an early stage in the session. It is pretty well known to all hon. members of the house that the government has an obligation to move into committee of supply on six occasions. There will be as many as 12 days available to the opposition parties to discuss unemployment. In addition, the estimates of the various departments will be up for consideration. In my opinion the major obligation of the government is to get the throne speech concluded in order that we can get down to the real business of the session.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to say a few words on behalf of the people of eastern Canada and the residents of New Brunswick in particular. Before starting my remarks I want to congratulate the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and to state publicly at the same time how pleased I am to see that you, Mr. Speaker, are back again, and to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) who was recently elected as your deputy. I am sure that the hon. member for Quebec South, like yourself, will add wisdom, wit and decorum to this honourable house.
I also want to congratulate all the previous speakers in this debate and particularly the members of the opposition who have attempted, without success to date, to carry out their duty of constructive criticism. I should also like to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Payne)

The Address-Mr. Creaghan who discussed in detail this afternoon the role that the government can play in forestry. I recommend his speech to all hon. members of the house who were not present and to all provincial legislators. The new department will be of great benefit to most provinces of Canada and is of the utmost importance to New Brunswick. Forestry is our most important industry. It is unfortunate that we have had to wait nearly 100 years for this type of legislation. However, I am sure that proper thinking citizens will look upon this move as further evidence of the national development policy of the present administration.
In my opinion the over-all policy of the government has been good for Westmorland, fairly good for the maritimes and excellent for Canada as a whole. By assisting one particular industry, it is not always possible to eliminate damage to another segment of the country. Unfortunately some general legislation damages and hurts a particular region.
On September 16 last the Beaverbrook art gallery at Fredericton, New Brunswick, was officially opened. The September issue of the Atlantic Advocate dealt extensively with this event and had many pages of pictures in colour. At this time I should like to quote the last two paragraphs from the leading article which appears on page 65 of that journal:
Lord Beaverbrook, by his gift of the gallery and the pictures, some of which will go in rotation to his second gallery at Starr House, Saint John, and by his foundation of a million dollars to sustain them, has given to New Brunswick a power of enjoyment which will last not for a year, not for a lifetime, but for generations to come, for always.
No man can give more.
There are in all about 300 paintings in this wonderful collection housed in a beautiful gallery. This is one of the most recent of the many well planned gifts to his native province by the Right Hon. Lord Beaverbrook.
A few weeks later, on Sunday, November 15, I had the opportunity to be present at the official opening of the first building erected on the new campus of St. Joseph's University. This university has been in existence for a great many years in the province of New Brunswick in an area commonly referred to as Memramcook valley. The new building is located within the limits of the city of Moncton, now generally accepted as the cultural centre for the French speaking population of New Brunswick. Already St. Joseph's is the largest French speaking university east of Quebec and I am certain it will grow and expand very rapidly in the near future.
There is also another university located in my riding, Mount Allison University at Sack-ville, New Brunswick. This latter university

has witnessed exceptional growth in the last few years and several new buildings have been erected on its campus in an attempt to keep up with the enlarged enrolment.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Mac-Ewan) who has just this moment assumed the duties of Speaker is one of the alumni of that university. This is the venue of the Mount Allison radio forum and the popular political institute so familiar to many members of the house.
Another important event took place on December 21. On that date Moncton's second television station CBAFT was officially opened and became the third French language television station of the C.B.C. At the present time this station only televises films except for brief periods on weekdays at supper hour when the English language microwave facilities are available and live programs originating in Montreal are viewed. It is my hope that sometime early in 1961 the French language microwave will be completed from Rimouski in the province of Quebec to Moncton, New Brunswick. This station will then have much better French T.V. shows. The third step is for the C.B.C. to consider the construction of a studio for local programs.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate from this brief resume that we in New Brunswick are not lagging behind in so far as education and culture are concerned. In my opinion, in that respect we are keeping pace with the rest of Canada.
On the other hand, we are not keeping pace in so far as the average national income is concerned. It is simple logic that the majority of our citizens cannot take advantage of the privileges to which I have just referred without having a decent income. Recently, I read Lord Beaverbrook's latest book entitled "Friends". He said that when he was a boy if a maritimer wanted a decent job, outside of the professions, he had three choices: one, to become a bank clerk; two, go to Boston and try to find a job; and three, go west. Today there is a greater variety of job opportunities but the rate of pay is still far below the national average. Consequently in my riding, and I suggest elsewhere in New Brunswick, the most popular employers are the Canadian National Railways; T.C.A., and the federal and provincial governments.
I have, Mr. Speaker, a chart showing the average weekly earnings in Canada by provinces. As of December 31, 1958 they were: Prince Edward Island, $48.70 per week; New Brunswick, $58.27; and the highest, British Columbia, $78.35. I appreciate that

in some cases lower wages do not necessarily mean lower living costs. In my opinion, it is up to the federal government to take further action to improve the economy of the Atlantic provinces. Great progress has been made in the last five years, particularly since June, 1957. The present federal government has been generous, but the day must come when Canadians from Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia will no longer look upon maritimers as simply poor relatives.
I have before me a clipping from the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax dated January 21,	1960. It appears that Mr. Arthur
Johnson, president of the Atlantic provinces economic council, made a speech at Pictou, Nova Scotia, on January 20. The president of APEC is reported as follows:
Mr. Johnson described "assistance items" as evidence of a new understanding from without for the Atlantic provinces.
In a service club address he enumerated some of these recognitions as the $25 million Atlantic provinces' special assistance grant; the freezing of railway rates; the $20 million grant rolling back rate increases by 7 per cent, and the special instructions to the MacPherson transportation commission to examine Atlantic inequities; the roads to resources, and power transmission lines policies.
That is a statement from a speech made, as I said, by the president of APEC which has already done so much in its short period of existence to promote and advertise to the rest of Canada the present situation in the eastern provinces. We are loyal Canadians. If it has become next to impossible, because of geography, to now earn good wages it seems to me that it is up to our fellow Canadians to help.
What can be done? I would suggest an immediate speedup in the current studies affecting transportation and the implementation of one or more of three C's to which reference is so often made. These include the construction of the Chignecto canal along the border of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia or alternatively from the Petitcodiac or Memramcook rivers to the town of Shediac in my riding. This so-called Chignecto canal has been the subject of a great deal of discussion and debate, particularly in the last 18 months. I wish to refer the house to some of the leading editorials that were printed in that period of time. In the first place, I refer to the Telegraph-Journal of June 28, 1958. This editorial, among other things, stated:
The world has completely changed since the last full-scale examination of the Chignecto canal project was carried out. That was in the early 1930's, when the Surveyor commission made a study while Canada was in the depths of a great depression and government retrenchment was the order of the day.
At that time-even though the outcome of the study was a foregone conclusion, under the prevail-
The Address-Mr. Creaghan ing circumstances-the commission did not close the door on the canal idea. It suggested that a further investigation could be made later "in the light of future developments in Canada's economic situation."
The article also stated, and I quote:
The Chignecto canal presents an opportunity to the federal government to do something really worth while for the economy of these provinces.
A few months later, on January 22, 1959, an editorial appeared in the Moncton Transcript discussing the Chignecto canal proposal. It stated, in part, as follows:
-there is every indication that a canal across the isthmus of Chignecto would facilitate a great deal of shipping in the other direction. Certainly the route from the north shore of New Brunswick, the Gaspe, and the whole St. Lawrence system to the northeastern seaboard of the United States would be greatly shortened. And this brings to mind the real possibility that steel mills may be erected on the eastern U.S. coast, as has already been indicated in some quarters of the huge industry. Should that be done, then a canal through Chignecto could become a vital artery for the transportation of northern ore to its destination in eastern smelters.
More recently, Mr. K. C. Irving, one of Canada's and certainly the maritimes' leading industrialist, made a speech on Chignecto when he addressed the maritime provinces board of trade on June 18, 1959. It is a rare occasion when Mr. Irving makes a public speech; I understand that this was one of the first that he made to a large maritime group. He stated, according to press reports:
Failure to build the canal following confederation promises dating back to 1864 and 1866, he charged, had "destroyed our coastal shipping and industry."
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is entirely a federal problem. However, I suggest to the government that before any more money is spent on the St. Lawrence seaway the Chignecto canal should be given priority. During construction millions of dollars will be spent to the benefit of the people in the area. It is now understood that this canal has been accepted as a logical extension easterly of the St. Lawrence seaway.
The second of the three C's is equally important and has also been discussed in this house by many maritime members. I refer to the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway. This will probably cost in excess of $200 million and take several years to complete. During construction it will prime the economy of the two provinces and when completed give the public proper transportation facilities. The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) spoke on this subject in this house on April 20, 1959. At that time the hon. member for Queens was discussing

The Address-Mr. Creaghan transportation generally and what he considered to be his interpretation of the confederation promises. He is reported at page 2842 of Hansard of that year as follows:
To mitigate against our separation and insularity great emphasis was placed upon the matter of communication. A situation was to be created whereby we would get all the benefits of a direct link with the Intercolonial and other railways which were being projected at the time. The disadvantages of our isolation were to be overcome, and on that basis the colony of Prince Edward Island entered confederation in 1873. The terms of our agreement are precise on this question-
The hon. member for Queens then quoted from the agreement of 1873. That agreement can be summarized as follows: the dominion government was to assume full responsibility, winter and summer, for an efficient steam service for the conveyance of mail and passengers. If we go back to 1873 it is only fair to state that it was then impossible even to speculate that a causeway could be constructed across this body of water. However, it is equally fair to assume today that what was to be an efficient steam service is not now sufficient.
The third "C", at the present time considered by some to be of lesser importance, is a roadway from the province of New Brunswick across the state of Maine to Sherbrooke in the province of Quebec. This has been referred to as a corridor road. In order to construct such a roadway there must be the fullest of co-operation between the governments of Canada and the United States, and between the provincial governments of Quebec and New Brunswick and the state government of Maine. It certainly is justified as a project that would greatly improve the transportation situation between the maritime provinces and upper Canada. It also should be considered by both governments as a route in case of disaster or for civil defence evacuation. In any case an immediate start on one or more of these major federal works programs would go a long way toward bringing about economic equality to these provinces by the sea.
Much has been accomplished in Westmorland during the past two years by this government. My constituents and myself are very grateful for everything that has been done. It is unfortunate that time does not permit me an opportunity of making a complete review. The departments of government concerned are familiar with these projects, and I want to take this opportunity to thank publicly all those who in any way assisted me during the past two years. However, there is still a long list of projects urgently needed. For example, the people in the town of Sackville need and have requested a new public building for this town. The present

post office facilities are most inadequate and there is a long list of patrons awaiting post office boxes.
The board of trade and town council have been corresponding with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) about the public offices now located in this town. It is hoped that the Department of Public Works will proceed immediately with the purchase of a parcel of land on which to erect a new public building large enough to house the present offices and services in Sackville and to look after future needs of the various departments.
On January 7, 1960 I attended a joint meeting sponsored by the Sackville board of trade and town council. I have here a copy of the resolution which was forwarded to the Minister of Public Works by letter from the board of trade dated January 11 and I think it is important that some reference be made to this resolution. I quote from this letter as follows:
The meeting, which included Mayor J. W. Rose and members of the town council finance committee, unanimously endorsed a resolution instructing the executive council of the board of trade to write you stressing that there is no major difference of opinion as to the desirable location of the new federal building to be built in Sackville. It is the earnest wish of the residents of the town that this building be constructed in a central location, chosen by the federal authorities concerned, with particular emphasis placed on the need for sufficient space to house other government agencies besides the post office, and taking into consideration possible future expansion in so far as this is practical.
The residents of Sackville were greatly concerned because of rumours that certain government offices might be moved out of this town. I can assure this honourable house that the ministers responsible have co-operated 100 per cent with the town council and the board of trade and have indicated individually that moves are not now contemplated.
Since prior to the war another town in my riding, namely the town of Shediac, has been without a public wharf. This town is located entirely on the coast, containing approximately 3,000 inhabitants. Recently a plan was proposed and submitted to this government whereby the town of Shediac and the provincial government had offered financial assistance to the harbours and rivers branch of the federal Department of Public Works. By this plan the town council would contribute $16,000, the province of New Brunswick $24,000 and the remaining expenditure for this wharf, estimated to cost

$160,000, would be paid by the federal government. Two months ago further consideration was given to this suggestion which was first made in June, 1959. As a result of further discussions it has been ascertained that a cheaper wharf can be erected. This alternate plan, like the former one, has been agreed to by the town and, I understand, has been agreed to by the provincial government. If the federal Department of Public Works can now agree to this most recent plan- which, by the way, will cost the federal government less than $50,000 as opposed to the one of June last providing for an amount of $120,000 the residents of this town on the coast of Northumberland strait will be satisfied that once again, after a period of 20 years, a wharf to satisfy their fishing and personal needs will be erected.
The largest employer in Westmorland is the Canadian National Railways. Since becoming a member of the House of Commons I have experienced the fullest co-operation from the officials of this railway. Although I stated that I have received the fullest cooperation, I cannot say that I am in complete agreement with its policies. Recent lay-offs at the C.N.R. shops at Moncton is an example. It was reported in the Moncton press that the Atlantic region is the only C.N.R. region that is making a profit. This statement was made in Moncton on Thursday, January 21, by an alderman, who also emphasized the fact that business does not usually lay-off its employees when it is making a profit, but only where it is showdng a loss. I feel it is my duty to take advantage of this opportunity once again to urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and the senior officials of the Canadian National Railways to reconsider this recent lay-off, and in the future to make definite plans to stockpile work in order that such large lay-offs will not again occur.
At the present time the province of New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that has not a C.N.R. hotel or a hotel in which the C.N.R. has an interest. On behalf of the citizens of New Brunswick I urge the board of directors of the C.N.R. to make plans for the erection of a new hotel in my native province. I feel quite confident that once a favourable decision has been made it would only be natural that this hotel would be built in the city of Moncton, the transportation and railway centre of the maritime provinces. Only when that day arrives will it then be correct for this hotel chain to state and advertize that it is the Canadian National Hotels Limited.
Mr. Speaker, in bringing my remarks to a close I want to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) for his wonderful assistance and
The Address-Mr. Winch co-operation in 1958 and 1959 when he was Minister of Public Works. During this period of time the Department of Public Works decided to erect a large extension to the existing federal building at Moncton. The original building was constructed in 1936, and to date there have been two additions. The proposed extension for 1960 will add nearly 73,000 net square feet and make available much needed space for various departments of government now in the present building and rented accommodation throughout the city. This will be one of the largest constructions undertaken in this city for some period of time, and reflects the progressive growth and importance of the fastest growing city in the Atlantic area.
The final edition of the Gordon report of November, 1957, in the chapter entitled "The prospects before us", has this to say, and I quote from page 15:
We suggest that some of our increasing national wealth should be used to facilitate adjustments that would make the economy stronger and more resilient; to knit the various parts of the country more closely together; to finance developments that would indirectly promote economic growth and permanently add to the country's assets; to assist regions that may not be keeping pace with the economic progress of the country as a whole; and, finally, to encourage Canadians to participate more fully in the economic growth of their own country.
I suggest that this quotation can be referred to as my own personal interpretation of what I consider to be the national development policy of this government. As a result of this quotation it seems obvious that we in the maritimes received the benefit of the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant, which has already been of such great assistance.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain that the outlook for New Brunswick, and Westmorland in particular, is very bright for 1960 and the years immediately ahead.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my contribution to the address in reply to the speech from the throne I will first of all honestly admit, that perhaps even more than heretofore I am finding it a little bit difficult for my tongue to express the words and thoughts which are in my mind. However, basically, I think I can put it this way, that in my estimation at this session this year we are facing, or should be facing, one of the most difficult times in history. As far as the present session has gone, starting with the speech from the throne, it is my belief that the government as a government, and ourselves as members of the House of Commons, have not faced up to the economic facts of life or the realities of the world situation.
296	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Winch
I believe it is correct to say that the present era could be characterized as one of anxiety: anxiety in the minds of aH people; anxiety in the minds of all countries. The conditions in the world today-and that includes Canada of course-are too dangerous for anything but the truth. Much as I regret it, I do not believe that we in Canada, in this House of Commons, and in the government, are facing up to the truth, the real truths, the fundamental truths.
That, perhaps, is understandable, and is human nature. The government wants to remain in office and maintain its majority. The members of parliament, irrespective of party, want to hold their seats; that is understandable. Industry wants to maintain, and if possible increase its profits. Labour wants a greater share of the wealth which the workers produce. All these things, Mr. Speaker, are human nature and are understandable. But being understandable is not good enough if we, in this session, irrespective of the party we represent; if we in Canada irrespective of the economic phase we represent, think from a personalized individual or personalized organizational basis. I am afraid, whether we agree or disagree, whether we are popular or unpopular, that that is what we are doing, and it is the biggest mistake that we could be making at the present time.
May I begin, after that introduction, by referring to the speech from the throne which in my estimation is one of the most innocuous documents I have ever heard or read. It failed to face up to the realities or to the facts, and gave very little information concerning the important matters which will come before us in the next six or seven months. As a matter of fact, we got a lot more information regarding the business of this house when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) spoke than we did in the speech from the throne. But even when the Prime Minister did speak I say, with all respect, that the government still failed to face up to the world situation today and the problem of Canada's own position in present world circumstances.
We know, and the Prime Minister informed us, that defence estimates are to be referred to a special committee. That was welcome news and it was interesting, but it was not what the people of Canada were expecting. They had anticipated an explanation with regard to Canada's defence policy. The crossfire which went on for hours between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) during which these two hon. gentlemen read quotations from the past and condemned each other was not what Canada needs today in order to understand


defence policy and planning. It is welcome news that the Prime Minister intends to have a special committee appointed to inquire into defence expenditures, but he made it clear- and I draw this particularly to the attention of the house-that there could be no discussion of policy.
In that case we are not going to get very far, because instead of an honest discussion this can only lead to a bit of window dressing. I think I know whereof I speak because, I believe, it is only a year ago that defence expenditures were before the committee on estimates of which I was a member. That committee sat for weeks, and what happened? Any time a member wanted to call witnesses to give evidence, unless it met with the approval of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes)-which it never did-no witnesses could be called. Any time it came to a question of policy as regards expenditure, what did the committee get from the Minister of National Defence? We were told that this was a matter of policy and we were ruled out of order. We had that experience just over a year ago.
What is needed today is not window dressing but a full understanding of defence policy and the need for expenditures which have been advocated. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is here. In the two speeches he made in answer to the Leader of the Opposition the right hon. gentleman made confusion worse confounded as far as his policy and attitude are concerned. Praise was given to the Minister of National Defence on account of actions which have been taken in the last 18 months because, it was said, we are now in the missile age. But what did the Prime Minister reply when we asked him to comment on the speech made by the president of the United States to the effect that the major threat is still the manned bomber? There was no answer. But it is important to try to put these two things together-the statement made by the president in his budget to congress and the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House of Commons.
If it was right and honourable to refrain from comment-and I am not questioning that at all-we still have not the answer from the Prime Minister of Canada as to defence policy. If we are in the manned bomber age, why the cancellation of the CF-105; and if we are in the missile age, as the Prime Minister has stated, why spend $300 million on the Bomarc, which, if United States reports are correct, is as yet untested. If they are not correct, how is the Bomarc going to be used in the missile age when it is a defence against manned bombers?

These are definite questions to which we think the people of Canada are entitled to answers, and the Prime Minister's speech with regard to them is a mass of contradictions. We think that $300 million could perhaps be better used by the senior citizens of this country and by the veterans rather than being spent on a weapon which is obsolete and useless.
We are living in an age of anxiety. It might be interesting, it might be intriguing, and it might provide news for the press to see members of the opposition and the government battling back and forth about how many unemployed there are in Canada. It would be interesting to know how many, but the most important thing is not whether there are 400,000 unemployed or 800,000 unemployed, the important thing is that there are unemployed. That is the problem; that, and what is being done about it.
A great deal of patting on the back has been done with regard to the winter works program. According to a report in the papers this program is going to mean the employment of 14,000 persons in Canada. But what about the others? What about unemployment insurance? The present payment is not enough to keep a person at anywhere near a decent or adequate standard. Moreover, there are thousands of people who are not entitled to these benefits under the present regulations. Day after day, before I left my own constituency, I came across cases where men were short a couple of stamps and therefore not entitled to insurance. Here in Ottawa, in my office men have approached me with a similar problem.


William Heward Grafftey: Irresponsible nonsense. Of course, when they are short of stamps-


Harold Edward Winch: You try to get along with your patronage. I cannot, in the opposition.


William Heward Grafftey: Be responsible.


Harold Edward Winch: You had your chance. Now I am making my speech. I have often been amazed, Mr. Speaker, how those with the narrowest minds have the widest mouths.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member please inform this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the hon. member who has the floor resumes his seat, it is not customary to interrupt.


Harold Edward Winch: I only take my seat, Mr. Speaker, when you are standing.
As I was saying, grave problems confront both those who are receiving unemployment insurance and those who are unable to get it, a number of whom have visited me in my office since I came to Ottawa. They are relying on the Salvation Army to take care 79951-0-20
The Address-Mr. Winch of them. They cannot do it forever. Thank God they do have some period of time when they can assist.
We are facing serious problems with regard to those who are on fixed incomes, the senior citizens, the veterans and those on superannuation. There is no mention in the throne speech and no mention by the Prime Minister or any cabinet member of their problems, their anxieties, and whether or not any action is to be taken to give them some relief; none at all. There are anxieties on the home front; there are anxieties on the defence front, there are anxieties on the international front.
I said that we had to face up to truths. One of them I am going to be honest to admit. I think I realize and recognize I did not know all of its complexities until I had the privilege-and I do mean privilege-to be elected as one of the five members of parliament to attend the biennial conference of the commonwealth parliamentary association in Australia this last fall. There, Mr. Speaker, as you so well know, being the leader of that delegation, we had the opportunity of meeting with 130 delegates from 48 parliaments of the British commonwealth. There can be no question, or at least there is not in my mind, that in the minds of some, if not all, that personal prejudices and preconceived ideas and dogmatic thinking abounded at our first meeting together. But as a result of getting together and talking, living and travelling together there came about an understanding of each other, of each other's country and of each other's problems and aspirations. The result was that when the conference was finally held in Canberra there was talking straight from the shoulder on problems, and out of that talk there was, I think, the unanimous opinion that one of the great problems facing us today is aid and assistance to the underdeveloped countries. There was not only this consensus as a result of the biennial conference, but there was that opinion in the other countries outside the commonwealth as well that we were privileged to travel through. It is here that I want to add that we are not facing up to it.
I want to be the first one to say that on a per capita basis I think Canada is making a greater contribution to the Colombo plan and outside the Colombo plan than any other country in the world. I want to make that as the first statement; but I do want to say I regret that in the speech from the throne, and the speech so far from the Prime Minister, we have had no announcement from Canada that we are going to give a greater leadership and make a far greater contribution to the undeveloped countries of the world.

The Address-Mr. Winch
The reason I feel there is so much importance in this is that there is an unofficial revolution taking place in the world, namely the emergence from the cocoon of colonialism of the Afro-Asian countries. Any person today who still retains any idea of white superiority had better get rid of it fast because the Afro-Asian countries are not going to be quiescent. Without doubt, in my estimation, in the next ten years they are going to be a major factor in the world, and the position of Canada is going to depend to a great extent on the basis of understanding and friendship which we lay down today. I am certain that the majority-let me put it that way-of the Afro-Asian countries in their emergence, in their fight for freedom and self-government, desire to follow the precepts of the free world, but they face what almost seems to be insurmountable problems. They need not only help but a great deal of help, and there are only two ways they can follow, namely the precept of the free world or the concepts of the totalitarian world. Although I know, sir,- I wish I were wrong-it would not be a popular position to take in Canada, it has got to be taken.
This parliament and the people of Canada have to be told of the meaning of this Afro-Asian development as it is now and as it certainly will be in the next ten years. Canada has of necessity now, if we are going to maintain our position of security and standards, if not to improve it as the country with the second highest standard of living in the world, to sacrifice and be prepared to sacrifice in order to assist not only the underdeveloped countries in the commonwealth but the underdeveloped countries in the rest of the world. This involves major support to those countries seeking to follow the precepts of free countries and democracies which are facing a great deal of difficulty.
I was never so proud as I was when we arrived in Indonesia to find the reception we got because, if I remember correctly, Canada was the first country that ever made any offer of assistance, which was done last year. Capital assistance, education, teaching in trades is an absolute essential. Incomplete as it may be, I want to say that there is an international truth that we have not properly faced up to yet, and the speech from the throne does not give any evidence that we intend to this year.
Perhaps one of the big failures of the government and of the House of Commons is that the people of Canada have never been taken into the confidence of the government and of parliamentary democracy and given an explanation as to what is taking place, the problems and difficulties that lie ahead


and our responsibility, not only for meeting them ourselves but in helping others to meet their situations. I think this should be a year of truth.
As I said, I think we are too complacent and I definitely think the government is too complacent, especially in regard to our economic situation in Canada as an exporting nation. There is too much political expediency from the government side of the house instead of honesty. Let me give you an illustration. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made a speech to the Canadian club in the Royal York hotel in Toronto on Monday, January 11. The last paragraph of his speech contains this sentence. I have a transcript of his speech here:
The message which I should like to convey to Canadians at the threshold of this new year and decade, therefore, is a challenge in simple terms: "Work and Save".
Then, we received through the mail the speech of Mr. McKinnon, the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, in addressing the 93rd annual meeting of that bank. He says on page 2:
The rapid recovery from last year's recessive phase has been generated largely by consumer expenditures which through the year continued to be a source of strength to economic activity.
Now, sir, we have the Minister of Finance and we have the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. I think the government deals with the Canadian Bank of Commerce. I know I do and I appreciate their assistance and co-operation. The president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and the Minister of Finance have absolutely different views of the situation. The people should be told, which is correct. Let us have no diatribes, no cross-fire across the floor of the house, no references to what the Liberals did or did not do and what the Conservatives said or did not say when they were in opposition. What is the recommendation as to credit and financial policy?
What goes for finance goes for trade. There was a brief sentence in the speech from the throne on trade and a very brief reference was made by the Prime Minister. But, sir, may I, through you, tell the Prime Minister and the government that the issues are not going to be resolved by patting themselves on the back, by admiring each other as they sit on the front benches or by quoting statistics on exports, imports and national production. There are many other factors involved and not only can figures lie but liars can figure, to use an old saying.
What are the factors that we are facing overseas as an export nation and what are we

doing to meet the situation? I maintain that we are not doing enough, are not saying enough and are not planning enough. We were glad to hear the report of the Minister of Finance on behalf of himself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) on their return from Paris but we got very little information as to what it may mean as far as the inner six and the outer seven are concerned. It was with a great deal of interest that I read a report from Sweden a couple of days ago that there is going to be a major effort to shut out the Atlantic countries inside of a year. But we have not been told what the effect could be to Canada and how we are going to meet the situation.
Most important of all we certainly have not been told on the basis of the knowledge of the government-they must have a lot more knowledge than private members- what their analysis is of the economic cold war of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites. I have no hesitation whatsoever, in saying that there is not going to be a fighting war. That may sound like a very dogmatic statement but in my humble estimation there is not going to be a fighting war between the free world and the U.S.S.R. because they know what it would mean to them if they ever tried it and the United States knows what it would mean to them if they ever did so. It is not necessary because the U.S.S.R. can achieve what it wants on the basis of its present policy by means of the economic cold war.
The U.S.S.R. has absolute control of its industry and what goes into the home market and what goes into the export market. It can use one phase to counterbalance the other and it is able to adapt its production for home consumption or export according to the policy of the government. They are demonstrating the effect they can have on the markets of the world under a totalitarian, planned economy. I do not have to use my own figures as to how the province of British Columbia is affected. In the Vancouver Province of December 17 last I find the following:
In 1951 Russia exported 168,000 standards of lumber to the U.K., while the share of 34 B.C. mills in that market was 346,000 standards. In 1959, it's estimated, B.C. shipments to the U.K. will be only 165,000 standards, while Russian exports will be a sizeable 400,000.
In other words, in 1951 British Columbia shipped 200 per cent more standards of lumber to the United Kingdom, one of our good markets, than the U.S.S.R. while in 1959 the U.S.S.R. shipped 250 per cent more to the United Kingdom market than did the province of British Columbia. I do not 79951-0-204
The Address-Mr. Winch profess to know the answer but I do say that the government, with its sources of information, its economists and analysts, should take the house and the people of the country into its confidence and tell us how we are going to meet this competition under a capitalist system and maintain employment in Canada and our exports abroad.
We also have to face a situation that I admit some people have not liked me talking about but any time a member of parliament is not prepared to accept the responsibility of speaking on things as he sees them it is time that man was no longer a member of parliament. I have found that some of the big importers from Canada are disturbed by economic instability as they put it. In other words, they are worried whether or not there is going to be a continuity of supply to meet their needs and because they feel they are not assured of that guarantee, consideration is being given, I am told, to a reduction of some imports and importing from the Scandinavian countries and the U.S.S.R.
I am a socialist, and believe in the objective of democratic socialism but because I have that objective for the future, which I am going to strive with all my might to achieve, I am not idiot enough to forget that as long as the majority of the people vote to support capitalism we have got to live under it. That is why I think it is the responsibility of the government to take the House of Commons and the people more into its confidence with respect to our problems and difficulties and their plans to meet them.
I want to emphasize to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and everyone on the government side that they will not get co-operation and consultation required to meet our world trading problems as long as governments are battling labour, as long as governments are bringing in anti-labour legislation, as long as industrialists are making the biggest profits they have ever made in their lives and damning labour and creating suspicion. Government, industry and labour have responsibilities in 1960 and mighty big ones. The situation is not going to be solved by attacks and creating suspicion. It is useless for an industry to ask labour to hold the line, as was done in British Columbia a year ago, damn labour, and say that they cannot give an increase in wages, and then the next year declare profits 60 per cent higher than the previous year. Do not take my word; that is a quotation from one of the leading business executives of British Columbia.

The Address-Mr. Winch
I do not believe, sir, the government can find the final answer. I know it has not got it because you have to have a planned economy to be able to find the final answer. However, in this interim period we have to keep our people at work, and this means there has to be responsibility by government, responsibility by industry and responsibility by labour. I regret that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to take any action on the request made by Mr. Jodoin of the C.L.C. in Toronto to get together the representatives of industry, labour and government, to try to thresh out their difficulties and their differences, to try to achieve a basis of understanding. If industry is not prepared to place an effective limit on profits, then the government will have to do it through the medium of price control and through the medium of excess profits tax.
Labour is now practically under wage control because you have to have negotiation; you have to have a government conciliator and you have to have a government arbitrator. Wages are pretty well under control. If workers' labour power is to be controlled, then why should there not be some control of prices and of profits? I say if industry will not do it then it is the responsibility of government.
I have stated, and I know I am correct, that we can maintain our standards in Canada but we can only do so on the basis of honesty, understanding and the acceptance of responsibilities. I believe very definitely that this is so, and I say it should be the responsibility of government at this session to recognize that whilst management claims their profits are not too great and blames labour for the high cost of goods, whilst labour in turn states wages are too low and management gouges the customer thereby reaping excess profits, the way to resolve this is for the government to establish a competent, unbiased commission to study the relationship between prices, wages and profits, with particular emphasis on the relation between wage increases and price maintenance.
I notice that my time is now practically up, so may I conclude in this way, perhaps ineffectually, by trying to indicate my interest and concern in the Canadian economy and its relationship to the rest of the world. I would say that I agree with the statement that the western world, with all its riches, all its know-how, cannot continue to exist with three quarters of the world illiterate, impoverished and diseased. Therefore, although it may mean sacrifices by the Canadian people and the Canadian treasury, in the long run it will prove to our benefit in

friendship and added democracies if we make those sacrifices today. Although I am an avowed socialist I believe in practicalities and may I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister as the head of the government that our main business is not to concentrate too much on what lies very dimly in the distance but to do what lies closely at hand and there is much that requires to be done.



REPORTING OP INTERJECTIONS-RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker:: Before another hon. member takes the floor, I wish to raise a matter which affects the privileges of the members of the house. A reference in Hansard, as it comes from the reporters, has been drawn to my attention. This covers an interruption which is unparliamentary. While the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) was speaking, an interruption was made while I was not in the chair and which, perhaps, was not heard by other members in the house, but was heard by the reporter. One hon. member interrupted with the words, "Vous mentez", which, in English, means "You lie", and is recognized as an unparliamentary interruption. I am sure that if such an interruption were made, perhaps with the concurrence of the hon. member this interruption might be stricken from the record before it appears in the printed text. This could be done with the concurrence of the hon. member to whom it is ascribed and by the unanimous concurrence of the house.
It seems to me this would be the wise course to take because otherwise this remark, which perhaps was made by inadvertence, will appear in the printed text and I am sure the hon. member would wish to correct it. I do not need to mention names if hon. members will allow the matter to be dealt with that way. I suggest that if the house concurs in what I am saying now, this discussion might also not be part of today's Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I instruct that the correction be made.


Lionel Chevrier: On that point, may I say this is not the first time the question has arisen. On more than one occasions there have been interruptions in the house by shouts of "Vous mentez". I could refer to at least two or three occasions, not during this session but in other sessions. This is the first time it has happened this session. I should like some clarification as to whether or not, by the statement Your Honour has

made, this interruption is to be eradicated and will not appear in the Hansard which we will receive in our boxes tomorrow, or whether or not you are giving an opportunity to the member who has made the interruption to explain himself or to withdraw it.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the course you suggested was a very proper one, and I say that with great deference. I think it also brings to mind something else in connection with interruptions. There are many interruptions being made that in no way are adopted or appropriated by the person holding the floor, and it would be very appropriate if Your Honour would also determine the question in that regard, namely that interruptions that are made, which are heard by the reporter and not by anyone else, should be automatically deleted from Hansard unless the person who has the floor recognizes them, answers them or in any way indicates that the interruption in question has been brought to his notice.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not questioning in any way the wisdom of your suggestion but what I should like to do is to ask a question. If that interruption had been challenged by the speaker as a point of order, he had asked that it be withdrawn and you had instructed that it should be withdrawn, would that have all appeared in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; that would have
appeared in Hansard in the ordinary course of events unless the house had directed otherwise. The reason I am suggesting this course is that neither the speaker who had the floor recognized the interruption nor did the Speaker in the chair at the time question the interruption. I therefore suggest this rather exceptional method of dealing with the matter. I am assured by the hon. member -and I have consulted with him privately -that he is quite agreeable to that course and that he in fact did not intend to make an unparliamentary statement in what he said.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the attitude that you yourself have taken, Mr. Speaker, in bringing this proposed action to the attention of the house and asking the house for advice and guidance. If I remember correctly, there have been occasions in the past some years ago when a Speaker merely rose in his place to say that certain statements that had been made had been or were being expunged from the record. I think the course you have taken is an admirable one. Speaking for the C.C.F. group, I am certainly not going to object at this time to this being done under these particular circumstances.
Statement by Mr. Speaker
However, on the suggestion the Prime Minister has made I wish to say that I would think that such a course is not advisable. I think that to the greatest degree possible the Hansard record should be a true record of the words that have been said in this house, including the interruptions made by members and heard by a reporter but not heard or perhaps just overlooked by the speaker who is on his feet. As to the particular suggestion you have made, Mr. Speaker, we agree to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. I do not want to magnify this incident. With the agreement of the house I shall direct that the few lines in question will be stricken from Hansard without reference to that or to this discussion, if that course has the agreement of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that we are on the
record again may I say that the point made by the Prime Minister is, in my opinion, worthy of consideration. I refer to the matter of interjections made during a speech and apparently caught by the reporter but not noticed by the Speaker or anyone else in the house. It creates this sort of problem. I feel that the reporter should not be, shall I say, too energetic or too assiduous in hearing comments which are obviously not intended to be a contribution to the debate. However, I will give thought to the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and see whether a solution can be found.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Are we not going to be in some difficulty Mr. Speaker? You said that you were speaking now on the record but you referred to the statement the Prime Minister put on the record in this regard. The Prime Minister's own statement will be off the record. It will therefore be difficult to know what we are talking about.


John George Diefenbaker: The point taken by the Leader of the Opposition is a proper one. I see no reason why the entire discussion should not be on the record. I recall an occasion-I think it was in 1942-when, during the course of a debate in connection with the Hong Kong report the then prime minister and myself got into a heated discussion, none of which appeared in Hansard the next day. It was deleted without any consideration being given to my wishes in that regard. I think the course you followed, Mr. Speaker, is in keeping with what one would expect of you in order to meet a situation which had arisen. Possibly the whole matter could very well be on the record. I do not see any reason why not.

Statement by Mr. Speaker


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is the wise course, if everybody is agreed. I think the last suggestion is understood by all. If that is agreeable, I will follow that course.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not rise to challenge in any way what the house has decided but here is the point that strikes me at the moment. This decision which seems to have been taken is one that, in my opinion, contravenes the regulations. I say that with all respect. It seems to me that it is a matter which should be discussed in the rules committee which the Prime Minister has suggested in his intervention in the debate on the speech from the throne.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member referring to the reporting of interjections in general?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I am referring not only to the statement made by Your Honour at the outset but also to the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. Where are you going to draw the line with reference to these interruptions? Some are caught by the reporter; others are not caught by him. I have reference now to an interjection I made some time ago. I was sorry I had made it. I tried to get it out of Hansard but I did not succeed in doing so. It is on Hansard now. Why should one of these be on Hansard and not others? I think it is a matter which should be referred to the committee which the Prime Minister has in mind to establish, so that that committee may determine just what are the things that might be taken out and what left in.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to carry on the discussion any further but may I say that I think that the rule has been generally accepted throughout in parliamentary debate, both in May's and in Beauchesne's, that interruptions that are made are not part of the record unless they are adopted in some way by the person who has the floor. However, that is a matter for Your Honour to determine and on which to give directions in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: On this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are quite satisfied that you take this suggestion under consideration. In taking it under consideration, however, I hope you will bear in mind that interruptions are part and parcel of normal debates in this house. In my humble view it adds to the debate to have on the record what are in fact genuine interruptions. I think it assists the member in honest debate to know that other members at all times may interrupt in such a way that the interruptions appear in the Hansard record and to realize that the one who is speaking must be on his toes ready to hear the

interruptions and to answer them if he sees fit to do so. As we know from the orders of the day, some time silence is as effective an answer as any number of words.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The point has been raised about the things that have been said about me while I was speaking. I remember very well having been called a liar. I should like to see it in Hansard so that others will see it later on as indicating the mentality of the one who spoke.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I cannot very well sit here and listen to all this phony stuff that is being put out. I am not surprised to hear the hon. member-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Did you or did you not call me a liar?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You said it applied to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member for Hull please give the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot a chance to be heard?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am not surprised to see the hon. member for Laurier rise in his place and try to make a big case out of this matter, although everybody who has been in this house for some time knows very well that things like the one to which we are now referring are common. It is only natural that in the heat of debate some of us some time say things that we should not say and that we should not like to say. But since it pleases the hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Laurier and also the hon. member for Hull to see those things on Hansard, I have no objection, because I think I spoke the truth. It is up to this house to decide on what is to be done.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On the point of order, the hon. member said it was the truth-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will permit me I will deal with the statement, because I think the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) has apparently been provoked to another attitude by what he considers was said, not amicably, towards him. I cannot let that statement stand any more than I could the original, and I am afraid the entire picture of what I was attempting to do has now been thrown into confusion.	[DOT]
I think the proper course is to ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement he has just made. I am sure the hon. member, on reflection, would not want the record to show that he made an unparliamentary statement. It is the sort of statement about which there is no doubt in our practice; no hon. member is allowed to accuse another hon.

member of deliberate falsehood, and that is what is implied in saying "You lie" or "Vous mentez". If the hon. member for St. Hy-acinthe-Bagot would accept my view in this matter and allow the record to be corrected and withdraw what he said, I would appreciate it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by your ruling and withdraw the words I have pronounced.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I have taken up a good deal of the time of the hon. member who rose to take the floor. I believe it was the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau).


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Speaker, following such interruption, from listening to the different speakers and Your Honour who spoke on this particular point of order, my own ideas have been somewhat put out of order, and if I may I would like to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: In the light of what has happened, perhaps it does not look irregular.
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 address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
(Translation):
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to congratulate the Deputy Speaker. His well-known ability, his poise and tact particularly qualified him for the duties of Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and chairman of the committees of the whole.
I also want to commend the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Rimouski, who is a noted economist, stated the economic problems of the hour with precision and clarity. He pointed out the efficiency of the remedies applied by the government, and the proof may be found as the hon.
The Address-Mr. Martineau representative so aptly said, in the fact that today, we are not facing a recession any more, but a new period of stability and prosperity.
The house has certainly lived through one of the most pleasant moments of its history when the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas stated in her clear voice and with all her known eloquence, some of the truths of which it is proper to remind not only hon. members, but certainly also all elements of the people. I am therefore happy to offer my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I would like to take up some of the words the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) said this afternoon. When he was speaking the hon. member reminded me a little of the mountain which gave birth to a mouse. I am not saying this with malice with regard to the hon. member for Hull who is one of my best friends, but I think he is sometimes mistaken, and that it would be right to say that he is sometimes trying to make us believe that the moon is made of green cheese. When saying this, I am thinking more particularly of his remarks with regard to the civil service in this country and especially in respect of salary levels of federal employees.
Just as he did last year, the hon. member told the house that there are -civil servants who are starving in his constituency. Those are his very words.
Before going into the matter of salaries paid to government employees, I wish to pay tribute to that group of Canadian citizens. They work for the welfare of the nation, and I would even say that the country could not be run without their help. I feel that without them, the leaders of the country would be powerless.
While paying tribute to this group of devoted -citizens, I should like to show, with all the fairness that such a problem calls for, just what is the situation of those people.
The hon. member for Hull painted an almost tragic picture of their situation. He told us how much the cost of living had gone up since 1932, and how, as a result of the steady increase in the cost of living, these people are in an extremely difficult position. First of all, let us bear in mind that during the whole period to which the hon. member for Hull has referred, his own party held power for 22 years.
304	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Martineau
And it was while that government was in power that the cost of living increased the most. On the other hand, he said that during the Liberal administration the civil service had been granted six or seven successive increases. In spite of that, he claims that civil servants are now facing a situation which is not very different from that of those who are starving. That amounts to saying, therefore, that the increases granted to civil servants under the previous Liberal administration were not adequate for, since our party has been in power, the cost of living has gone up only 3 per cent.
Furthermore, he said that we had not granted any increase to civil servants. Now, we granted them a general increase in 1957, and since then, we have, several times, granted other increases to certain categories of employees. Therefore, those are two flagrant inaccuracies which must be pointed out.
I am sure the civil servants understand the present situation; they are convinced that the government is doing everything in its power to settle that problem in a satisfactory way, considering the means at our disposal and considering also the other classes of our society. And the government will continue, until the inquiry announced last week has taken place and made its recommendations to revise those special categories which deserve increases which seem more indicated than in the case of others.
Therefore, that is the way the hon. member for Hull, no doubt in good faith, is creating a false impression. I know myself, from the discussions I had with several civil servants, that they are generally satisfied with the government's efforts to settle their case, and that they are awaiting the results of that inquiry before any settlement or final decision is arrived at.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: How about wages as well as honours?
(Translation):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I found out in the speech from the throne that the government is considering the establishment of a department of forests.
The hon. member (Mr. Payne) for Coast-Capilano has outlined the advantages of such a department. May I only recall that the history of the whole Ottawa valley since the beginning is related to the forest. I shall go as far as to say that we would not be here perhaps if the forest had not brought about the first development in this area.


The first settlers in the Ottawa valley were woodsmen. In fact, the forest inspired the folklore of this valley, the history of its pioneers, of its heroes who opened up a new empire in the Ottawa valley and along its tributaries such as the Black river, the Coulonge river and the Gatineau river. Then, I am sure that this new department will play an important part in insuring that our forest products continue to rank first among our exports.
In the speech from the throne, the emphasis was mostly on the development of the natural resources of our country. I am glad of it. On the question of development of our resources, I wish to draw the attention of this house on a project which was often put forward here. I am thinking of the dredging of the Ottawa river.
The industrial superintendent of the city of Ottawa recently drew up a report on the importance of this project. He showed how these last years the rate of growth of the city and district population was increasing continuously. Thus, last year the population of the city of Ottawa was over a quarter of a million, and it is expected that by 1964 the population will have increased by 90,000. In the near future, the population of the area will be close to 500,000 people and if we are to provide for the needs of that increase in population, so that the possible developments of the city and district of Ottawa are not jeopardized, I think that we should seriously consider the deepening of the Ottawa river, and the first step would be to make Ottawa a seaport readily accessible to ocean ships. That could be achieved rather easily and at a relatively low cost estimated by the Ottawa industrial commission in the vicinity of $41 million. Such a project-


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Paul Raymond Martineau: If the hon. member will wait until the end of my speech, I shall gladly answer his question.


Lionel Chevrier: First, I wanted to congratulate the hon. member for his idea. But I also had in mind to ask him to what extent should the river be dredged down.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It is very nice of the hon. member to congratulate me. Naturally, it should be deep enough to accommodate ships of 1,500 to 5,000 tons, at least for the time being. That is what I had in mind for now. I think a first step was made in working out this project when in drafting the plans

for the Carillon dam, sufficient space was allowed for dredging. Certain members of the house know also that the building of a new access bridge is planned on the west side of Montreal island. There also, steps are being taken so as to enable ocean-going vessels to pass under that bridge.
This is a very worthwhile project from which the area will benefit greatly.
When the hon. member asked me his question, I was saying that not only the city of Ottawa would benefit from it, but also the entire area to the northwest and to the east of Ottawa, and by this area I mean all the territory to the northwest of the Ottawa river, as far as North Bay, through North Bay and up to the Timiskaming riding on the Ontario side, and to the Temiscamingue riding on the Quebec side, and the mining centres of Rouyn, Noranda, Val d'Or, as well as the Chapleau, Abitibi, Pontiac and Gatineau ridings.
You are aware that the production of this area is considerable; it is mainly forest products and by-products. The companies already operating will no doubt be able to reduce their costs through the use of such a seaway; furthermore, we must take into consideration the increasing importance of the mining industry in northwestern Quebec.
We already have mines producing iron, zinc, lead, gold and silver. Besides, the prospects are excellent for the production of other iron mines, when we think of the value of the Vincon deposits, in Pontiac constituency, and at Ironside, in the constituency of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron).


Alexis Pierre Caron: That is in Gatineau constituency.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Gatineau constituency.
All these industries could benefit from such a project. The city of Ottawa could foresee an industrial future equal in that field, to that experienced by cities like Toronto and Montreal.
Besides, it would be the first phase of a great dream of the pioneers of the Ottawa valley, that is the dream of seeing the whole Ottawa river system become a seaway from the island of Montreal to Georgian bay.
But, for the present, I will be content to urge the authorities to consider the first step, that of the dredging of the Ottawa river from Montreal island up to Ottawa, as well as the construction of harbour facilities necessary to Hull.
Another point which was mentioned last week by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) himself, has stirred up great interest.
The Address-Mr. Martineau
It has to do with the proposed amendment to the constitution. I should like to express entirely personal views on this subject.
First of all, everybody agrees, and it is the natural prerogative of a sovereign nation, that one should have the right to amend one's constitution.
On the other hand, it is not normal and it would certainly not be fair that parliament itself be entitled to carry out constitutional amendments, because, after all, it would mean the violation of a certain principle, that of the specific value of the constitutive act, which is beyond ordinary legislation.
Now, if the parliament of the country is able to amend its constitution by itself, it follows that the constitutive act itself is reduced to the status of mere legislation.
This is true in a general way under any system, but more so under a federal system which has somehow emerged following agreements or pacts between different provinces and various ethnical groups.
It would be entirely abnormal if this parliament, though sovereign, had the right to amend its constitution at will and on its own.
On the other hand, the British authorities have certainly neither any interest in maintaining the power which is now conferred to them, with regard to amending the constitution from a federal point of view, nor any wish to do so. As a matter of fact as stated by a certain columnist the Imperial government has acted through the years as a mere notary, that is to say that it recorded the will that was expressed, that is the will of the Canadian nation to amend its constitution and endorsed it.
Now, I would suggest as a means and simply as a proposal designed to stimulate discussion, that a constituent assembly be set up and instructed to bring to the present constitutive act substantial amendments, or else revise or recast it completely, in order that our constitution may become a twentieth century legal instrument.
I would suggest also that the members of such a constituent assembly be not elected but simply appointed, in part by the central government and in part by the provinces, and that such an assembly be empowered to bring the amendments I have indicated to the constitution, that it be empowered also, should it deem it proper, to recast it completely, but only under certain conditions. In other words, such a constituent assembly could not bring any amendment to the rights affecting provinces and

The Address-Mr. Martineau minorities, as they are described under sections 91, 92, 93, 133 and others of the British North America Act.
Only with the unanimous consent of the federal government and of all the provinces could amendments be made to such rights or provisions.
Following the submission of a report by this constituent assembly, its draft constitution would have to be ratified by the Canadian voters in order to become the law of the land.
Moreover, the point here concerns not only the revision of the constitution, but also its interpretation. And at the present time, the Supreme Court of Canada is the body which interprets constitutional points.
With all due respect for the supreme court, which is certainly an illustrious court and has been doing a great job, it is certainly unhealthy that this court should be called upon to settle differences between the federal government and the provinces. Conflicts of interest may arise between the federal government and the provinces. However, as the members of the supreme court are appointed by the federal government, it seems to me that there is something wrong there, in the sense that certain principles which are regarded as sacred under British law are apparently not being followed. I mean that justice need not only be rendered, but it must be rendered in a manner which is obvious to all.
So I again suggest, with regard to litigations between the federal government and the provinces, and also in matters involving the constitutional validity of a federal or provincial act, that a new court be set up to deal with such cases. Such a court, which might perhaps be called a constitutional court, might be composed of one judge appointed jointly by the federal government and by the provinces.
I think this might be an improvement, and perhaps more important, it might bring about better understanding on federal-provincial matters.
And finally, as a last remark on the subject of constitution, I should like that the bill of rights, when it is adopted, be incorporated into our constitution or be made an integral part of our present constitution or of the reviewed constitution.
(Text):
With your kind permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now continue in the English language. Certain congratulations were offered at the start of my speech and I forgot to congratulate one member of the opposition. It is unfortunate that he is not here. I refer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. 

Pickersgill) who last fall, in the course of a very successful and well-attended Conservative convention, obtained a very distinguished award. That award, was given to him as being the person who had contributed most to the success of members sitting on this side of the house who come from the maritime provinces. It was stated that had it not been for the frequent incursions of that hon. member into their respective constituencies during the course of the last two election campaigns several of them would not be here.
It was unfortunate, however, that the honoured recipient of such an award was not able to be present personally to receive it. He was otherwise engaged. I believe he was engaged in the compilation of the memoirs of a former prime minister of this country, but although he was too busy to attend that week he was nevertheless able to come to the city of Ottawa the following week to attend a meeting of the advisory council of the national Liberal federation. I hope that as a result the long awaited publication of the memoirs, which members of the house are anxiously awaiting and which I am sure posterity will long cherish, will not be too long delayed.
I should like to dwell a little on that famous Liberal meeting that was held in Ottawa in December because there are certain amazing things that were said. First of all I should like to talk about some words uttered by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) who stated, almost with emotion choking his voice, that every measure of social legislation on the statute books had been placed there by a Liberal administration. Then he went on to say that our administration had stolen Liberal ideas in the field of social legislation. That is quite a novel idea indeed because I do not believe that ideas can be stolen. They belong to everybody. Ideas are part of the great universal heritage. This places us in a dilemma. On the one hand, these ideas are either worthless or else they are worth quite a bit. If they are worthless then of course they cannot be stolen because according to the Criminal Code a thing which has no value cannot be stolen. There is a certain minimum value placed on an object before it can be stolen, so I do not know if these ideas can be stolen. *
On the other hand, if these ideas have a certain value, then how can hon. gentlemen sitting opposite object if we appropriate them because they would then be contributing to the general welfare. I think that hon. gentlemen sitting opposite wish, in their own way of course, to contribute to the welfare of all. But there is more to it than that. I do not believe that people who live in glass houses

should throw stones. I seem to remember that often the C.C.F. party used to accuse the Liberals of stealing their ideas in the field of social legislation. How often were Liberals dubbed C.C.F'ers taking their time or was it the C.C.F'ers who were called Liberals in a hurry? I do not know whether it was one way or the other, but I certainly know that today such thinking on the part of the Liberal party must give rise to a lot of deep thought.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) once said that the Liberals certainly were not the party of the right, that they were to the left, although he said "We are right of course; you know what I mean." But at the same time, he did say that they were to the left. We have another great party of the left that is in the advance stages of gestation and will certainly soon be brought to life. If it does come to life, then I just wonder what will become of that great Liberal party; I wonder if they will simply, like the Arabs, silently fold their tents in the middle of the night and steal away.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Remember Russell; do not go against Russell.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In so far as Russell is concerned, I would not take a tree for a forest.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: You tried hard to get the forest, though.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Then, there was that famous Liberal convention. If ever a modern Gulliver should appear, he certainly would like to visit that, especially when the Leader of the Opposition told his party stalwarts that Liberals must never be satisfied with the contemplation of past achievements. These were, I opine, words of wisdom because in such an attitude there lurks two dangers. On the one hand, there is the great danger that they may consider anything which may have been accomplished in the past as springing from their own virtues. This is a type of narcissism which is sinister and dangerous and with which hon. members sitting opposite appear to be particularly afflicted.
There is also the danger that one's vision even of things at hand might become blurred and one cannot then fully comprehend the achievements of the present and the promise of still better things for the future. It seems obvious, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members sitting opposite have fallen into both of these pitfalls, and I heartily commend the Leader of the Opposition for his timely words of warning to his lieutenants and party supporters.
However, the Leader of the Opposition went even farther, and I must commend him
The Address-Mr. Martineau for his words of paternal admonition when he said that Liberalism has to gird not only against the Tories-this I might say is a Herculean task-but also against the inertia of human nature and its acquiescence to what is customary and usual. These are surely words of highest wisdom. The inertia of human nature-let us think about this. What a striking example of this inertia we have in the gentlemen who sit opposite who have refused to move with or accept progress, who delude themselves into thinking they are still in the times of the docile Liberal majority and who would push back the clock to recreate, were it possible, their days of glory forever vanished. Then the Leader of the Opposition went even farther than that and in a moment of unguarded oratory he stated, and I quote:
This new technique of selling a person and a platitude by all the resources of modern media of communication is recognized as a danger.
When it comes to platitudes, of course, we are no authority to discuss such a subject with the Leader of the Opposition who once defined the art of politics as being the ability to make a platitude sound like a pronouncement. If we accept the maxim that practice makes perfect, some of the hon. gentlemen sitting opposite may soon become experts in the art of politics as defined by no less an expert than the Leader of the Opposition himself.
At the same convention the Leader of the Opposition also revealed his amazing insight into the anatomy of fish, such as would certainly earn for him merited recognition from our learned societies. For example, during the course of his talk he analysed the type of stimulation, not an ordinary stimulation but a five-way sense-stimulating underwater message activating all five senses in a fish brain which hypnotizes the fish into darting straight before the line. I am not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition had in mind when he gave such a technical, or should we say biological description of the ways and wiles of the fish. Did he mean to say that the Canadian voter was like a fish, to be lured, or that his audience reminded him in some vague way of fish, or did he simply want to imply that he was giving them a lesson in angling as they were wasting their time at that convention and certainly would have passed it much more profitably elsewhere fishing on one of our beautiful lakes.
Perhaps, after all, the Leader of the Opposition and his stalwarts could not speak of anything else but the ways of fish. What
308	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Michaud could they say if they spoke about the state of Canada's economy? Would not the Leader of the Opposition then have had to remind his party followers that he had made certain predictions about a year ago and these predictions, in fact, had not turned out to be as he saw them? He predicted such things as rising prices, a declining economy and rising unemployment. None of these predictions has come true and therefore it is very difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about these things.
Then he started into the field of international affairs. He tried to imply that since his government took power our reputation abroad had diminished, and that it was only in the great days of the past that Canada enjoyed an enviable reputation. Certainly it is admitted amongst the diplomats at the United Nations and elsewhere that never was Canada's reputation higher.


William Moore Benidickson: Quote one.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have myself personally-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry
to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join with the previous speaker as well as with all those who took part in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, to congratulate most sincerely the deputy speaker of the house and chairman of the committee of the whole (Mr. Flynn).
(Text):
I wish also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Morissette) and the seconder (Mrs. Cassel-man) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the able manner in which they fulfilled their respective tasks. It did honour both to themselves and the constituencies which they represent in this house.
I wish at this time to talk about a matter of great significance to all those concerned with the economic advancement of the maritime provinces, namely the need of having the Chignecto canal built. Before any new industry can be expected to establish in any location it must be reasonably certain of a profitable operation. In order to have a profitable operation, it is necessary to be competitive. Unless that is possible you can neither expect new industry to locate here nor established plants to remain, provided they are operated strictly on a business basis and no other ties. For an industry to be of value to a community it must be prosperous. It should have earnings in proper keeping


with capital invested, risks taken and effort required. Otherwise it would have no guarantee of a future and may not be an asset to the community.
A profitable industry requires raw materials, power, transportation and many other things at prices it can afford to pay; and, above all, it requires a market either at home or abroad in which it can sell competitively. We have some raw materials in the Atlantic provinces and, owing to our seaboard location, others are available to us from all parts of the world. We have power at prices not competitive with that in Quebec, Ontario and some other parts of Canada but for some industries it is available at reasonable cost. Transportation, generally speaking, in these provinces is expensive. Yet the bay of Fundy and Northumberland strait areas could have a most economical system of water transportation, particularly now that the St. Lawrence seaway is in operation. The seaway has created greater opportunities than ever before available to these Atlantic provinces.
The construction of the Chignecto canal to improve transportation as a joint venture by the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island was one of the reasons that brought delegates from the three provinces to the meeting at Charlottetown on September 8, 1864. It was at this meeting that representations were made by Canada, now the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, that instead of a three-province union, it should be a confederation of five provinces. Following this meeting, as an inducement for the acceptance of their proposal, the delegation from Canada offered the promise of the Chignecto canal. This promise was made also at Quebec in October, 1864 when all delegates were present and again at the conference held in London in December, 1866. The promises were never kept. There can be no question that the failure of the federal government to keep those promises has had a great deal to do with the destruction of our coastal shipping and with our high freight rates.
Canada had great difficulty in persuading New Brunswick to enter confederation. There were many of our forefathers who could not see any benefit. They were fearful of what the future under the proposed confederation, would be. The report of the Nova Scotia Jones commission of 1934 explains that Canada's tariff policy has cost the maritimes roughly 50 per cent more than the benefits they have received. To put this in dollars and cents, the net tariff cost to us in the year 1931, one of the depression years, was $10,817,000. No doubt in the years immediately before and after 1931 the net cost



I960

[Stage Direction]
was much greater. I have seen some calculations using a round figure of $10 million per annum with compound interest at 5 per cent. Over a 50-year period the net cost to us would be $2,093 million; for a 60-year period, $3,535 million; and for a 70-year period, $5,885 million. I would ask you to think of what a financial contribution we have made to Canada. This is a credit on which we should be able to draw. The interest alone would build a canal every six months. When you drive through central Canada you can see prosperity everywhere. The people in the maritimes feel very strongly that we have paid for some part of that prosperity.
A meeting of the Progressive Conservative candidates held in Moncton in May, 1957 adopted what were called the Atlantic resolutions. The co-chairmen of the meeting were the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks), and the present Minister without Portfolio from Newfoundland (Mr. Browne). The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Now-lan) was chairman of the committee which drafted the platform. I will read some extracts from the resolutions adopted at that meeting, as follows:
Federal assistance for the Atlantic provinces under a national resources development program, under the framework of a Canada wide policy-
Adoption of an Atlantic capital projects program, to provide federal capital assistance for provincial projects designed to enlarge the basic economy of the area. Such a program would provide for development of the Prince Edward Island causeway, the Chignecto canal and similar capital works designed to aid the economy of the region.
The Atlantic platform also said the Progressive Conservative candidates were committed to the original pledge given to our people at the time of confederation that freight rates would be adjusted and transportation facilities would be provided so that our geographic position would not prejudice our producers in having reasonable access to the markets of Canada. Many voters obviously had a great belief in that platform. But what have those who attended that meeting in May, 1957 done to implement that platform which was then presented to the verdict of maritime voters? As already mentioned, the co-chairmen of that meeting and the chairman of the resolution committee are now ministers of the present government. Many others who are now sitting in this house have also been elected as supporters of the present government.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) stated recently that the cost of the Chignecto canal is now estimated at from $90 million to $140 million, that both engineering and economic studies are continuing and reports should be received in the near future, and
The Address-Mr. Michaud that anyone who has any information about the possible use of the canal should come forward.
Any economic study made today, after our coastal shipping and industry have been destroyed, would show that there is not sufficient available traffic to justify the estimated expenditure. The federal government should take our promise that if they build the canal we will use it to the best advantage, restore industrial activity to the maritime provinces and again place ourselves in a position where we will not be number one on the charity list.
In 1873 Messrs. Gzowski and Keefer, two outstanding engineers, estimated the canal could be built at a cost of $5,317,000. The canal was not built. No doubt the money was used for building other canals and has produced a handsome return for other parts of Canada. That places a dollar sign on the unfulfilled promise to the maritimes. The then estimated cost of the canal, with compound interest at 5 per cent per annum for the intervening 86 years, would now amount to over $353 million. Is it not reasonable to say that Ottawa should make available whatever part of that amount is required for building the canal? Why talk about its cost? Almost 95 years ago the canal was promised as part of the consideration for entering confederation. After all these years we still need and want the canal; Ottawa should carry out Canada's promise.
It is my belief, as it was of the maritimers back in 1864 and 1866, that for the industrial success of the maritimes the Chignecto canal is a must. By many in the maritimes the canal has been about forgotten. Many of our people have become so accustomed to conditions as they exist that they do not realize what the unfulfillment of this promise, twice made by Canada and accepted by us, has cost us. They have lost all conception of what this canal could do for Atlantic industry. Can you imagine the steel plants at Hamilton, Port Colborne, the Sault, Gary, Chicago, Detroit and Buffalo being built and operated successfully without the assistance of the canals on the St. Lawrence and the great lakes or the transportation of iron ore, limestone, coal, and their finished products? I believe that if the Chignecto canal is built the country can depend on us to make good use of it, and later fully justify its building.
Mr. Speaker, the tragic events which brought disaster and sorrow to so many families in the fishing communities of Baie-Ste. Anne, Escuminac and Bay du Vin last spring aroused the sympathy of the whole Canadian nation for this hardy class of Canadian citizens engaged in the fishing industry. The hazards faced in the daily life of a fisherman are now known to all. All
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Michaud should now be agreed that no effort should be spared to assure the maximum amount of protection to those who toil the seas as their way of life. While we have nothing but sorrow for those affected by that tragedy last spring, we should also be thankful to God that many others were spared during that fatal night. I have been speaking to fishermen in my own constituency who, caught on their fishing grounds by that sudden gale, spent the whole night sailing at random waiting for daybreak to reach shore.
These fishermen all had the same observations to make concerning safety measures within harbours and along landing wharves. First of all, they feel that every harbour should have lighted buoys to indicate the channel course when not otherwise indicated by lighthouses. Second, the position of every landing wharf should be clearly indicated by appropriate sets of lights so as to avoid unnecessary hazards to fishermen having to anchor after nightfall. While some of these landing wharves in my constituency are properly lighted, others are not. Similarly for harbours and channels. The desperate situation of those fishermen already referred to a moment ago was the result of being unable to land in the dark due to the absence of lights, both in the channel approaching their wharf or mooring, and on the wharf itself.
These observations raise another essential point with regard to public safety for fishermen, namely the necessity of adequate landings in every fishing community. In my own constituency many facilities by way of landing wharves were provided during the last decade. However, improvements to these facilities should be kept in line with the increasing volume of our fisheries. While only a limited number of new projects may be required, many others already begun should be pursued to completion. I shall make it my responsibility to bring these matters to the attention of the proper authorities in due course of time.
Then there is also the matter of dredging. The Department of Public Works usually maintains a dredging program which provides satisfactory approach to all these wharves. This is a service, however, necessitated every year by the rapid movement of sand, and I am confident that a thorough survey and soundings will again be executed in every port at the opening of the next navigation season to ascertain where dredging is again required. Mr. Speaker, our fishermen are deserving of every consideration in their toiling and hazardous task of reaping the harvest of the seas.
We witnessed a debate in this house a few days ago which had to do with granting
[Stage Direction]

financial assistance to western farmers who had suffered severe crop losses through the effects of unseasonable weather conditions. Members from all sides of the house unanimously endorsed the measures then proposed by the government. The nature of these measures, however, did not permit a full-scale debate on agricultural conditions in the country. This opportunity should be provided for on later occasions. I would like to state now that this government will be pressed at that time to adopt measures which will be of assistance, not only to farmers of certain sections of the country but to all Canadian farmers from all parts of the country who through acts of God suffer severe crop losses.
Having in mind at this present time the farmers of my own area particularly, I wish to indicate to the government that they, too, have suffered severe crop losses due to unseasonable climate conditions during the course of the past crop year. Following an unusual degree of so-called winter kill, an unusually cold spring and unseasonable harvesting conditions, farmers of my area have harvested what is estimated to be only a half crop of hay and hardly better than a half crop of grain in the year 1959.
I wish to emphasize at this time that as a result of these adverse conditions these farmers feel every bit as hard pressed for cash as those wheat growers whose crops were left under snow. In both instances it is a matter of having made the necessary disbursements for crops which did not reach the farmers' hands. In the case of those farmers in my own area extra hay, when at all available, has to be bought at this time to prevent serious stock reduction; mixed feeds have to be brought in in extra amounts in order to complete field rations. The government may rest assured that government guaranteed loans for these farmers who, for the most part, are also operating at a loss at this time would be just as welcome to them as they can be to any other class of farmers from other parts of the country.
I do not wish to elaborate further on this point except to say to the government that unless it is satisfied to see agriculture declining from a primary to a secondary industry in my part of the country, broader measures of farm assistance applicable to all sections of the country must be considered in the immediate future.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, December 21, 1959, has been a memorable day for the Acadians of the maritimes. It is the day French television station CBAFT, in Moncton, New Brunswick, came on the air for the first time, realizing

a dream that has long been cherished by the Acadian population of this region. It has been said of the event, at the time, that it was a Christmas gift. For that gift, I think I may speak on behalf of all the televiewers of station CBAFT to express to the C.B.C. our sincere thanks. But it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that, according to the saying, there should be a fly in the ointment. It must be said that this Christmas gift has not been of benefit to all. Because of the low broadcasting power of the new station, too many homes cannot receive its signal. It has been, believe me, a cause for deep disappointment in many homes of the area. The situation could be best summed up, Mr. Speaker, by quoting an editorial from 1 'Evangeline, that was published the very day of the opening of station CBAFT, on December 21, 1959. I quote:
The governors of the C.B.C. deserve congratulations for the Moncton station, which will rapidly and efficiently improve its services. With the inauguration, we should be able to say that most of the Acadian population can now see French television. Station CHAU, in Carleton, serves the Acadians in Restigouche and Gloucester. It is true that the station is now bilingual. But everything seems to point out that it will become a French station the day an English station will be built on the north shore. Since three companies are competing for that privilege, the day may not be too far off.
In Madawaska, reference is made to a satellite station that will reach the major part of the area.
Unfortunately, while we are rejoicing today, we are thinking of our brothers who are not so privileged as we. There are all those of Nova Scotia, for instance, including important groups in Digby-Yarmouth and Cape Breton. And also there are those of the northern part of the county of Kent.
When the setting up of CBAFT station was announced, there was much concern about its low power; for the people of Moncton it will be a marvellous thing. But, what about the others? At the time, we were told by way of explanation that the station would reach the 60,000 Acadians of Westmorland, Kent and Prince on Prince Edward Island.
Faced with such arguments, laymen had to hold their peace and wait. As from tonight, we shall know how many of those 60,000 Acadians can tune in Moncton station properly. And we trust that if, for any reason, the station would not cover all the territory ascribed to it, the necessary adjustments would be made.
After all, the C.B.C. has incurred considerable expense to establish the Moncton station. It has obtained the best equipment and engaged 18 people to make it work. It is therefore consistent to expect of the C.B.C. that it be the first to want to give adequate service to that whole area.
Mr. Speaker, all the Acadians in the maritimes are confident that soon now French television will be available to their area. Might I, moreover, suggest that the C.B.C. include in its expansion project for the CBAFT
The Address-Mr. Thomas station, a special room for local programs. It seems that such a station could not be complete unless it contains the required accommodations for local programs, to enable local talent, and we have some, to perform in front of all the Canadian people.
(Text):
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on behalf of the people of Middlesex West. I should like, first of all, to associate myself with the other hon. members of this house who have spoken in this debate and who have extended congratulations to yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to your present high office. We have every confidence that you will carry out your duties with dignity and efficiency and so honour this chamber.
I should like, also, to extend our congratulations to those who have been promoted to positions of higher responsibility during the recess: the hon. member for Lon-gueuil (Mr. Sevigny), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) and the various members who have been appointed parliamentary secretaries. I should like to add our welcome to the new Sergeant-at-Arms and his deputy. I should like, also, to add our congratulations to those already extended to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Moris-sette) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) on the excellent contribution they have made to this debate in moving and seconding the address in reply.
I welcome the opportunity to reaffirm our continued faith in Canada and in our fellow Canadians. In the 93 years of our existence as a nation we have made notable progress. We are a nation scattered across the northern half of this continent, with our several areas of population separated by natural barriers of water and of sparsely settled rocky terrain. The cost of tying those areas together to create this nation has been high and will continue to be high. We built expensive railways, highways, canals, airlines, pipe lines, and communication lines. In spite of all obstacles and political differences we Canadians and our forefathers have created one of the strongest, healthiest and wealthiest nations in the world today. There is every reason to believe that the present generation of Canadians, together with our new Canadians, will continue this development in a manner worthy of our forefathers.
The opposition parties have moved amendments to the address in reply implying lack of confidence in our government. The amendments charge that the government has failed

The Address-Mr. Thomas to develop and enunciate clear and consistent policies, to provide full and accurate information, to initiate fundamental, economic and social plans and have thereby contributed to the confusion and uncertainty that prevails about certain important areas of governmental responsibility including defence, public finance, agriculture, markets and so on.
As a member of the government party I join with my colleagues in strongly opposing any such amendments. We believe that our government is doing a good, honest, efficient and well-planned job of administration, and we wish to commend them for it.
We in Canada, as in any free enterprise country, face the challenge of proving to the world that our democracy is just as efficient as totalitarianism and more pleasant to live with. We are not without serious problems, but the speech from the throne gives indication that the government is diligent in seeking solutions to our problems.
All government is a compromise. Under our free enterprise system individuals and groups are forever pressing for legislative advantage. What helps one may hurt another. Some producers want freer trade; some producers want more protection. We cannot have it both ways. Those on lower incomes want more generous welfare provisions; those on higher incomes want lower taxes. We cannot have our cake and eat it, too. We cannot all benefit equally through government policies all the time. There has to be give and take. Equity is an ideal that we should aim at but which is very difficult to attain.
We believe that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and our government have done a good job in preserving equity in our economy, in promoting national unity and in furthering the cause of world peace. As a result of their efforts our prestige in the world has increased, national unity has reached an all-time high. Canada from coast to coast, from east to west and from north to south is united as never before.
We welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne that full voting privileges in federal elections are to be extended to Indians without any loss of former rights and privileges. This is a development which many people feel is long overdue. It demonstrates that this government believes that all Canadians should be equal under the law and that we should have no second class citizens.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough) and her officials in the Indian affairs branch on encouraging the formation

of an agricultural committee of Indians on the Muncey reserve in our constituency to promote more extensive cultivation and better use of the land on that reserve. Our best wishes are extended to all concerned for success in this undertaking.
We welcome the completion of a fine new central school on this reserve, a school fully equipped with modern facilities for education. I believe that the officials of the Indian affairs branch are convinced, and I believe that some of our Indians themselves are convinced, that more education is the best means of solving the economic and social problems of these original Canadians.
I wish to commend the government for taking a firm stand in favour of sound money. Inflation, creeping or otherwise, is one of the most difficult problems facing our free enterprise economy. We have been warned by the governor of the Bank of Canada and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) that we are over-spending and over-borrowing. Restraints are required to protect the stability of our money. The Prime Minister and his government have been diligent in urging restraints on all segments of our economy and in seeking to cut down government spending. There has been no lack of clarity and consistency in their attitude to this problem.
The Prime Minister has already placed on the record statements from several bank presidents endorsing the stand of the government on fiscal policy. I wish to quote further from the address of Mr. James Muir, president of the Royal Bank, in his address to their annual shareholders meeting on January 14, 1960. He is reported by the Canadian Press to have said:
Monetary authorities did precisely the right thing in October 1958, when they held the money supply constant in the face of increasing demand for loans. Had they not set about neutralizing the terrific head of monetary steam generated by the previous increase in the money supply, we should have seen an uncontrolled blast of inflation which might well have been disastrous.
The previous increase in the money supply to which Mr. Muir refers is the money which was injected into the economy to bring us out of the recession into which we were drifting when this government took office in 1957. The people of Canada elected this government in 1957, among other reasons, for the purpose of correcting that recession and, in 1958, a further mandate, unprecedented in emphasis, was given this government to proceed with that correction. The correction was carried out. The trend to recession was halted and reversed, and our government is now following financial policies designed to guide our economy on the road to progress with stability.

The government's attitude in this respect is summed up by the Minister of Finance in his speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto on January 11, 1960. This speech has been referred to several times in this debate. The minister said:
In I960 we have neither recession nor incipient recovery. We are in the midst of a period of marked expansion in the Canadian economy. We welcome it, but we do not wish to see it mushroom into a boom which would set loose the forces of inflation. What we must all desire is orderly growth without inflation. That must be the goal of policy in this year of expansion 1960.
Many of our people in Middlesex West regret that there seems no acceptable method of decreasing the present rate of exchange on our Canadian dollars. We are proud of the soundness of our money but the prevailing exchange rates are creating difficulties in our external trade. Our people in Middlesex West export substantial numbers of cattle to the United States and would prefer to see this premium on our money wiped out. The Minister of Finance, in his speech mentioned above, listed several alternative methods that could be used to reduce the exchange rates but stated his belief that the disadvantages of any of these alternatives outweighed the disadvantage of the premium on our money. In other words, to try to cure the situation would be worse than the situation itself.
Some of our people are interested in extending the services of the industrial development bank. I have been requested, as I expect other members have, to press for the inclusion of telephone companies in the list of industries that may qualify for loans from this institution. Several independent telephone companies in our area require capital but find that telephone companies cannot qualify for loans. It is requested that the government give consideration to bringing telephone companies within the scope of the industrial development bank.
I have been notified by several municipalities in our area that they desire the assistance of the national government in preserving the purity of the water in the great lakes. Our government is requested to take all possible precautions that lie within federal jurisdiction to see that pollution of the great lakes is prevented. This action is urged especially in connection with the offshore drilling for oil along the southeastern shore of lake Huron.
We have a number of elder citizens in our area who will welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne that legislation is planned to ease the restrictions on the payment of old age security and veterans allowances outside of Canada. The present regulations have created difficulties for some of these people. The privilege of receiving these
The Address-Mr. Thomas allowances outside Canada would be a source of much satisfaction and convenience to many.
There continues to be difficulty among some of our people in understanding the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This difficulty may be unavoidable but it is suggested that the information available to the contributors under the plan be reviewed for the purpose of providing the contributors with a clearer understanding of what they can expect by way of benefits. Most of the complaints reaching me come from married women who cannot understand why they fail to qualify for benefits under some conditions of unemployment.
There is a feeling also on the part of some of the permanently employed contributors that the public should carry more of the burden of seasonal unemployment. With this atitude I am inclined to agree. Seasonal unemployment might properly be the responsibility of the general public and not the responsibility of a selected group of wage earners. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) during the last session expressed his intention of having this matter investigated. We wish to congratulate him on having this investigation begun and we will await the results with interest.
A number of our industries, among which are textiles and rubber footwear, are pressing for more protection in our home market. This matter was ably dealt with by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) in his speech and I am not going to enlarge upon it further than to say that some of these industries were expanded to meet war requirements and feel that they are now being abandoned. It is suggested that their problems should be given serious consideration with a view to preventing undue hardship or the possible disappearance of these industries.
There has been much discussion about increases in pay for the civil service. Our people in Middlesex West feel that our civil servants should be paid on a par with industry and the professions. We welcome the announcement of the Prime Minister that a royal commission will be appointed to inquire into all phases of our public administration with a view to encouraging operations that are efficient and suggesting ways of reorganizing operations that are not. There are in our civil service many dedicated people who are doing a good job. These people are entitled to all the support elected representatives and the government can give them.
Our people wish me to extend our congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) upon the good will he has created since taking office. He has inspired confidence within our own land

The Address-Mr. Thomas as well as abroad. He carries a heavy load of responsibility for the future welfare of Canada. We are inspired by his success and that of his assistants in persuading the United Nations to undertake research into atomic fallout. We wish him success with his formula for securing agreement on the law of the sea. We are confident that under his leadership Canada will continue to exert a powerful influence for disarmament and world peace.
The financial difficulties of our railways are continuing. These problems, arising out of our changing patterns of transportation, are difficult to solve. We cannot do without the railways and yet it seems impossible for them to compete without some measure of subsidization. The report of the royal commission is awaited with interest and we wish to commend the government for appointing this royal commission.
We greatly appreciate the assistance of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and his officials and the officials of the C.N.R. and the board of transport commissioners in expediting the construction of the Hutton side road underpass in London township. This construction is progressing steadily and should be completed within a few months.
We welcome the intimation in the speech from the throne that additional funds will be made available for building homes under the National Housing Act. These funds should be available well in advance of the opening of the construction season.
Commendation is due the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hamilton) and his departmental officials for conducting continuous surveys in areas of new development in our cities with a view to extending house-to-house delivery as soon as any area reaches the necessary density of population, the standard required being an average of 40 yards between delivery calls. Several areas in Middlesex West close to the city of London are approaching this standard of development and should be able to qualify soon for house-to-house delivery.
The planning of a new post office building for Strathroy is much appreciated by the people there. We hope that the negotiations for a site satisfactory to the town and to the Department of Public Works will soon be completed.
Our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) has vigorously promoted the policy of the government to obtain for the farmer a greater share of our national income, and I would point out that the government's policy in this regard has always been most clear and consistent. Changes in the methods of supporting the prices of some commodities have had to be made to prevent the accumulation of

excessive surpluses while giving the maximum support to the family size farm.
Some of our large producers of eggs are hard hit by the recent drop in price, but it is hoped that this condition will soon be remedied as it was in the case of the turkey market. Turkey producers suffered a similar experience with low prices for several months in 1959, but during recent weeks turkey prices have returned to a more satisfactory level and the turkey industry is looking forward with confidence to a good year in 1960. It is suggested that agricultural commodity groups and governments should give consideration to the advisability of extending production management regulations or controls to be devised and administered by the farm commodity groups themselves, with a view to bringing production into line with market requirements. The Ontario flue-cured tobacco growers marketing -board has been successfully applying production controls. It is suggested that other commodity groups could profit from this example.
Many of our farmers are hoping to obtain financial help in reorganizing operations through the new farm credit corporation. This legislation can be of great benefit to agriculture in Canada. The policies followed in administering this legislation will have an important bearing on its success. It is suggested that the regulations should be flexible enough to allow scope for a variety of enterprises and for small as well as large operations. It is suggested in this connection that small holders who depend partly on wages and partly on farming for their living should not be overlooked. It is suggested also that a means test or other safeguards should be incorporated into the legislation or regulations to prevent exploitation of this legislation while the interest rate remains low in relation to commercial rates.
Many people in Middlesex West are interested in federal assistance for conservation developments planned by the Ausable river valley conservation authority. Flood control in the Ausable watershed is of great importance in the counties of Middlesex, Lamb-ton, Huron and Perth. The urgent item at present is construction of the Parkhill dam. This dam is required to control flooding on thousands of acres of rich vegetable growing marshlands below Thedford. A new bridge on provincial highway No. 81 in the vicinity of the proposed dam site is required, and the structure could serve as a dam as well as a bridge. The provincial department of highways has deferred the building of this bridge for some months on the chance that a saving could be made by combining the bridge and the dam. The town of Parkhill,

adjacent to the proposed dam site, is badly in need of a new water supply which could be attained by the construction of this dam. This project which could All three important needs, is being deferred pending a reply by our national government to the application from the Ontario government for federal assistance. This project is not in the class of the Saskatchewan river development or the Columbia project, but it is a genuine effort in the field of conservation. Our people are hoping that their plans to control the ravages of nature on the Ausable watershed, which will cost several millions of dollars to complete, will merit national support.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in this debate on the address may I be granted the right to express, on behalf of my constituents and myself, the great feeling of joy which we have in seeing you back in your office in such good health and, possibly, with determination. I should like, as many others have done, to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) upon the contribution which she had occasion to make earlier in this debate, although we all realize, especially on this side of the house, the feminine affection which she bestowed upon the party to which she belongs.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, allow me also to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on being appointed Deputy Speaker of the house, as well as the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who was given the opportunity of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne in French.
(Text):
In speaking tonight on behalf of the constituents of Nickel Belt I do feel that I represent the people who constitute a typical Canadian riding. I mean by that that we are, and have been for many years, favoured by one great industry which has brought to this country much wealth and prosperity. The majority of my people are workers in mines or on construction. I have also many farmers and a few small business people. I do not, as some other members do, represent a great metropolitan centre where major manufacturing progress may be expected. However, progress has been noticed in northern Ontario since it was opened up over 70 years ago and there is room for much more expansion. Possibly some day we may see some major centres there, too, as we do in other parts of Canada.
My speech tonight in the debate on the address in reply will be made having in mind
The Address-Mr. Godin the class of people I have mentioned. These people in my area have seen a reduction in construction which has been very detrimental to them. Our farmers are caught in the cost-price squeeze problem of this country, and of course the small business people in Nickel Belt are hit by the tight money situation and high interest rates.
As I begin these remarks, I must confess the surprise I have felt during the course of this debate in hearing members of the government refer to the last election, which took place nearly two years ago, as an argument. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was speaking in this debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) made such a reference, that the people had given the answer. Again tonight when the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) was addressing remarks to this house we heard the cry that the answer was to be found in the victory of two years ago.
May I stress, with all the power I have, that there should be an end to this administration trying to find a cliche answer to all the mistakes they have made, in the continual reference to the fact the Conservatives party won the last election. We are prepared to admit the great victory of the Conservative party at the last election. We have done so, and I believe that hon. members have received the merited congratulations. We know also we must respect the will of the Canadian people, and their will was indicated at that time. However, we who were involved know also that there was an approach made to the Canadian people which brought about a result of which the Conservatives, no doubt, had a right to be proud of.
There was a marriage made with the electorate of this country. But we also know that there were great premarital courtships and extremely active ones, courtships loaded with promises. For two years now-and this is the third session-the Conservative party have carried the bride over the threshhold. It is now my conviction that the bride has now put her foot down. Let us bring to memory the Gallup polls which have been made in this country recently. Is it not true, that the great popularity of these people who had achieved such a courtship is waning and they find themselves losing some 20 points over a year and a half-


William Heward Grafftey: No; it is not true.


Osias.-J. Godin: -or 12 per cent the last year only. Those are what the statistics will show in the Gallup poll.


William Heward Grafftey: That is not so.


Osias.-J. Godin: The hon. members would appear to want better evidence than that. May I

The Address-Mr. Godin refer them to the Russell by-election which would indicate what has happened-


William Heward Grafftey: What about Hastings-Fron-tenac?


Osias.-J. Godin: -the electors have spoken. Check the merits of the votes. As I understand it-and I do not have the figures with me-there was a large increase in the Liberal majority in Russell. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a decline of Conservative favours in the riding mentioned by the hon. member. This was a clear mathematical expression of the wishes of the people of this country.
With what subjects should I treat on this occasion, Mr. Speaker? They are many and varied; it would take a long time to discuss some of the matters in the throne speech. My problem is that. I do not feel that I may have time in which to discuss those matters I believe to be of great importance and which I do not find mentioned in the throne speech.
As far as I am concerned, the major problems derive from the administration of the present government and from its responsibilities. Since it is quite late this evening, may I give to the house some impressions which I had the other evening on reading a book. As I was reading this book I was, I must admit, possibly thinking of the problems faced by this government and realizing that we are all here trying to assist each other in trying to find solutions to the many grave problems. I do not necessarily agree or admit that they are absolutely their fault in their totality but in a great measure they are the fault and responsibility of the present government. This book related a remark made by a well-known statesman, namely Sir Winston Churchill and it was made concerning this event.
A few years ago Mr. Churchill had occasion to visit our great Niagara Falls which he had not had occasion to visit in the previous 25 years. As he was visiting the falls his companion and guide asked Mr. Churchill this question, "What do you think of Niagara Falls now?" After giving the falls a careful look Mr. Churchill replied, "As far as I am concerned, the principle of the thing is quite the same".
In my own mind, as I recall the problems of the thirties, some 25 years ago, and the Conservative administration in the Bennett days and compare the problems and the approach of the government of Canada today, I find that the principle is quite the same. As with our great Niagara Falls, there is an awful downfall in connection with many assets in Canada. As with our great Niagara Falls, there is an awful splash appearing in


this country after this downfall and it is the Canadian people who are getting wet.
In the last few months we have seen the cancellation of the Avro contract without any preparation to replace such an industry. We read every day about the uranium situation in our country which is not necessarily the most prosperous one. A very few years ago -some five years ago, as a matter of fact- Canada was at the top of the list in the uranium field.
We see in this country the fall of construction industry which is a good barometer indicating the degree of the prosperity of our country. If anyone cares to read the Hugh MacLean report on building in Canada, he will find that construction in 1959 has gone down 10.4 per cent. It is down $227 million in 1959 alone.
Then we have the splash. We have unemployment in our country. Just a few days ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), in reply to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), said that the applicants alone applying for unemployment insurance-and that figure surely is not the totality of the unemployed in our country, but those people alone who applied for unemployment insurance; and if they apply for unemployment insurance they are certainly unemployed- amounted to 722,000 applicants. That is the splash.
Then we have heard a great deal about the diversion of trade and the trade proposals of the government which have had charge of the affairs in connection with trade and commerce in Canada for the last two years. What do we find in this splash? We find a double deficit of trade. All the newspapers in the country were baffled. The pre-marital promise of the present government was not that. As I recall it, the pre-marital promise was much different.
Then we have added expenditures, the conversion loan which occurred in this country and the promises to fulfil and the splashing result, got the tight money policy and the higher interest rate. This affects my people in Nickel Belt as it does everyone in Canada.
The Conservatives went further. To the Niagara Falls splash they added the mist of confusion and contradiction in the policies of this government. I intend to prove that later on in my speech. They went even further than that. They have included the evaporation which occurs at Niagara Falls. Now they have no policy at all. They have tight money without policy, a fact which was well indicated by the Leader of the Opposition just the other night. If we study those promises made and the attitude of the government today, what do we find?

I was surprised, as undoubtedly were many other members of this house, when on the opening night in this debate the Prime Minister of this country had occasion to address this House of Commons during the throne speech debate. I may recall some of the remarks. They were repeated tonight by his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Martineau). Someone had occasion to state that the art of politics was to make a platitude sound like a pronouncement. If that is the case, if someone did give this definition which I would call a clever one, he was undoubtedly thinking of the administration of the present government. And I would like to prove it. The hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) talks of platitudes. There is a well known phrase coined in this House of Commons, the platitude that "no one person will suffer from unemployment as long as I am Prime Minister". I dare Conservative members in this house to stand up and indicate to us that this is not a platitude.
Then the government says, "If platitudes are not enough, then we will use double-talk"; and how much double-talk is expressed here on behalf of the Canadian people-


George Harris Hees: The hon. member was doing all right just now.


Osias.-J. Godin: -in the face of the unemployment in the country, and in the face of the statement I have read? There was nothing novel about it; it was repeated in this house time and time again.
Then there is the reference to the Canadian people who were overtaxed $120 a year under the Liberal regime. What did this government do to the Canadian people today? They kept on robbing the Canadian people of that $120 a year, and $350 million more was added in this country last year. That is an act of this government. The sum of $350 million was added to the taxes of the Canadian people.
Then we have this tax on cigarettes.


William Heward Grafftey: That was due to bigger incomes.


Osias.-J. Godin: I thank the hon. member for his assistance. Here is some more doubletalk, and we remember statements like these. I refer the house to a Canadian Press report in the Montreal Gazette of May 25, 1957, where the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) is quoted as saying:
The Liberals, he said in a 15-minute C.B.C. radio election broadcast, claim that the government cannot increase pensions and increase taxes. "Give us a chance", Mr. Diefenbaker said. "We'll show you".
The Address-Mr. Godin
That is part of the double-talk and here is the confirmation of the double-talk.
Then we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), who surely must know something about this problem. He should know the problem before the election as well as after, but I would like to refer to something the Minister of Finance said when talking after the election. This illustrates what I mean by double-talk. The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech on April 21, 1959, said on page 2889 of Hansard-this is after the remarks of the Prime Minister to which I have just referred:
We never promised or pretended that these increases in social security could be carried out without somebody paying for them.
Is that not double-talk? Let me add to that another remark of the Minister of Finance. On April 9 of last year, at page 2415 of Hansard, he was talking undoubtedly about the social services intended to be introduced, and he said the following:
The two principal elements of a continuing nature in our increased expenditures in 1958 and in 1959 are the increased old age pensions and the new program of hospital insurance-It seenfs to me that- such universally available benefits should be met from a broadly based system of tax contributions-They cost money and must be paid for.
Is that what was said during the election campaign in a broadcast by the Prime Minister of this country?
Then we have the outlook, not the one which was hidden but the conservative outlook of the people of this country. Up until this time we have had the double-barrelled policy or outlook of economic conditions in this country. That was new enough. We have heard numerous speeches to the effect that there was no recession whatsoever. There were practically no problems in Canada because a certain government had been elected. There were the prophets of doom. Then last session the government said, "We inherited this recession from the Liberals." That was double-barrelled outlook and bad enough, but this year something else has been added. A new vision has appeared of the outlook of economic problems in Canada. It is a sort of three-barrelled policy or outlook. Now this year is the greatest year of prosperity in Canada. Everybody has earned more and spent more, and so on. The Prime Minister, notwithstanding all the problems existing in this country, makes that statement as a new year's policy or outlook for the Canadian people.
Such remarks and policies and double-talk will not begin to cure or remedy the prob-

The Address-Mr. Godin lems which exist. We deplore these problems as much as the government. We deplore them, but we would wish that this government would sit down, as the Leader of the Opposition has had occasion to indicate, and put on foot proper committees to study these problems so that they may be attended to.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Are we continuing with this debate tomorrow?


Mr. Churchill:: Yes, we will continue this debate, Mr. Speaker.


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

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

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has Mr. Jean-Leon Pouliot ever been in the employ of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	If so, how long was he in the service of the federal government, and in what capacity was he employed?
3.	Has he been retired and, if so, on what date?
4.	What was his salary at the time of his retirement?
5.	On what date did he cease to receive his salary?
Question
6.	On what date will he begin to receive his pension, and what will be the annual amount thereof?
Answer by: Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of
Veterans Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	17 years 3 months 14 days. Solicitor with the veterans bureau branch of the department in Montreal, P.Q.
3.	Yes, effective 7 March, 1960. At present on a period of four months retiring leave.
4.	$6,780.00 per annum.
5.	Will be paid salary to 6 March, 1960 inclusive.
6.	1 April, 1960, effective from 7 March, 1960. Estimated at approximately $2,372.00 per annum.

Tuesday, January 26, 1960