1960-11-21

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the debate on the address will commence this afternoon, and the desire that has been apparent on the part of all hon. members to deal with those items which are of immediate importance legislatively, I have a suggestion to offer to the house for its consideration.
The supplementary estimates will be tabled today by the Minister of Finance. As you will recall, on the opening day, by leave of the house, the committees of supply and ways and means were set up in order to expedite the business of the house. The legislative program now in the form of government notices of motion covers aid to small business, housing, anti-pollution measures, the setting up of a productivity council, measures respecting vocational training and other matters. I hope the house will agree that there should be no delay in getting ahead with consideration of the legislative program right through to third reading on the resolutions in question that are already on the order paper, as well as the earliest opportunity of dealing with the supplementary estimates.
I therefore propose, and in doing so hope for the support of the opposition, that at the conclusion of the speech of the leader of the C.C.F., provided that the debate is concluded today in so far as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Argue) and myself are concerned, the debate then be adjourned by whoever gets the eye of the Speaker to a date to be determined later on, and that we return to consideration of the speech from the throne at such time as may be appropriate and in any event upon completion of the events to which I have made reference.
However, if what I hear on the radio has any basis in fact and the speech of the Leader of the Opposition is as long as has been indicated in anticipation, it may well be that my reply and the speech of the leader of the C.C.F. will not proceed until tomorrow, in which case I would hope that if the C.C.F. in its wisdom, provided the official opposition
move a vote of non-confidence, move a subamendment, the vote on the subamendment might take place before the conclusion of tomorrow's sitting and that we might then proceed on Wednesday with the legislative program.
Someone will say, what about private members' days and hours? At the same time I think it would be appropriate that these hours and days reserved to private members, and which must be maintained, should be postponed without prejudice in any way or loss of the traditional privilege which private members have and must continue to have to place the views of themselves and their constituents before the house and the country. I hope such an arrangement might be arrived at by agreement, because from the beginning it has been apparent that there is a desire to get ahead. We are ready. All we ask is that the house, in whose control we are, will agree to what I have placed before it, and that we shall be able then in an expeditious manner to deal with these matters which are of urgent moment.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the house will have listened with great interest and, I hope, great satisfaction to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has just said. I would like to reassure him at the very beginning that I have no desire to emulate Mr. Castro of Cuba in the length of my first speech at this session of parliament. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that after I have spoken it may even be possible to go further than the Prime Minister has indicated in reducing the time for words and increasing the time for action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker,
like the Leader of the Opposition I shall not endeavour to speak about what may take place at the next stage of business this afternoon. I can say to the Prime Minister on behalf of this group, that we are in agreement that every step should be taken to expedite the legislation that is now on the order paper and, indeed, any other legislation that will result in alleviating the economic crisis that this country now faces. I think the Prime Minister will learn at a later stage that we in the C.C.F. are prepared, as we say now, to co-operate with the government in bringing forward the legislation

Proposed Legislation
that is now on the order paper and any other further, subsequent legislation in this general field.


Mr. Speaker:: I seem to sense a spirit of agreement to this proposal which has been made. I think no order of the house is necessary at this time, but the course suggested might be followed as and when the opportunity occurs in the course of this debate.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1960-61

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-2, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTEREST ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-3, to amend the Interest Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRY


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-4, to provide for a Canadian preference in government construction, purchase and service contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: For many years the government's declared policy has been that there should be a Canadian preference when public money is spent on supplies. The various pronouncements outlining this policy are directive only and have no legal sanction. Further, there is no uniformity among various departments of government in applying this policy, the decision being left in many cases to the individual purchasing agent. Finally, the directives do not cover work or service contracts, and even on manufactured goods

are out of date as they do not apply to crown corporations or crown agencies such as the C.N.R.
The purpose of this bill is to declare this preference in terms as wide as possible and to give the preference legal effect, to the end that as much as possible of the public moneys so spent stimulate the Canadian economy, increase gross national production, and are returned in proportionate degree to the fund of public moneys as income and corporation taxes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DISTRIBUTION TO AID PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-23, to provide for the development of certain provinces by the distribution of industry and for the reduction of unemployment therein.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-5, to amend the National Energy Board Act (drainage works).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlha-baska) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-6, to amend the Financial Administration Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-7, to provide in Canada for the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: The purpose of introducing this bill is to modernize and bring up to date the method of obtaining divorce in Canada in accordance with common practices in other countries throughout the commonwealth. The

bill would include some of the provisions which have been placed in the laws of other commonwealth countries in recent years in order to accomplish this purpose.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO PARLIAMENTARY DIVORCE

Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenport: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-ll, an act respecting procedure in relation to parliamentary divorce.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. FLAGS OF CANADA



MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR A NATIONAL FLAG OF CANADA

Mr. John Smith (Lincoln) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-8, to authorize a Canadian flag.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



Samuel Boulanger: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-17, respecting flags of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-9, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (crown bound).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF AGE

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-25, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-10, to amend the Criminal Code (corporal punishment).
Proposed Legislation


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Speaker, the explanation for this bill was placed on the record when it was introduced in 1957.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT EXCEPT FOR TREASON

Frank Charles McGee: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-21, to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO WATER POLLUTION

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-32, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill, and at the insistence of hon. members around me I should like to explain it. In explaining the purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do better than repeat the illuminating and inspiring words used by the Prime Minister when he introduced an identical bill in this house on February 28, 1955. I use the Prime Minister's words with relish.
Mr. Speaker, as provincial legislation has proven ineffective to control the wanton pollution by municipalities and industrial concerns of interprovincial rivers, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code to provide punishment for the offence of water pollution.
This amendment is demanded by tens of thousands of people, literally hundreds of thousands in this country, who are asking for some action on the part of the federal government to protect them from the cupidity of those who, because of their power, believe they can with impunity deny the use of these waters to present and future generations.
I am glad to note the indication in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, that the government has given serious consideration to this problem.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-12, to provide for pay for statutory holidays for employees and for pay for work performed on statutory holidays.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation



APPLICATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO CROWN AND EMPLOYEES

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-14, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (application to civil service).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to bring the crown and employees of the crown, usually referred to as civil servants, within the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act except in respect of those provisions relating to strikes and walk-outs, and also the further provision that the House of Commons will retain its traditional jurisdiction over money supply. The intention is to so arrange matters that conciliation board reports will be placed before the house in time for budgetary arrangements to be made.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION OF MINIMUM RATE OF WAGES FOR EMPLOYEES

William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-28, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENTS REVISING MEDITATION AND CONCILIATION PROCESSES, ETC.

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-30, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


William Arnold Peters: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-13, to amend the Canada Elections Act, (publication of straw poll results).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE VOTING AGE

Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-15, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Regier.l



COMPANIES ACT


Ernest James Broome: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-16, to amend the Companies Act (financial statements).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LOTTERY


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Monicalm) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-18, to provide for a Canadian lottery.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SMALL LOANS ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introuce Bill No. C-19, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PLACE CEILING ON INTEREST RATES

Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-20, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-22, respecting the sovereignty of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
(Translation):


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker this is a bill concerning the sovereignty of Canada. It proposes that this sovereignty be expressed by external symbols, that is through a distinctive national anthem and a national day celebrating Canadian sovereignty.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-24, to amend the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMPANY DIRECTORS


Ernest James Broome: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-26, respecting company directors (directors' qualifications).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-27, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the Senate and House of Commons Act provides that a cabinet minister shall receive a salary as a cabinet minister without being disqualified to sit in the house. The purpose of the bill is to provide that this shall not apply to the Solicitor General, because we feel that this office does not warrant full cabinet status with a full salary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-29, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to change the name of the electoral district of Humboldt-Melfort to Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: for leave to introduce Bill
Proposed Legislation
No. C-31, respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and French languages.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PROVISION FOR GUARANTEE OF LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, by way of a guarantee of loans made by banks to proprietors of small business enterprises, for the improvement and modernization of premises and equipment, and to provide further that any amount paid to a bank under the said measure shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
PERIOD; TO INCREASE AGGREGATE AMOUNT;

Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to further encourage the demand for housing by increasing the loan ratios and extending the periods of repayment for loans made to home owners and home builders and for rental housing; to increase from twenty five million dollars to fifty million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for urban redevelopment purposes; to increase from two hundred million dollars to five hundred million dollars the amount of home improvement loans that may be guaranteed under part IV of the act by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; to authorize the corporation to undertake jointly with provincial governments and municipalities the acquisition, improvement and conversion of existing buildings in urban renewal areas for housing purposes; to authorize the corporation to make loans to universities to assist in the construction of residential accommodation for students; to authorize the corporation to make loans and rebates thereon to municipalities or other competent municipal authorities to assist in the construction of sewage projects for the elimination of pollution and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
go	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the establishment and operation of a national productivity council and the appointment of its members and staff, to define its duties and objects, to authorize it to exercise certain powers and to provide for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the encouragement of technical and vocational training and to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs of technical and vocational training undertaken under provincial authority, including contributions toward the cost of capital expenditures on training facilities connected with such programs; to authorize the Minister of Labour to undertake programs of technical and vocational training for specified categories of persons; to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of its members and staff and to define its duties; and to provide for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
the Minister of Labour if he will report to the house on the outcome of the talks in Montreal with the representatives of the unions and the railways, which he and his colleagues had recently in an effort to avoid a general railway strike?


Michael Starr: My colleagues the Minister of Transport and the Postmaster General and I met with the representatives of the negotiating committee of the non-operating unions, and then we met with the presidents of the two major railways in this country. We had a very cordial


discussion on the various aspects of the dispute. However, the non-operating unions were not able to get together a full representation of their negotiating committee, as they were awaiting the arrival of three or four representatives who were coming from the western part of the country. They are holding their meeting this afternoon, and will be communicating with us later on today, I hope.


Lionel Chevrier: Is a further meeting with them contemplated?


Michael Starr: That remains to be seen following the outcome of this meeting this afternoon.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the great interest in all parts of Canada in the government's decision as to whether or not an oil pipe line will be constructed to Montreal. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what consideration is being given to this project at this time?


John George Diefenbaker: The consideration of all the aspects is, of course before the government at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say when a decision might be reached, whether at an early date or a later date?


John George Diefenbaker: At the moment we are trying to expedite the business of the house. When we have this business expedited, then we will be in a position to advise when a decision in this regard will be made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs based upon a report which I received just before lunch; otherwise I would have given him notice of this question. Perhaps he will wish to take it as notice in view of its importance. My question is whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has any comment to make on the reported statement of the supreme commander of the NATO forces in Europe, made to the NATO parliamentary association in Paris today, that a pool of nuclear weapons should be set up for

the alliance with each of the 15 member countries having an equal voice in the control of their use.
Hon, Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs): As I understand it, no decision to that effect has been made.



INQUIRY AS TO PURCHASE OF U.S. JET INTERCEPTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: In the
absence of the Minister of National Defence I wish to direct a question to the associate minister. Can the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government has reached an agreement with the United States to purchase jet interceptors in exchange for the United States purchase of Canadian transport planes?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: In reply to the question put by the hon. member for Fort William may I say that no final agreement has been reached on this matter.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO VISIT OF ASSOCIATE MINISTER TO WASHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Does the minister intend to join the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) in Washington, where important problems are being discussed with the American military authorities?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: My reply to the question of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) is as follows. I would point out that at the last sitting of the house the Minister of National Defence clearly indicated that he was going to Washington to get acquainted with the defence secretary, Mr. Gates, and other high officials.
Having already met those officials, I do not feel there is any need for me to accompany the Minister of National Defence on his trip, particularly in view of the urgent work requiring my attention here.
(Text):



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that mail contractors in Canada have been warned to refrain from 90205-6-3
Inquiries of the Ministry participation in political activity, both federal and provincial; and in view of the fact that these mail contractors are not civil servants, would the minister inform the house of the reason for this limitation of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and if this action is a postal progenitor of a possible proclamation?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I believe this is not a question of urgency, and it could be equally well put on the order paper in order to speed up the business of this house as we are all trying to do.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General tell the house about his experiment in the carriage of mail in trucks by the piggyback method from Quebec to Toronto, as reported recently in the newspaper L'Evenement Journal?


William McLean Hamilton: It has been very satisfactory.


Azellus Denis: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell the house how many employees he expects this new service will eliminate from the payroll?


Mr. Speaker:: When the hon. member becomes statistical, I think it is time to make use of the order paper.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO INSTRUCTIONS TO NEWSPAPERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton)? Has the minister or have the postal authorities issued orders to the effect that thefts committed in the Post Office Department be withheld from the newspapers?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Try to be serious.


William McLean Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I ask the Minister of Transport if he will reconsider the decision to remove the historic beacon lighthouse at Harbour Grace, Newfoundland?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I shall be pleased to investigate the matter and report in due course.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that we may be discussing housing within the next day or two, I wonder if the minister could tell us the number of starts made during October.


David James Walker: I want to thank my friend for the information that we will be discussing this question within the next day or two. The information he has requested has already been published. If he wishes me to send him a copy I shall be glad to do so.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In the light of the protests and petitions of a large number of people of Reserve in the vicinity of Glace Bay against the proposed location of a new post office on Sydney road, will the minister accede to the request that the new post office be located on the main street, where five suitable sites are said to be available?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how many post offices there are in Canada but if we undertook to locate them all on the orders of the day we would not have time for anything else. I suggest that the hon. member could get the same result by bringing the matter to the attention of the minister, or by putting it on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house when the reports on the economic and engineering feasibility of the Chignecto canal will be tabled?


Léon Balcer: I will investigate and will let the hon. member know tomorrow.
[Mr. Tucker.l



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the government has taken any steps to obtain a judicial or restraining order, as recommended by the restrictive trade practices commission, preventing the two Vancouver newspapers, the Province and the Sun, from making any alteration in their present agreements. If so, what steps have been taken?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minister of Justice):: The
answer is that no such steps as those referred to have been taken as yet.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether the government has decided to pay a subsidy to Pacific Western Airlines?


Léon Balcer: The government has approved financial assistance to Pacific Western Airlines to cover direct losses incurred on the route from Edmonton through North Battleford-Prince Albert-Saskatoon to Regina. This relief is on an interim basis, and the matter will be considered further when the air transport board makes recommendations following completion of the series of hearings on regional air services which it is at present conducting.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask in what amount it will be?


Léon Balcer: The amount involved is $25,000
and it is to cover the direct operating losses on the route. It is up to a maximum of $25,000.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether tenders have been called as yet for a terminal building at Sault Ste. Marie?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


George Ewart Nixon: This matter is urgent in order to get some work going.

The Address-Mr. Pearson


Léon Balcer: If I remember correctly, tenders were called last week. However, I will check on the matter and make sure.


George Ewart Nixon: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister check as to when the contract may be let?


Léon Balcer: Yes.



INQUIRY AS TO QUOTA POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to address a question to the genial but remote Minister of Agriculture. What progress is being made in raising grain delivery quotas in western Canada, that are today much lower in general than they were a year ago?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I believe I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I think I will follow the practice this year of issuing a weekly statement to western members who may be interested in this matter rather than taking up time on the orders of the day.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the minister whether this innovation is to avoid embarrassment on the floor of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Donald Maclnnis for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would begin, as is customary, by congratulating the mover (Mr. Maclnnis) and the seconder (Mr. Paul) of the address in reply because of the honour that was conferred on them and their constituencies by the invitation given them to take on this responsibility, and also because of the way in which they discharged it. With the straw that was available I think they were quite successful in making a respectable number of bricks.
May I also offer my congratulations to the four new members who have been introduced into this house. I know the house will understand if I perhaps underline my satisfaction at the appearance of three on this side of the house, and of those three, particularly two who are on this part of this side of the house, the hon. members for Niagara Falls and Labelle.
90205-6-3$
I should also like to congratulate the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) on his arrival in the House of Commons, something which I did my unsuccessful best to prevent. However, I wish him well during his tenure of office in this new and important portfolio. I suppose the minister's arrival is part of that process, about which we heard so much during the recess, of strengthening the cabinet which is, I know, an objective as important to the government as its necessity was obvious to everybody else. It is true, of course, that these by-elections, or two of them, were caused by the translation of members of the government into other spheres which are more exalted and perhaps even more comfortable.
This gives me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to pay my respects to those two members, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Pearkes. They are gentlemen who served their country over a long span of years, in war and in peace, with devotion and distinction; and in war, certainly with gallantry which, in respect of Mr. Pearkes, has become almost legendary in our military history. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that in war these two gentlemen inspired fear in the opposition. In the House of Commons they inspired respect and regard in the opposition and, indeed, an affection which we were happy to share with their supporters on the other side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope, Mr. Speaker, the ministers who have been given new portfolios, and those who have been promoted into the cabinet, will have happiness, health and satisfaction in their new work. Perhaps I can associate with that hope for satisfaction in their work those who have been advanced from the ranks or who have been retained in their previous positions as parliamentary secretaries.
Mr. Speaker, this is a discussion of the speech from the throne, a speech from the throne for which, in our constitutional system, the government is responsible, because it gives government policy, government plans and government proposals for the parliamentary session. Therefore the government, of course, takes responsibility for the words that have been uttered in that speech by His Excellency. At least, Mr. Speaker, that is what the speech from the throne is supposed to do; it is supposed to give government plans, government policies and government legislative proposals, though we recall that last year important proposals were made by the Prime Minister in his own speech from the throne after the first one had been presented on opening day.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne that we are discussing at this time mentions-and this is normal, of course-a great many subjects in a very general way. During the course of this session, between now and its closing-some time, we hope, earlier than next August 15-there will be opportunity for discussion of all these subjects which are mentioned in the speech from the throne. We will have opportunity to deal with each one in turn as it appears before us in the form of a specific proposal from the government. Therefore there is no need for me to repeat now in a general way what I will be saying, or what we on this side will be saying, when these special subjects come before us for consideration. I think that course is all the more advisable at this time in view of the circumstances of economic emergency which we face.
In general our main criticism-and indeed it is a strong criticism-of this speech from the throne is that it does not reflect that situation of emergency or, indeed, the seriousness of the present situation, both in our country and indeed in the world.
Perhaps I might just say one word about the latter part of that statement, the situation in the world. Internationally, as I am sure all members of the house realize, the position is serious. It is serious enough, and the picture is sombre. At the United Nations assembly, which is still going on, the attitude and, indeed, even the antics of Mr. Khrushchev and his echoes and imitators have shown us once again, this time in graphic and indeed even in frightening fashion, the great gulf that divides democratic freedom from totalitarian tyranny, and the ever-present threat to peace and security, indeed, even to survival, that this gulf represents.
The United Nations has become a somewhat confused and worrying reflection of a new and turbulent world, with the largest group of members now, some of them without much experience in international affairs, from Asia and Africa. There seems to me no doubt that changes will have to be made in the structure of our world organization to reflect these other changes that have taken place in the world, and I am thinking in particular of the emergence of nations of Asia and Africa. I am glad, therefore, that proposals are being made for this purpose in which Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) is playing an active and constructive part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope that soon we will have an opportunity to discuss international affairs. During that time I may have some criticism to make about some aspects of our diplomacy

at the United Nations and in NATO, but that criticism will not reflect in any way on the hard-working sincerity of the minister who is responsible for this portfolio at the present time.
There is another subject, Mr. Speaker, that we will be discussing separately, because its vital importance requires a special discussion, when the opportunity arises. I am thinking of national defence. When the time comes to discuss national defence we on this side will seek to find out what the policy of the government is, and particularly in respect to nuclear weapons, where the position which in our minds has already been difficult to understand, has been made more confused lately by statements of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) which contradict the position previously taken and made known in this house by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There was no contradiction.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be very easy when the time comes, Mr. Speaker, to make clear what that contradiction is, in terms of reported statements.
Then there is the question, which is just mentioned in the speech from the throne, of federal-provincial relations, which is also important enough to justify and will no doubt receive separate consideration and separate discussion. After more than three years the proposal now made by this government to the provinces for a new deal amounts, in effect, to "do it yourself" in the three fields of taxation. It amounts, in effect, to a return to the double taxation jungle of the 30's and is a repudiation of the principle of equalization.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.
Another hon. Member: Definitely not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a definite, direct repudiation of the principle of equalization, a principle which the Prime Minister and other members of the government have repeatedly said would be maintained.


Mr. Martineau:: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Will the hon. gentleman say whether he is now repudiating the position previously taken by a former leader of his party, who enunciated the principle that the power which spends the money should be the power which raises the money?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That interruption does not make any sense and I am not going to take up the time of the house by dealing with it now, because we shall be dealing with this matter later. If the hon. member would read page 5290 of Hansard of March 25, 1907,

The Address-Mr. Pearson
the second column, he would get a complete answer to that statement. To support my own statement, I add that equalization means that in respect of the tax fields concerned the level of return in those provinces which are the least prosperous would be brought up to the level of the two highest in per capita terms by grants made from the federal government. This means that as the per capita amount goes up in the two wealthier provinces it will go up in the other provinces as well.
The proposal made to the provinces at the conference held in October does repudiate that principle by freezing equalization payments over a period of years at a fixed amount irrespective of what happens to the income in the categories I have mentioned in the wealthiest provinces. If that is not repudiation I do not know the meaning of the word. It is all perfectly clear, and all the provincial premiers know it, too, as hon. gentlemen opposite would realize if they read the comments made by them when they returned to their provinces, we have those comments on the record.
But by far the most important subject in the speech from the throne is the economic situation. We face in this country at the present time a serious situation in particular with regard to unemployment. This speech does not reflect in any adequate way the seriousness of the situation which has developed, as we said last spring it would, and which is still developing. There is an alarming complacency about this subject in this speech from the throne which is inexcusable as we face the problems and dangers before us, and as we face the effort and sacrifice which will have to be made by all Canadians in order to meet and solve these problems and remove these dangers.
For instance, the speech persists in talking of expansion in a kind of self-satisfied manner. It talks of continued expansion when, in fact, expansion in this country at the present time in respect of those factors which are so vital for development-national income and industrial employment-has ceased. The statistics show that beyond any possibility of contradiction. Even the Minister of Finance, a few months after his optimistic declaration of last spring, now admits that we have something in this country called a rolling readjustment, which means recession.
There is no awareness in this speech of the seriousness of the unemployment situation, no feeling of any kind that there is an emergency. In this regard the speech is shocking in its lack of awareness. Why, the word "unemployment"-the very word-is not even mentioned in the speech, although there are a lot of words in it. Perhaps that is not
strictly accurate. It is mentioned once as part of the title of an act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, I think. That is the only occasion on which even the word is used. Why, even last year, in January, it was mentioned once alongside the word "seasonal". Yet no person can deny or ignore or gloss over the fact that in October of this year 117,000 more persons are out of work, or 42 per cent more than at the same time last year; that unemployment figures in October-368,000-are higher than in any October since pre-war days on the basis of a calculation which we now all of us, I think, accept in this house; we do not need to argue about figures any longer. Perhaps that is some progress.
No one can deny that 5.7 per cent of the labour force is out of work as against 4 per cent a year ago, against 5.3 per cent in October, 1958 when we were facing a difficult time in the employment field, 3.4 per cent in October of 1957. That was the situation, 3.4 per cent which the government inherited in terms of unemployment. Moreover, the percentage is, of course, going up at a rate which if not checked-and it will not be checked by the proposals in the present speech from the throne-will result in a figure exceeding the 10 per cent high of last winter. That is a grim picture as we face the months ahead, yet this speech talks, not about unemployment but continued expansion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish there was evidence of continued expansion which would justify that applause. Let us see what the evidence is to support the statement I have just made. The volume of our national production per capita is now lower than it was in 1956. There are many other signs showing that we are now suffering from lack of growth momentum resulting in stagnation. During the second quarter of 1960 the gross national product, which is an important index, of course, actually declined by 1.5 per cent-


Donald Methuen Fleming: As compared with what?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It declined by 1.5 per cent
over the period in the previous year. That is the first decline since the final quarter of 1957 and the biggest drop since the quarterly data became available. There are other indications showing that we are going through what the Minister of Finance now admits to be a period of recession or "rolling readjustment". Indeed, according to experts whom I have consulted-and the hon. gentleman knows them, too-that situation began in March, 1960.

The Address-Mr. Pearson
The unhappy fact-and it is an unhappy fact-is that the predictions concerning such a situation which we made in this house during the last session when we were jeered at as being prophets of doom and gloom; the predictions which we made in this house at that time, and the minister can look them up, are being shown as too conservative, too cautious.


An hon. Member:: So you are happy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I heard that silly jeer, "You are happy". It is a measure of the seriousness which the hon. member attaches to this problem. We shall get a lot of this kind of interruption during this debate. Every time we call attention to facts bearing on the seriousness of the situation in order to make the government aware of it so that it can take some action, we shall be jeered at as being satisfied and gloating and happy about it. An interruption of that kind is not worthy of any hon. member in this house.
Perhaps such an interruption might have been justified if we had made predictions last session, and the session before, which had, in the event, proved false. The fact is that the falsification has taken place in the optimistic predictions, in the statements by spokesmen for the government that everything was all right. Their optimistic predictions-and if I had time I could quote page after page of them from Haiisard-are now shown to be both unrealistic and unjustified.
What does the government intend to do about it, at least in terms of this speech and in terms of immediate action for creating employment? The speech includes certain proposals which may or may not be good in themselves-we will have a chance to examine them-but certain proposals which will be of no help for this emergency in terms of jobs this winter. All the government proposals in this field referred to in the speech involve either grants or loans to individuals, to private business, to municipalities or to the provinces, so that the impact of these proposals on employment will depend primarily on the initiative and the financial capacity of individuals or public authorities other than the federal government.
The speech also includes some proposals which were already publicized before parliament met. Indeed, some which were announced in the last session appear again in this speech. The speech also includes some proposals or what could be described as watered down versions of proposals which we on this side have been advocating for some time, and which were rejected by the government on previous occasions. That is the package, gaudily wrapped up.

I do not want to take very much time, especially in view of the Prime Minister's remarks at the beginning of this sitting, but if I had time I could put on the record the proposals which we on this side of the house made last session dealing with this serious unemployment situation. Those members of the house who were here will recall that my colleagues and I did just that on more than one occasion. I recall a statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) following a speech I made in which some of these proposals were put forward. His statement may be found at page 1698 of Hansard of March 3. Referring to my remarks the hon. gentleman said:
I appreciate his-
-that is, my-
-realistic approach to this problem and the suggestions he has made are good and those suggestions are good for action to be taken in the future.
I regret that the government has not decided to take action along the lines I suggested at that time, in spite of the minister's reaction. For instance, there is nothing in the speech-in the government's package, as it were-for export industries, although I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) is calling all the trade commissioners back to Ottawa; nor is there anything for secondary manufacturing industries or for agriculture, at least for the immediate future. Neither is there anything for the Atlantic provinces, though there are some proposals for development in other parts of Canada.
In this connection it might be well to recall that we on this side have already advocated a capital assistance fund or what might be described as a capital grants fund for the Atlantic provinces. That, indeed, was in our program of 1958. Perhaps the scope of a fund should be extended beyond the Atlantic provinces to cover any area of Canada where economic development was lagging behind the national average. We propose that such a capital assistance fund for national development should be established by parliament and administered according to certain fixed principles, and not on a hit-or-miss basis for political advantage. We will have something more to say about that when we get down to consideration of the detailed proposals of legislation.
To return to the speech from the throne itself, we will as outlined in general terms in that speech, not be in a position to deal with the government program, to assess it satisfactorily, to support it when it is adequate and to expose its inadequacy, until the individual items are before us in terms

of definite proposals for action by this parliament at this time. Moreover, we will not be able to see what these proposals mean or do not mean, especially in terms of the employment emergency which we now face, until the supplementary budget is brought down, this appears to us to be an essential part of the government program. It is very difficult to assess the significance of some of these more general items in the speech from the throne until that supplementary budget has been presented and examined.
That should be done at the earliest possible date. And as it is a budget, and not the kind of financial statement we got in 1957, there will be opportunity for a full review by the Minister of Finance of the economic state of the nation when he presents it and opportunity for a full analysis of that review by us on this side. This is an absolutely essential part of any government program at this time which is designed to deal with unemployment in this country, and I am glad that the Minister of Finance obtained permission to introduce a supplementary budget at this juncture.
As far as this immediate and urgent problem of unemployment is concerned, our examination of it must include not only the proposals in the speech from the throne when they are brought down in terms of definite and concrete legislation, but it must include the supplementary estimates which were tabled today. Although I have been able to only cursorily examine those supplementary estimates, they do not seem to me to be very impressive in terms of creating work. Our examination must also include a detailed scrutiny of the supplementary budget to which I referred.
In my view our examination of these things should begin at once so that action can be taken immediately where action is required. Surely this is not the time for a general debate extending over eight days. Indeed, we were debating these matters in this house from January last until the middle of August. If the government and its majority insist on further debate at this time, or at some time after a temporary interruption they can, of course, arrange that that course be followed; but if they do so they will be responsible for further delay in taking the action necessary to provide jobs. That is our first responsibility in this house at this time.
I repeat, surely it would be better for us to have the discussions and debates which must, of course, take place on specific questions before us, on the supplementary budget, on the supplementary estimates, on the legislative proposals for action embodied as they are in the speech from the throne, and
The Address-Mr. Pearson on those specific plans which the Prime Minister on September 21 said he had ready in detail for presentation to this session of parliament. Let us then receive and discuss these specific proposals with a minimum of delay. If the specific measures introduced by the government to deal with unemployment or other economic problems are good ones, we on this side will support them. If they need to be improved, we will recommend improvements. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the right procedure to follow in this serious situation which we face. It is certainly the right procedure for a responsible opposition to produce and to follow.
At this time the need is for specific action instead of general talk and, for that purpose, for consideration at once of budgetary proposals and other legislative measures. So, to facilitate this possibility of quick action on concrete matters I do not intend now to move an amendment to the address which would, of course, be bound to start a general debate. Instead, we on this side propose to follow the course adopted by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett at the opening of the session of 1930 when parliament faced a very serious unemployment situation and serious unemployment problems. At that time the leader of the opposition, Mr. King, did not move an amendment and at that time Mr. Woodsworth also did not move an amendment. The prime minister, Mr. Bennett, proposed that the debate on unemployment measures should begin at once and that was done.
Similarly, in 1935 when Mr. Bennett was prime minister, on the eve of an election and at a time when unemployment was still a very serious problem in the country, the leader of the opposition, Mr. King, did not move an amendment to the address and Mr. Woodsworth, the leader of the new party at that time, which was then called the C.C.F. party, also refrained from moving an amendment. However the government at that time did not seem to have its legislative proposals in order and there was a delay of a few days before there could be a discussion of them.
That is the course that we propose to follow at this time, Mr. Speaker, the course adopted in 1930 and 1935 when this parliament faced serious and emergent employment problems.


Mr. Churchill:: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) a question on that point? In 1935 Mr. King, the then leader of the opposition, spoke for over three hours without moving an amendment. Does the Leader of the Opposition intend to do the same thing today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be able to answer that question within the next three minutes by example rather than by words.

The Address-Mr. Pearson


George Harris Hees: That will be something new.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should add at once that no such amendment on our part is needed to show our lack of confidence in the present government, a lack of confidence which we know, from gathering evidence on every side, is shared by a great and growing number of Canadians.
So, Mr. Speaker, the course I have proposed, if it is followed, will make possible the adoption this evening of the motion thanking His Excellency for his speech immediately after the leader of the C.C.F. party has spoken, assuming, of course, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) does not take up the remainder of the time this afternoon and this evening. If that can be done and we can take the vote early this evening -it is now only four o'clock-then we can begin at once consideration of the urgent business before us, the supplementary estimates, the supplementary budget and the other legislative proposals, four of which are now on the order paper in the form of resolutions.
We can tackle at once, without a further seven days of general discussion, our most urgent domestic problem, unemployment. It is true we will have less time for talk if we adopt this course but we will have more time for action.
The situation which we face in our country today, Mr. Speaker, the slowing down of our expansion, the "rolling readjustment" of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the mounting unemployment, surely this demands this departure from our normal procedure because these are not normal times. Canadians look to this parliament for leadership and for action, so let us give the Canadian people that action from the very beginning of this session by, in these urgent circumstances, abandoning the seven days of general discussion and beginning the discussion of legislative proposals at once.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by referring to the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). I asked him to do that which he has now done in a question I raised on the order for motions today. I can understand now why it was the leader of the C.C.F. party and not the Leader of the Opposition who agreed with the proposition because if the Leader of the Opposition had answered in the affirmative everything would have ended there as far as he was concerned.
As a matter of fact, the suggestion is one that will, of course, receive the fullest support of the government because we suggested it.

We started to follow this course on the opening day by moving motions to set up the committees of supply and ways and means, a proposal that was accepted by the opposition at that time, a proposal unusual in character for the reason that normally these committees are not set up until the confidence of the house in the government of the day has been established. I felt a sense of appreciation for the attitude taken by the opposition in accepting immediately the setting up of these committees as being tantamount to an attitude in confirmation of confidence in the government.
It is a very interesting commentary on parliamentary life, that the fiery effusions of the last three months on the part of the Leader of the Opposition when he was outside the house became pusillanimous and uncertain in the delivery of his opening speech today. There was a tremendous change. I am not going to read what he said about what was going to happen, the manner in which we were going to be devastated and the frightening challenges that were going to be made. I waited for these challenges. I prepared. The preparation was unnecessary.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is too bad all that work was wasted.


John George Diefenbaker: In the speech the hon. gentleman has just delivered all of the statements which were made unchallenged across this country disappeared in the light of a lack of the same spirit inside the house that was displayed outside the house.
I welcome the acceptance of the suggestion of the government that we get on with business. The hon. gentleman has said that in September last I said that we were ready. We were; we are now.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Then why did you not call
parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: We are prepared to go ahead. As far as calling parliament is concerned, may I review that. When I indicated that we might call a session of parliament in the fall the Leader of the Opposition, in the sheltered protection of his own party meetings, said, "That is bluff". Then, when he found out-


John Whitney Pickersgill: So it was.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, when he found out we were going to call a session, he demanded it. He has taken a sinuous course during the last few months. He demands after he realizes that action will be taken.
I looked forward to his suggestions today, suggestions that would have been beneficial but which so far he has kept concealed. We

want to know what suggestions the opposition has. We heard about them during the course of recent events across the country. We thought they might be amplified in the House of Commons. I say at once that we accept what we, indeed, asked for, not only by requesting the setting up of the committees on Thursday last but through the statement I made at the opening of the session today when I placed before the opposition the opportunity to do that which, above everything else, we want to do; namely bring into effect at the earliest possible date the comprehensive proposals that we have placed before parliament.
I do not intend to traverse the field as I expected I should have to do. The very fact that the Leader of the Opposition has restricted himself makes it necessary that I do the same, and that I do not go into the particulars with regard to the legislative program but rather proceed with the resolutions at the earliest possible time that are today on the order paper; and, having secured the passage not only of the resolutions but of the bills based thereon, that we then proceed with an examination of the supplementary estimates, to the end that parliament will act early and efficiently. It was for this reason that the house was convened in the fall.
I found out during the years, and against my earlier judgment, that parliament, to be efficient, required changes in the rules. Indeed, at the last session in my opening speech, I suggested the setting up of the rules committee. It was constituted; it operated and it brought forth recommendations that will be beneficial, that will make for a more efficient House of Commons. However, before I deal with the only problem selected by the Leader of the Opposition, that of the economy, I must follow the usual course by extending my thanks and joining with the Leader of the Opposition in offering congratulations to the mover (Mr. Maclnnis) and seconder (Mr. Paul) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Cape Breton South, a man from the labour ranks, speaks with the authority of labour in this House of Commons. The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere gave an indication in his address of the degree to which he is making himself, and has made himself, eloquently bilingual. Both these hon. members made a contribution to parliament and both discharged their responsibilities in a manner in keeping with the traditions of parliament.
I join with the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the new members, and I particularly welcome the new lady member of the house. She will join the other lady members here. One of the peculiarities of our political 90205-6-4
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker system has been the fact that during the years few women have been elected to the House of Commons. I cannot, at the moment, say what the number has been but it has been comparatively few. If we could think of all of them, it would not take long to repeat their names and their contributions. We welcome the other hon. members. We know something of their standing in their respective communities. Each has a contribution to make and I can say to them, on the basis of my experience of more than 20 years, that each of them will find in the House of Commons an atmosphere in which differences of opinion, frankly and clearly expressed, do not diminish mutual respect.
I should like to say a particular word on behalf of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) who, in the field of provincial politics and administration, has given great leadership in New Brunswick. I now expect him in the House of Commons, in the larger field in which he is particularly qualified, to carry out those responsibilities which will rest upon him, within, of course, the constitutional limitations imposed upon that department.
Many of the cynics say it is an impossibility for private members to make a contribution in parliament. This is not what I have found. They have influence and I need only point to one item as indicative of the contribution private members can make. There is a sentence in the speech from the throne which states simply that you will be asked to consider a means of encouraging the youth of Canada in amateur athletics. This is indicative of what has been done by three hon. members-and I am not placing them in order of their importance in the contributions made-the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Weichel), a distinguished veteran of the first world war and a well known sportsman; the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. McDonald), a great rugby player whose career in sports was cut short by an affliction which would have stopped a less courageous person; and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor) who, in his own right and as the son of Cyclone Taylor, has done so much in the armed forces and since on behalf of sport in this land. These three members pressed on parliament, and through parliament to the people, the need for something to be done in this regard. This government accepted the suggestion for we believe in doing those things which will make a great Canada. In the field of sports today there are tremendous dividends in national pride from some degree of success in athletics. The uncommitted countries of the world are now using these athletic contests as measurements of the evidence of the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker strength and power of the nations participating. I am not going to say anything further with regard to the contributions these hon. members made.
Now, sir, I wish also to extend my congratulations to the newly appointed leader of the C.C.F. He is in a rather unique position, and I say so with the kindest of good feeling for him because what he leads is about to die. Since the days of Mr. Coldwell it is the first occasion on which a person has received an honour such as this while a member of the House of Commons. All I can say to the hon. gentleman is this. While the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pitman) allowed himself to be taken in by the C.C.F. for introduction purposes, he is not going to carry that procedure beyond the introduction.
I now intend to pass from that field which is traditional in the House of Commons and which must be dealt with in keeping with tradition. I am going to say a word on the economic side. The Leader of the Opposition, that adjectival authority, spoke in sonorous tones, not gloating but glooming. He pictured the darkness spreading over Canada, something he has been doing over and over again. He spoke of the seriousness of unemployment. There are none who do not recognize this problem as a serious one not only in Canada but in the United States. Strangely enough, at this time these two nations are forging ahead; they are expanding and developing. Yet while expansion takes place they are both having a degree of unemployment which none of us can regard with complacency. This government has not regarded this problem with complacency.
The hon. member today made a statement which at least was the first admission in that regard, namely that we inherited an unemployment rate of 3.4 per cent. There have been increases since we came into office; there were decreases as well. But we in Canada have followed much the same course as in the United States-although the increase in our unemployment has been somewhat slower. I have here the figures to which I will make reference in a moment. These indicate a trend in both our countries that challenges all of us, without regard to our position, to do what we can in order to bring about an increase in the field of employment.
I said that our Canadian economy is moving forward. His Excellency the Governor General in his address refers to that fact. There was no admission on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to that effect; the whole picture was one of gloom. There was on his part no attitude of making suggestions that might meet a situation that faces us all.
I need not point out that the previous government between 1936 and 1940 had a higher percentage of unemployment than that which exists today or has existed at any time since the war. I think this is something that must be told to the Canadian people for, after all, the opposition would lead them to believe that they now have a solution to this problem.
I said that the Canadian economy is moving forward. New record levels will be achieved in many important sectors. Total employment during the year was the highest in Canada's history and labour income the highest. Consumer spending and commodity exports have been increasing to a degree that few people could have believed possible even a year ago. In the first half of the year the gross national product increased by 3 per cent to $35.34 billion at seasonally adjusted annual rate. This figure was lower than that we had hoped for. The economists in Canada and in the United States had expected otherwise.
One year ago at this time it was the general view of economists that we in both our countries had passed the point when unemployment might increase. All the reports were that the recession was terminated or was coming to an end. In the third quarter of the year a number of important economic indicators have firmed and increases in the national product over the second quarter are indicated. In any event, for this year as a whole, the result will be another record year in gross national product.
We are not satisfied; we are not complacent. That is the reason for the legislative program that we brought before parliament in 1957, 1958 and 1959. That is the reason why at this session of parliament we intend, by the legislative program not only to expand the effort of the federal government but with the assistance of provincial governments which have a responsibility in this matter and of the municipalities, business and labour to endeavour to bring about by united action an end of this problem in our country, or a diminution of the difficulties in this regard that face this country.
The hon. gentleman spoke about an economic emergency. There is no economic emergency in Canada. There are difficulties. Those who try to leave the impression on this country and on its people that we are indeed in chaos economically, and in the general growth of our country, are doing a disservice to Canada and to the Canadian people. Were it not for the fact that I intend to restrict my remarks I could quote the previous prime minister of Canada, Mr. St. Laurent, fortified by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).
rMr. Diefenbaker.]

As to the progress made by Canadian industry in 1960, is the picture that which the Leader of the Opposition endeavours to place before parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; far from it.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been an increase in the volume of production of many important items such as steel ingots, newsprint, sawn lumber, copper, nickel, lead and Canadian produced motor vehicles. The Leader of the Opposition gives you a picture of fear. For what purpose? Why speak of an economic emergency when everything points to the contrary? There was none of that sort of thing in the United States election. In so far as unemployment is concerned their record is such that their percentage, figured on the index we use in Canada, would be much higher than it is in Canada.
What do they say? Both leaders have said that, excepting in certain areas-coal mining areas, and in the automobile production areas -these things have come about as a result of automation, technological advances and those things over which there is no immediate control. These are the figures-and they speak of darkness and gloom. They sow, in the hearts of Canadians, fear that everything is wrong.
These are some of the figures. Steel ingot is up 3.3 per cent from January to October; newsprint is up 6.6 per cent between January and September; and from January to August sawn lumber is up 7 per cent; copper is up 14 per cent in the same period; nickel is up 21.2 per cent; lead is up 5.6 per cent; zinc is up 1.3 per cent; motor vehicles shipments are up 1.7 per cent from the January to August period. I repeat that there is a higher labour income than ever before, and more people are employed in Canada than ever before.
Then what about personal expenditures on goods and services? They amounted to some $11 billion in the first half of 1960, 4 per cent above the level for the same period in 1959. Retail sales were higher during the first nine months of 1960, but not as high as we would hope, being but one half of one per cent higher.
Ruin-that is the slogan. That is the banner that the opposition has put up-and fear. Is it any wonder that we keep referring to the fact that that famed expectant leader of the Liberal party, that radio man from Toronto, said "Our one hope of getting back into power is depression"? I hope and trust that his views have not become the anchor of the party as a whole.
One of the most encouraging developments in 1960 has been the achieving of a record level of commodity exports; and even more noteworthy is the fact that this was ac-90205-6-ii
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker complished despite the levelling off in sales to the United States, which is Canada's most important market. Total commodity exports for the first nine months of 1960 amounted to just under $4 billion, 8 per cent more than the same period of 1959.
Then they talk of economic chaos and of emergency. This gain was made possible by significant increases in sales to overseas countries. Canada's exports to the United States were only about one tenth of one per cent above the 1959 level. There are those who write from Canada to British newspapers and picture the darkness of the economic situation of this country as though trade between the United Kingdom and Canada was being reduced. These are the figures. Shipments to the United Kingdom were 20 per cent higher in the first nine months of 1960 than in 1959. Our exports reached the peacetime record of $676 million. Sales to other commonwealth countries were up by 21 per cent, and exports to countries other than commonwealth members and the United States were 23J per cent higher than during the first three quarters of 1959.
I called together representatives of business and industry on October 24. There was none of this fearsome attitude on the part of Canadian businessmen. They recognized the problem that had been brought about through failure to act in 1956, and then amplified and increased by the advances in technology since 1950.
I could go on from there and give you the overseas countries which purchased substantially more in Canada in this period. Australia, Japan, France and west Germany are among the important countries showing major gains in purchases from Canada during the first nine months of 1960, compared with the same period in 1959. For 1960 as a whole, prospects are for a gain of 6 to 8 per cent over the record 1959 export total of 5.1 billion dollars. Where did these markets come from? From preaching fear?
As soon as we assumed office we sent a group to the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging trade. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill)-the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as he then was- went over with them, and the results have been phenomenal, and beneficial not only to Canada but to the United Kingdom.
Do you know why there was no quotation today on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in support of his message of gloom and doom? It was because he realized that these facts existed and it would be better not to deal with statistics, except in a general way, by lumping everything together and calling it, in the most caustic of tones, economic uncertainty and chaos in the land.

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
What about our commodity trade? The increase achieved in commodity exports and the maintaining of the 1959 level of imports has reduced the adverse balance of trade for Canada, for nine months, from about $415 million in 1959 to $121 million. There is something that has to be faced. Throughout the years, the adverse balance of trade has been anything but beneficial to Canada. You remember in 1956 the general adverse balance for the United States was some billion dollars. What do they say now, those who belonged to the government of that day who were selling out to the United States? They were selling out Canada's birthright for depreciated United States dollars. That is the interpretation of the words of the Leader of the Opposition.
What about the years from 1950 to 1957 and the adverse balance of trade during that period? It would appear that for political purposes they would undersell Canada. That is something that I do not believe is representative of the thinking people of Canada.
What were the adverse balances of trade from 1956-and this is commodity trade? In 1956 the figure was $713.2 million. That is why we say they were selling out Canada. In 1957 the figure was $589.2 million; in 1958, $156.1 million; in 1959, $368.6 million. From January to September, 1959, the figure was $414.7 million; from January to September, 1960, $120.5 million.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I wonder if the Prime Minister would permit a question on those statistics?


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would allow me to carry on I should be obliged to him.
I point out that we have maintained our exports and that the result I have brought to the attention of hon. members has arisen because imports have not increased in the same percentage as exports and this at a time when the opposition goes across Canada saying "Aren't things terrible?" There was reason for the Leader of the Opposition not to follow his usual course of quoting statistics on this occasion.
What about prices in general? Price levels have remained fairly steady through 1960. There has been an increase in the cost of living index mainly, I am told, in connection with food. The consumer price index is slightly ahead of 1959 during the first ten months of the year. The wholesale price index has been stable throughout 1960. At mid-October last the index stood at 230.3, slightly higher than its October, 1959 level of 230.
A moment ago I mentioned the labour force. The labour force has grown rapidly

over the years from 6,290,000 in October, 1959 to 6,499,000, or by about 3J per cent which compares favourably with the annual rate of increase in the labour force between 1946 and 1959 which was 2 per cent. The economy has been able to absorb a very substantial part of this increase. While employment in each month of 1960 so far has continued to be at the highest level for that month in history, there are still many who are unable to secure jobs. It is to these that our concern must naturally be directed.
In the first ten months of the year employment averaged 5.95 millions which is
102.000	more than for the same 10 months of 1959, the previous record level. I am not going to take the time of the house to discuss the reasons for the current abnormal increase in the number of Canadians seeking to enter the labour force, but that is one of the underlying factors coupled with continuing mechanization. Our economy is in a period of transition from post world war II and Korean war conditions to one which we hope means peace. There are difficulties and there are adjustments. When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite saying that they have a solution for the problem I simply take these figures between 1936 and 1940 and base them on the new relationship between labour and unemployment which came into effect in September, and we find that-and I am taking this period because in those years the figures were not covered throughout the year-by which time the government of that day had been in office some seven or eight months, it was 13.5 per cent. In 1937 it was 9.6 per cent; in 1938 it was 12 per cent; in 1939 it was 12 per cent; and on June 1, 1940 it was 9.7 per cent. I do not refer to these statistics for any other purpose than this [DOT]-not as one of excuses or as any basis for complacency but simply so that the record may bear witness to the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister give us the similar figures from 1930 to 1935 for the record?


John George Diefenbaker: Those of us from western Canada know something of what the result was when our provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were devastated, when drought hit us to such an extent that there was no purchasing power in western Canada; and when there is no purchasing power among the farmers there are no jobs in eastern Canada. I bring these facts out simply to keep the record clear.
Hon. gentlemen opposite speak about the halcyon days when they held office. I will refer to one or two instances that may be of interest. In 1950, on March 4, there were
345.000	unemployed, or 6.8 per cent; in March,

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
1952, it was 5 per cent; in February, March and April of 1954 unemployment ranged from 6.1 per cent to 6.4 per cent. The period from January to April of 1955, includes, of course, our seasonal unemployment, and we shall have seasonal unemployment this winter; we have had it every winter. On January 22, 1955, the figure was 7.2 per cent; on February 19 it was 7.4 per cent; and on March 19, 7.7 per cent, or some 421,000. These are the percentages on the basis of the present yardstick we are using.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister a question for information. Are those the d.b.s. figures or the national employment office figures?


John George Diefenbaker: These are the unemployed as a percentage of the civilian labour force.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister answer my question?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman knows himself where those figures come from.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not.


John George Diefenbaker: Those are the d.b.s. figures for 1956, January to March-5.6 per cent, 6.1 percent and 5.7 per cent. In 1957-those were the halcyon days-January to April-the rate of unemployment on January 19 was 5.7 per cent; in February it was 6.1 per cent; in March, 6.5 per cent; and in April 5.7 per cent.
I mention this simply for the purpose of indicating that this problem of seasonal unemployment, accelerated and increased as a result of technology, has become more and more apparent following the end of the honeymoon period after the war when Canada and countries like Canada had a sellers' market all over the world. These statistics that I place before you are simply designed to assure that the record shall be clear. The challenge of continuing unemployment in a steadily expanding economy is one with which the government has to deal, and ever since we assumed office we have taken steps to which I shall not refer at the moment. We have continued to take steps. We have launched a national development policy. We have expanded development in every part of Canada.
We now find that further action must be taken in the interests of national development with a view to assuring that Canada shall not be priced out of the markets of the world, for without national development and trade there can be no jobs. This is what we place before this house. I can assure the house that if there are any other reasonable suggestions that emanate from any part of the house that appear to be beneficial they will receive every consideration.
We have launched a winter works program and accelerated it. We have provided a larger program of assistance to municipalities in this regard. The provinces have responsibilities, too. Last year the provinces contributed from nothing to 25 per cent of the labour costs in municipal works under the winter works program. So far this year one province, the province of Quebec, has increased its contribution to 40 per cent because of the realization quite frankly admitted by the government of that province that the responsibility for jobs is not one that rests on the federal government-


An hon. Member:: Alone.


John George Diefenbaker: -of itself, but rests on the provincial governments and rests as well on business and labour.
There are no paying jobs at a time when men are on strike. I hope that on the one hand business will deny itself increasing profits that are unfair and unjust. Of course, profits are needed for without profits in business there cannot be jobs. On the other hand I hope that the labour leaders of this country will give heed to the national situation and do their part to assure that reason will characterize their relations with business across Canada to the end that jobs may be maintained.
I cannot resist referring to an incident that occurred in my home province. A few years ago-I think about 1945 or 1946-we had a government in Saskatchewan that said all you had to do was socialize business, establish it under the government and there would be jobs. That was all right as far as liquor was concerned and also as far as power was concerned but it did not work in the other fields. No, we must do our part to maintain Canada at this time at a level that will assure that our export trade shall not diminish for if we do not, we shall not have jobs. An amazing job was done by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs while he served as minister of trade and commerce in maintaining and developing trade. The new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees) has caught the imagination of the Canadian people with his project to bring together the trade officials of the department from all parts of the world. He can enthuse them and give them a picture of what is needed. We in Canada will have to keep our prices down, otherwise enthusiasm for export will not give rise to increases in exports.
I mentioned what we are going to do. Our program as outlined in the speech from the throne has been described as a package. I think I have heard that expression before.
I believe I heard it on the night the speech from the throne was delivered. I think the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker word used by the speaker on the television program was "package" but I could not quite make it out. In any event, the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to say that what we propose to do is only a package. Are winter works a package? Is the carrying out by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) of an expanding development in public works merely a package? Approval of these programs has been recommended with a desire of putting Canadians to work. That is why I am very pleased that we are going to proceed at once with the supplementary estimates and these other items of legislation.
The Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), with a view to assuring that hospital construction should not be diminished because of the uncertainty as to whether the policy would continue beyond March, 1963, has given notice that he will recommend that these grants will be continued so that those requiring hospitals will be able to proceed with them.
Recommendations have been made concerning changes in the National Housing Act. A few weeks ago the university foundation met with me and among the recommendations they advanced was one concerning the need for loans for the construction of student residences. That is what they asked for. The Leader of the Opposition somewhat ridiculed the fact that loans were part of this plan. That is what they asked for in an effort to meet a need which exists across this country. The information I have is that this particular item has received universal support among the universities.
Let us consider the action taken in the larger field of national development. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) read with relish some words about pollution. This is one of the most challenging problems facing Canada. By 1990, unless something is done, Canada is going to run out of wholesome water. The provinces say it is impossible to act on their own and the municipalities say they cannot. The wholesome water with which Canada has been endowed beyond the endowment of any other nation in proportion to its land area must be preserved now and to that end we are going to make available long term loans for approved projects for sewage disposal and treatment representing up to two thirds of the cost of these projects.
The Leader of the Opposition said that these undertakings will not provide action now. In order to secure action immediately a grant will be authorized to write off one-quarter of the amount of any such loans, in other words one sixth of the total amount spent on such work done before April 1963.

It will take a while for the plans to be developed. Already the city of Ottawa has tremendous plans in this regard to do something to bring about the preservation of the waters of the mighty Ottawa, one of the great rivers that played such an important role in the history of mankind's march west and that has increasingly become a floating polluted body.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say there is nothing in the government program, that it is only a package. Small business does not say it is a package. Small business across Canada has made it very clear how welcome is the guarantee for bank loans to small business to finance additions and improvements for their equipment and premises. This is something they have sought over the years, an opportunity to improve the appearance and increase the efficiency of their establishments so that they will be able to maintain that which this government believes in, fair competition for all business in Canada. This is one of the most advanced moves that has been taken by any government to bring about the assurance that the small shall have an opportunity of competition with the great.


Mr. Winch:: Why did you turn it down in the last three years?


John George Diefenbaker: Then there is vocational training. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said the other day, 40 per cent of the labour force, which includes all of us, did not get beyond elementary school. Many cannot secure jobs because they have not the necessary training. Under the constitution education is a responsibility of the provinces. We want to give assistance to provincial governments for vocational training, not only in the schools now existing and for the students now in the schools but also for those who have already become workers. This technical training and re-training will, I think, be one of the most beneficial courses of action that can be taken to ensure that workers shall be trained to meet the challenge of advanced technology; trained in order to meet that competition which the Leader of the Opposition referred to in his remarks respecting international affairs, a challenge internationally that today is possibly more frightening than on any previous occasion when we have met together.
If I may digress at this point, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the antics of Mr. Khrushchev. From sneers and smiles to shoes, that was his attitude at the United Nations. So far as China is concerned, one has only to read "The Peking Review" from week to week to understand something of the terrible portents for the future. Week after

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
week that magazine, representing the accumulation of the speeches of the week by the leaders of that country, underlines the necessity, as the Leader of the Opposition said, of realizing the gravity of the situation today and of preparing our people at the same time by the necessary training so that we will be able to meet the ever-increasing competition from the communist world.
Then there is the productivity council. I am not going to go into particulars in that regard because the measure will be before the house very shortly. It is an endeavour to bring together representatives of business, agriculture and labour, women's representatives and representatives of all sectors of the community to the end that in a community of effort, as has been successful in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, we shall secure the counsel, advice and, above all, the concerted action of these groups brought together by the state but controlled by private enterprise and not directed by the state in any way.
Then there is the larger field of public works, not to meet the needs of the moment especially but rather to meet Canada's future needs, to meet the kind of destiny that we believe Canada will have. We hope that the Columbia river agreement will be in the form of a treaty before this session is over.
There is also the opening up of the north. There were those who said we were simply building from nowhere to nowhere. Tremendous developments have taken place in highway construction. As a result of our policies 4,000 miles of road are under way, making available to the Canadian people the opportunity to develop our resources.
With respect to northern Alberta, the promise was made as far back as 1926, I think, that a railroad would be built into the north. As one of our promises in the election of 1957 we undertook to initiate the building of the Pine Point railway. When we were in a position to proceed there was a great division of opinion with respect to whether the road should proceed east or west, and that is one case where the east will never meet the west. Each side had its views. We set up a royal commission and, when an agreement has been arrived at with the two railroads, we hope to be able to proceed with this new railroad. In the meantime a detailed survey will be made so that the work can be gone ahead with on the western route.
Finally, there is a proposal that affects the city of Winnipeg. Ever since the 1800's the Red river has overflown from time to time. My own great grandparents were driven out in 1815 as a result of the floods of that day, and this situation has continued ever
since. We expect to bring before this session appropriations covering the construction of a floodway. We also intend to do something that western Ontario has been seeking for years and years. We intend to do something to conserve and control the waters of the upper Thames river in southwestern Ontario.
There is the program so far as work and development are concerned. I am not going into the other particulars at this time. However, I should like to refer to the assurance that Canada shall remain Canadian. We shall bring before the house measures to ensure greater participation by Canadians in the ownership and control of our industries and resources. That does not mean that we are opposed to foreign capital. We welcome United States capital or capital from any part of the world. In the formative days of the United States, when developments were taking place and the country was being opened up, that country demanded that investments should be not in the form of ownership of equity stock in the main but rather in the form of loans and the like.
We believe that the time has come to put a stop to the trend that we found when we came into office and which has been increasing from 1950 onward, a trend whereby the great resources of our country are being owned more and more by another country. We are not intending to discourage foreign capital and such capital will continue to come into our country because Canada affords the safest security in the world. However, we are asking that Canadians be given an opportunity to have ownership in the industries and resources of Canada and we hope that the policies of foreign companies and foreign unions will be in the interests of Canada. That is our objective.
It is a policy of Canadianism, not a narrow nationalism but rather the imbuing of Canadians as a whole with a pride in their country and the provision of the opportunity for them, and for those that follow them in all parts of this country, to have a reasonable equality of opportunity in opening up the country and making possible developments that will create jobs.
I mentioned the opening of the railroad in northern Alberta. At the same time, in the province of Quebec, the Mattagami railroad will be proceeded with. Whatever the problems, we believe in partnership in Canada. That is the purpose, the aim and dedication of this government.
Then I conclude where I commenced. Do not let us sound paeans of recession. Let us catch something of the greatness of this country. When we indulge ourselves and preach recession, it has this effect on the hearts of Canadians: It breeds depression. I am asking
46	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue Canadians to come out of the valleys of doubt. I am asking this house to leave these valleys. Let us mount to the hilltops of determination and faith. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that his desire to come to grips with these problems is one that will receive support from all members in all parts of the house. I want to see Canadians giving a new emphasis to Canada's greatness, to its potentialities or possibilities. Let us turn from gloom to productivity, to unity instead of class consciousness and division. That is what I hope, Mr. Speaker, will be achieved in this session; a spirit of determination to meet the problems that are facing the nation.
None of us can but have compassion and sympathy for those who are without work. But, sir, let us not multiply the numbers that are. Let us not accentuate the statistics that are factual and correct. Let us simply, at this session, proceed with this program, which is not a package but a contribution, with parliament giving the lead to new vistas of development, new expansions in international trade.
None of us can do it alone. Governments cannot do it. It will require the co-operation, as I said a while ago, of all Canadians, and I am asking the powerful, who are in business or in the ranks of labour organizations, to use their power and influence to meet these problems and thereby bring about in Canada a new expansion, new developments. I hope that this will be achieved. To that end, this government asks the support of all hon. members in all parts of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this debate on behalf of this group are to congratulate the mover (Mr. Maclnnis) and seconder (Mr. Paul) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and to say that I believe each of them has done an excellent job in presenting the case for the government to this house and to the country. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in expressing our friendship for those who have been elevated to the other place in recent times, for those who have been elevated by means of a rearrangement of work within the cabinet and for those who were elevated to the cabinet for the first time and our welcome to the new members.
It is clear from the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and of this group, that members from all sides of the house are anxious that we deal expeditiously with the business that has been placed before parliament. Certainly we in this group hope that the legislation presented to the house
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)

will be adequate to deal with the major economic problems that face this country.
It is difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to know just how to approach a debate such as this. I certainly recognize that difficulty. It is difficult not only because the government says in the speech from the throne there are a number of things it wishes to do, and because the official opposition, along with us, wish to do everything we can to expedite beneficial legislation, but it is made even more difficult by the rather strange attitude taken by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister in replying to the Leader of the Opposition at first berated the Leader of the Opposition for not having moved an amendment. His theme was, if you do not move an amendment you are pussyfooting; you are expressing confidence in the government; you are pusillanimous; you have gone back and forth across this country pointing out the great difficulties that face the nation and when you have a chance to move an amendment, you fail to do so.
But the Prime Minister did not proceed long with his speech before he changed his tactics and reverted to the very opposite position. He said that the Leader of the Opposition and those around him who criticize the government are doing a disservice to Canada. In one breath he says it is all wrong not to criticize and in the next breath he says it is wrong to criticize. My position is that if there is something to be exposed and criticized, it is our job to do it and no statement by the Prime Minister accusing us of being purveyors of doom and gloom will prevent us from pointing out the failings and shortcomings of this government, of which there are many.
The Prime Minister has embarked on an extremely interesting theme. His theme is that there is no economic emergency. Those are his words. I wrote them down as he uttered them. He said, "There is no economic emergency". In view of the statistics produced by various departments; the recent actions of the people of Canada when they have had a chance to express their will in a free, democratic way; and the resolutions that have been passed by leading Canadian organizations I suggest to the Prime Minister that the evidence is overwhelming that there is an economic emergency. If there is no economic emergency in the Prime Minister's mind this may explain why the government has allowed this crisis to deepen and to worsen before it has made even a gesture of meeting these great difficulties.
The speech from the throne has in it many things but if one were not a resident of this country and did not realize the difficult economic problems we face, from a reading of it one would gather nothing to show that the

government is aware of an emergency of any kind existing at this time. When it has come to talk about unemployment the government has talked about employment. When it has come to talk about our trade imbalance, the government has talked about larger exports. When it has come to talk about recession and unemployment, the government quotes statistics to show that certain isolated segments of the economy are showing a small advance.
The unemployed in Canada will not agree with the Prime Minister when he says that there is no economic emergency. There may not be an economic emergency for those who sit around the Prime Minister but there is an economic emergency for Canadians who are out of work, and it is a serious one.
The latest statistics show that on October 15 there were 368,000 unemployed in Canada as compared to 251,000 in October of the previous year, an increase of more than 40 per cent in that period of time. I have in my hand the labour force publication of September, 1960 and September is the last month that is shown in this particular publication. If one starts with the unemployment rate in September, 1956, the year prior to this government taking office, one finds that the total of those unemployed in Canada was 116,000. One year later, September, 1957 the unemployment figure had reached 214,000 or almost twice the number. In September of 1958 the unemployment figure has reached 285,000; in September, 1959 it was down to 225,000; in September of this year it had gone up to 337,000.
I suggest that these figures destroy the statement of the Prime Minister that there is no economic emergency. The fact is that we are in a recession. We have widespread unemployment. Nothing that the Prime Minister is able to say will remove that economic fact at this time. Those who are unemployed, on reading the Prime Minister's statement, will be flabbergasted to learn that the he is aware of no economic emergency.
There is other evidence of an economic emergency. It is referred to in the speech from the throne in a rather loose and offhanded manner. It has to do with impending amendments to the unemployment insurance fund. The unemployment insurance fund in the first full month of office of this government, namely July, 1957, stood at just over $862 million. That sum has been reduced from $862 million to $319,476,000 by September of this year and the forecast is that by spring, unless action is taken, the fund may go to the low figure of $100 million.
The reason for this disappearance of the great unemployment insurance fund is the fact that Canada faces an economic crisis and an unemployment crisis and this fund has
The Address-Mr. Argue been used under the administration of this government in a way in which it was never intended to be used. This fund has been a substitute for full employment instead of a policy to take care of the income of people that are transferring from one job to another. The government, when it introduced amendments to this legislation on a former occasion, increased the benefits by 10 per cent and increased the contributions by 30 per cent. By its use of the unemployment insurance fund the government has endeavoured to load the main burden of unemployment on working Canadians and on their contributions to the unemployment insurance fund rather than take forthright action of its own in order to bring about a full employment policy.
This political party which forms the government appealed to the country in 1957 and again in 1958 on a full employment policy. It did not ask for the confidence of the people of Canada by saying there would be a third of a million unemployed or a half million unemployed or that they would be satisfied if 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent of the working force were unemployed. This government went to the people of this country on a definite program to end unemployment, to substitute jobs for idleness. In this commitment the government has wholly failed. But the failure is not recognized by hon. gentlemen opposite. Instead, the statement is made that there is no economic emergency.
Another substantial plank in the program of this government was to end our trade deficits, to end United States domination of large sections of Canadian industry and to bring about a better balance in Canada's trade relationships. In his statement there was almost no mention by the Prime Minister today of this great trade crisis that faces Canada and of the growing domination of our country by outside capital. The Prime Minister, has not pointed out that although his policy, he states, is that Canada will remain Canadian, in his three years of administration more and more of the natural wealth and the industrial potential of this country has been alienated to citizens from other countries.
The Prime Minister feels that Canada will remain Canadian, while all the time more and more Canadian industry is falling under United States domination and control, so much so that the governor of the Bank of Canada has pointed out the great dangers to our economic life, to our national existence, from this growing control of Canadian industry from outside. He points out, also, that this growing ownership has increased from some $4 billion in 1949 to some $17 billion at the end of 1960; and he points out that the net transfer of Canada's natural wealth to
48	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Argue outside owners this year will reach the alltime high of $1J billion. That was another substantial plank in the program of this government which was a good point of salesmanship but about which the government has done nothing.
The Prime Minister has said that if there are to be jobs in eastern Canada, there must be money in the pockets of our farmers. That is a correct statement. But from what the government has been doing you would not think the Prime Minister meant what he said this afternoon. Certainly he is not following this course as a matter of government policy. He said, when he was appealing to the Canadian electorate, that one of the things that his government would do would be to provide support prices for agricultural products based on parity. His slogan for agriculture was, "We want parity, not charity". While the government has been in office there has been no charity that I know and there has certainly been no parity.
From this side of the house, the Prime Minister used to attack the former minister of agriculture for rock-bottom floor prices on agricultural products. How he castigated him for forgetting the agricultural industry of this country. Under the former minister of agriculture, and under this government, prices for basic agricultural commodities were allowed to fall below the very low floor prices of the previous administration.
Of course, this government talked one way in those days and acted in another way when it took office. The government said, in going to the country in 1958, that it would provide a system of stable prices that would give the farmer his fair share of the national income. They provided a price; not a floor price but a national average, and as long as there were not more farmers being paid less than the national average than there were getting more than the national average, then those producers who were getting less could recover nothing. The official statistics of the Department of Agriculture, economics division, show that in January, February and March of this year, even after the deficiency payment of eight cents per dozen has been taken into account the producers of Canada received less than the floor prices provided in years gone by under legislation which this government had condemned so roundly.
The experience with hogs is not over for this year. One cannot say what the final result will be; but I suggest there is evidence from the figures that can already be obtained that some producers, having received less than the national average, will have no opportunity to recover the difference between the price they have been paid and the national average.


The government talked about parity instead of charity, and instead of bringing about a strengthening of agricultural prices through legislative action, prices of agricultural products were allowed to go even lower. The Prime Minister this afternoon talked about increased trade and expanded markets. We need them. We need increased markets for agricultural products, for many products of Canada's forest manufacturing industry. Our fishermen need new markets. But there is little evidence that the government has seen its own vision, when it spoke of expanding markets for agricultural products.
When this government took office initially it began to do a number of things. In 1958, for example, it increased the home building in Canada to something over 160,000. Now, after having been in office for three years, that number will be tens of thousands fewer. Initially, this government seemed to take its commitments rather seriously in the field of increasing our export trade for wheat. In the first year of the government's administration it increased our exports of wheat by 320 million bushels. Then there was a pause, and the next year it allowed the exports of wheat to fall to 294 million bushels. Last year it allowed the exports of Canadian wheat to fall to 277 million bushels. In spite of the fact that people who know the agricultural industry say that because of low rainfall crops have been less than they are in normal times, our surplus has once again built up.
The former minister of trade and commerce was able to export 320 million bushels of wheat in his first year of office. We have a new man in charge of the marketing of Canadian wheat, and his vision is to export this year, if possible, 300 million bushels of wheat. Instead of the government taking action to move this surplus of grain on to the world markets, the vision has dimmed; the government's sight has become short. They say, "We can never attain the goal that was ours in our first year in office." When the government took office initially it provided the Colombo plan countries and other countries with 32 million bushels of wheat as gifts. After they had done this for one year they reduced the amount to 18 million bushels. For the crop year just ended the amount has been reduced to seven million bushels. The vision is fading away; the noncommercial market is disappearing.
This government says it is in favour of the commonwealth; it is in favour of action to support the commonwealth and to improve commonwealth relations. Yet this government sat idly by and forced the government of India, when it was in need of wheat, to go to the government of the United States and make a four-year agreement covering the



I960

[Stage Direction]
sale of 586 million bushels of wheat. This government has lost the opportunity of a lifetime.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Was that a sale, or a gift?


Hazen Robert Argue: Here was a non-commercial sale; here was a chance for the Canadian government, I suggest, to share in the kind of agreement that was signed between the government of the United States and the government of India. This government turned India down, turned the commonwealth down, and has turned our prairie farmers down and condemned them to keep their grain on their farms, unsaleable, while the United States farmer increases his sale of grain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That just is not true.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the clarification of the words used. The hon. member spoke about a noncommercial sale to India. Was it not an outright gift?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, it was not an outright gift, although the minister should know better than to ask a question like that. Half of it was a loan, and half of it was a gift. But that does not make it quite an outright gift.


George Harris Hees: What a non-commercial sale.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was sorry to see the wheat board transferred to the Department of Agriculture; I think the Department of Trade and Commerce, that has to do with trade, is the place to handle the surplus commodity that should be exported. It should not come under the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) whose department is concerned with production and agricultural practices. The Minister of Agriculture has already given us evidence that his vision is dimmed. He has said: "We shall try to sell 300 million bushels of wheat" and he tells the farmers they must put some of their land into alternative use.
This government does not apparently realize that the sales of wheat in the world have not been falling but increasing. In 1952-53, 639 million bushels of wheat were sold by the four exporting countries of the world. By 1959-60 this quantity had increased to 996 million bushels, an increase of 56 per cent. In 1952-53 Canada sold 45 per cent of the market; last year we sold 28 per cent of the market. The United States in 1952-53 sold 33 per cent of the market; last year the United States sold 52 per cent of the market. The United States is forecasting that in the present crop year it will sell 570 million bushels of wheat while Canada will be relegated to a very inferior second position with a target of 300 million bushels.
The Address-Mr. Argue
This government says there is no economic emergency. Ask the grain producers who are today trying to exist on a unit quota at 925 marketing points. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to comment on this point. Why did he say he intended to issue weekly statements from now on? No wonder he wants to issue weekly statements. He knows he cannot withstand questioning and criticism on this score in the House of Commons, and he is trying to relegate discussion to the post office and the mailing facilities. We do not need further information as to quotas given in this way. We are circulated already every week with this information and the minister does not have to circulate alibis. He has to tell parliament and the country what the government is doing about this very serious economic crisis.
Before the last two elections the government had a vision of a united Canada. It had a vision of better federal-provincial fiscal relations, yet at the recent federal-provincial conference this government made an announcement which, if it is put into law, will turn the economic clock back at least 25 years and put Canada back into the economic tax jungle of the thirties. Canadians-and this is the fundamental thought behind equalization-no matter whether they live on the prairies, in British Columbia, in central Canada or in the Atlantic provinces should have the right to a basic equality in provincial services, and the day of equalization will, in my opinion, be gone because this government is saying: To him that hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. By fixing an amount of $220 million for the provinces over a period of five years this government has shown that it is prepared to throw the equalization provision out of the window.
The government may deny that there is an economic emergency, but I suggest that there is a political emergency in Canada, and it is in the Conservative party which today, in my judgment, no longer commands the confidence of the people of this country. The government's record is dismal and inept. Its proposals, if one can read between the lines, are inept and I suggest that the government should undertake a number of things; not a small measure of public works but a greatly extended building of public works across Canada; not just aid to municipalities but aid to provincial governments to embark on public works.
I suggest the government should raise its housing sights at least to the level of 1958. I suggest that the federal government should establish a capital investment fund to be used for investment in Canadian industry to

The Address-Mr. Argue prime the employment pump and to see if more of our industry cannot be built on the basis of Canadian ownership and control. I suggest there is need now for a great drive for markets around the world; that the Canadian government instead of opposing the development of free trade areas had better start thinking in terms of living with these free trade areas and of joining in a broad Atlantic free trade area as the only salvation for Canada's economy.
I feel it is the job of an opposition party to facilitate in any reasonable way the handling of government legislation, but I also feel it is the duty of an opposition party to challenge the government, and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge):
That the following paragraph be added to the address:
This house regrets that your Excellency's advisers have failed to implement their election promises through refusal to undertake the economic and social planning necessary to provide full employment, a stable and prosperous agricultural community. and an adequate social security system.
I believe that having moved a want of confidence motion in reply to the motion we are discussing I now have unlimited time. However, I do not intend to take advantage of that and if I can be given a few more moments I shall conclude my remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question before he does so? When he was speaking about the wheat sales proposals of the United States he suggested they were going to sell some 500 million bushels. Would the hon. member not like to tell the house that 70 per cent of that would be a gift program?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can quibble over terms if he likes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: The fact is that the United States will sell, in the language of the wheat board, either in the commercial market or in the non-commercial market 570 million bushels of wheat at a time when this government admits failure. I suggest that instead of running into debt to foreign investors to the colossal amount of $14 billion a year some consideration should be given as to whether or not this export surplus might be used to alleviate part of this huge amount by which we are going into arrears to investors from outside.
Remember, the government knew the answers to these questions before it was given the responsibility of government. Now the government asks members of the opposition to show them the way. This was a government which was going to sell our surpluses. Instead
[Mr. Argued

of selling them it has allowed them to build up and go unsold in very large quantities.


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member permit another question? Would be not agree that there is a relationship between strikes on the part of grain handlers and low wheat quotas?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been saying to the government for a long time, long before the strike came about, that it was time the ministers concerned showed some initiative in an attempt to avoid the strikes so that the workers would not lose pay and so that markets for agricultural products should not be lost.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. By the suggestion he has made is the hon. member recommending compulsory arbitration?


Frank Howard: Don't be silly.


Hazen Robert Argue: "Don't be silly" is a good answer to that question. I suggest that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) should have got off his fanny many weeks ago and gone out to Vancouver, as also should his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, to try to do something about averting the strike so that the workers might be maintained in employment and the markets for wheat continued. This government may not recognize an economic crisis-


Mr. Palleii:: Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: But notwithstanding-


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Cameron Pallett: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member enlarge on that very interesting statement?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Assini-boia has the floor. Unless the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) wishes to ask a question and is given the floor he should not interrupt.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I know I might be able to explain so that hon. members opposite might be able to understand but I think that would be asking a great deal.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stick to your wild talk.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister has recognized no economic emergency. The Prime Minister should recognize that in recent provincial elections and in recent federal byelections the people of Canada have not the confidence in this government they had a few months ago. We have put forward a want of confidence motion because we feel the government does not have the confidence of the people. We have put before parliament a constructive program that if implemented

would in our opinion bring about full employment, adequate markets for agricultural products and an alleviation of the economic crisis the existence of which the Prime Minister denies.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. It is after six o'clock and it is my duty to leave the chair unless the house unanimously wishes to proceed with the main question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear dissenting voices. It being six o'clock, I do therefore leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: In the ordinary order of things we would now proceed to the notices of motion for the production of papers. If the house desires to do that, naturally I am in the hands of the house. Then, having regard to the suggestion I made earlier today that we might start on government notices of motion, if that is acceptable we can take them in the order in which they appear. We have made excellent progress today, and I am sure none can say that parliament could spend its time more efficiently than it has this day, and if it is at all possible to secure this agreement we might proceed in that way. On the other hand, if hon. gentlemen would like to have notices of motion for the production of papers cleared away, we would be only too willing to take that course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps we could leave the production of papers until tomorrow and proceed with the resolutions as they are on the order paper. It is wonderful to feel that the government can be so easily prodded into action like this.


Hazen Robert Argue: I hate to go against the tide or disturb this tranquil atmosphere, but I think we would make more progress if we went forward as the order paper provides. These are merely routine motions for the production of papers and I am sure the government is prepared to expedite the production of these important documents. We could perhaps get through the production of papers within a few minutes and then go on to the item which the Prime Minister has suggested might be taken. In other words, after the motions for the production of papers have been disposed of we are prepared to go forward with the suggestion the Prime Minister has made.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, briefs and other documents exchanged between Dr. Andrew Stew>art, chairman of the board of broadcast governors, or any other officials of the board, and any person or organizations, with regard to the use of dramatized television film in connection with political advertisements in the Peterborough by-election, October 31, 1960.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: This is satisfactory, subject to the usual reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all tenders submitted to the Department of Transport for the bar and cocktail lounge privileges at the new Dorval air terminal building.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Pickersgill:
For a copy of all economic forecasts prepared for the Minister of Trade and Commerce between January 1 and March 31, 1960 in substitution for or replacement of the Canadian economic outlook prepared annually until and including the early months of 1959.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we will have to oppose that motion.



ROADS TO RESOURCES PROGRAM, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Martel:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, since January 1, 1959, regarding the roads to resources program.
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this is acceptable subject to the usual reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Clermont:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between any minister of the government or any department official of government, the board of broadcast governors or any official thereof, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any of its officials, and the mayor of Mont Laurier, Quebec, or any member of a group representing citizens of the district of Mont Laurier, regarding the construction of a television tower in the area, from the 1st of May, 1957 to date.
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secreiary of Slate):: Agreed, subject to the usual reservations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government, or any agency or department thereof, and any other person, company or organization since January 1, 1957, relating to the prosecution of Canadian Breweries Limited, for alleged infractions of the Combines Investigation Act.
Edmund Davie Fulton: The
motion as drawn would require the production of documents containing opinions from counsel on legal questions which were submitted to them by the department. As I understand it all such correspondence has been regarded as privileged. I am, therefore, unable to accept the motion.


Frank Howard: Could the motion perhaps stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to allowing the motion to stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: While I am prepared to allow it to stand, Mr. Speaker, I could not accept the motion as drawn in any event.
[Mr. Hees.l


Frank Howard: The purpose of my request to allow it to stand is to ascertain if we could not reword the motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It might be dropped without prejudice to the right to substitute a reworded motion. Is the hon. member agreeable to withdrawing it?


Frank Howard: Yes, but only if I cannot revise it and cannot make an agreement as to how it should be worded.


Mr. Speaker:: As there seems to be some difference of opinion, is the minister willing to allow the motion to stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; I would be willing to allow it to be withdrawn without prejudice to the right to replace it with a different motion dealing with the same subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be withdrawn?


Frank Howard: Yes.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



B.C. SUGAR REFINING COMPANY  COMBINES ACT PROSECUTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government, or any agency or department thereof, and any other person, company or organization since January 1, 1957, relating to the prosecution of the British Columbia Sugar Refining Company Limited et al, for alleged infractions of the Combines Investigation Act.
He said: I should like to withdraw this motion.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member wishes to withdraw this motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



POWER EXPORTS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the application made by the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario to export a quantity of power at Cornwall, Ontario, and other communities along the international border, together with the memorandum of the city of Cornwall opposing this application at a public hearing held before the national energy board and the transcript of evidence arising out of the said hearing.
Motion agreed to.


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, by way of a guarantee of loans made by banks to proprietors of small business enterprises,

for the improvement and modernization of premises and equipment, and to provide further that any amount paid to a bank under the said measure shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. Speaker:: The resolution in question was ordered for consideration tomorrow. I believe it could be moved by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, first may I thank the house for its co-operation which has enabled the government to proceed today with this measure.
The committee will recall that the speech from the throne contains the following paragraph:
You will also be asked to give early consideration to a bill authorizing government guarantees for bank loans to small businesses to finance additions and improvements to their business premises and equipment. My ministers are convinced that additional medium term credit facilities for small businesses would enable many private projects to go forward this winter all across Canada, providing substantial additional employment. Moreover, this addition to our credit legislation will constitute a continuing stimulus to the growth of Canadian private enterprise.
The bill to be founded upon the present resolution deals with the provision of intermediate term credit to small business. Its purpose is to assist small business enterprises in financing a wide range of capital improvements. This is a further step in the government's program to take appropriate measures for ensuring that the small businessman shall continue to share fully in Canada's economic progress.
As hon. members will recall, in 1958 a small business section was established within the Department of Trade and Commerce. This organization provides a liaison between government and small business and is charged with the responsibility for studying the problems of small business and advising as to the measures necessary to meet them. The bill to follow the present resolution follows upon such earlier action and reflects the government's intention to provide assistance to small businesses where required and in a manner which is constructive as well as beneficial for the economy as a whole.
The proposed bill provides authority for the government to guarantee bank loans to small business enterprises. The loan scheme, as it is envisaged, will take advantage of the existing network of branch banks and we can expect that the government guarantee will encourage lending and will increase the availability of medium term credit to small business. The general nature of the legislation is similar to the Farm Improvement Loans
Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses Act which has been in operation throughout the post-war period and continues to be of considerable value in the improvement and mechanization of Canadian farms.
I may say that when the bill is introduced I think all hon. members will be struck by the similarity of its form to that of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, a similarity which marks not only the scheme of lending under the provisions of the bill but many of the provisions of the legislation itself.
It is anticipated that the new measure, when placed on the statute books, will provide the same opportunities to small businessmen and will be instrumental in furthering the efficiency and competitive strength of small business enterprise. The extension of credit facilities as proposed under this measure will be of benefit to many firms and businesses across Canada and should play an important role this winter, of course, but also in the years to come in stimulating employment and economic activity generally.
I am sure I do not need to speak at length on the subject of the need for such a measure. As the government has been told in the course of representations received from time to time from representatives of small business organizations, there is a need of intermediate credit. Bank credit, of course, is available on a short term basis to business enterprises but for small businesses there is no available intermediate term credit. That is the situation that has given rise to this measure. The permissible term of loans that would qualify for government guarantee under this measure is ten years, the same as the provision in the Farm Improvement Loans Act. It is designed to provide credit for the renovation and extension of premises as well as the acquisition of equipment.
In relation to the general desire to promote measures that will be effective in creating employment during the coming winter I may tell the committee that it has been represented to us by small business organizations that the amount of contract work available in the course of renovation and extension of the premises of small retail businesses in Canada amounts to approximately $75 million. It is confidently expected that this measure will put many small businesses in a position to undertake renovations and extensions of that nature.
Questions will naturally arise as to where the line is drawn with respect to small businesses. This measure is designed to be of benefit to those who qualify under the definition of small business. To large business, of course, credit is available through security issues. That avenue of credit is not open to the proprietors of small businesses. The measure will provide a definition of what is a

Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses small business. The basis of determination of the definition that has been chosen is the gross revenue. The measure will therefore define a small business enterprise as a business enterprise the estimated gross revenue of which as stated in the application for a business improvement loan did not for the fiscal period of the business enterprise in which the application is made exceed $250,000.
The classes of business which will qualify will also be of interest to the committee, I am sure. The definition has been written in terms broad enough to include four classes of business, namely manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade and service businesses.
I wish to make it clear that these definitions will include the proprietors of tourist establishments. We have received from organizations representing proprietors of tourist enterprises representations in which they have indicated that while they qualify for bank loans for short periods, nevertheless they could undertake, and desire to do so, additions to their premises, but credit is not available for a long enough term. In most cases the term that has been required, in the representations that have been made to my knowledge, has been in the range of seven to eight years. This measure will provide guarantees for bank loans for terms up to ten years.
The bill lays down the conditions which the banks must meet in order that their loans to small business can qualify for government guarantee.
To recapitulate and to summarize, may I say that the purposes for which guaranteed bank loans may be made include the purchase and improvement of equipment and the extension and renovation of business premises. Loans of this kind will be available to proprietors of enterprises who carry on in the four classes of business of which I have made reference. The limit of $250,000 on the gross revenue for the year in which application is made has been established having in mind a reasonable and equitable definition of a small business enterprise. Having regard to the statistics available, I may say that it is indicated that a high proportion of all establishments of the four categories I have mentioned will qualify within the terms of the legislation as small business.
The maximum amount which may be borrowed by a small businessman-that is to say, the proprietor of a small business enterprise-is to be set at $25,000. In general, the terms and conditions of lending will be flexible and will conform, as far as is practically possible, to the individual circumstances of the borrower, taking into account the size and purpose of the loan.

In order to encourage bank lending under this program each bank will be guaranteed against loss up to 10 per cent of the aggregate of loans made by it. There will be a maximum limit on the total amount of loans made by all banks to which the government guarantee will apply, and this has been set at $300 million for the first three years of operations. In that respect the terms of the measure correspond precisely with those of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. At the end of the period that I have mentioned, namely three years of operation, parliament will be in a position to appraise the operations under the act in the light of actual experience.
We have been encouraged by the reception accorded to this measure to believe that it will be effective for the purpose for which it is being introduced. I think hon. members are aware that in the newspapers of last Friday Mr. J. P. R. Wadsworth, the acting president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, was quoted as saying he was quite sure that the banks will co-operate. Mr. A. C. Ash-forth, president of the Toronto-Dominion bank, was quoted as having said that the government proposal to enable chartered banks to make medium term loans to small business is a commendable one. Then the article attributes to Mr. Ashforth the following statement in quotation marks:
I think the government is hitting at a place that might be effective in relieving unemployment. Most banks now have sufficient money available to make loans in this field. There has been some easing ini the money supply, and I think we can take it for granted that if there is a demand for more money to make the program effective, it will be made available.
Provision of medium-term loans to small business should enable them to undertake new programs for improving their facilities and installing new equipment. This should have an effect on employment in cities and towns across Canada.
I think it is quite clear, therefore, from the statement made by the president of the Toronto-Dominion bank, that the banks have credit available and will be encouraged to put it at the disposal of small business in proper cases, in accordance with the terms of the proposed legislation.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think it may be said of this measure that it will assist small business enterprises in Canada and in that way will make a contribution to strengthening the economy and strengthening private enterprise within the economy, particularly the flowering of private enterprise in the small businessman. So far as the immediate situation is concerned, I think it is clear, that this bill, when its provisions become available, will contribute very substantially to the creation of employment in the immediate period.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate my support and that of my colleagues for this resolution. We Liberals find it easy to support this resolution because it embodies a proposal put forward by our leader as long ago as February, 1958. To document that statement, I should like to quote from page 22 of the Pearson plan, which our leader put forward when the 1958 election was called. Under a paragraph heading of "Special provisions for small business", I quote the following:
Besides benefiting from the general improvements in business conditions noted above, small business would get special assistance from the Liberal government.
This would not take the form of free advice, or instructions on how to run a business. We believe that the individual businessman in Canada knows how to run his business and needs no interference from governments.
What we propose is tax relief for businesses earning less than $10,000 a year, by cutting the corporation tax rate to 10 per cent on profits up to $10,000 a year. Beyond that point, business would continue to pay 20 per cent (including the 2 per cent old age security tax), as all businesses up to $25,000 do now. This tax cut would save businessmen $25 millions a year.
The facilities of the industrial development bank should be extended to include retail trade. Our small merchants have faced increasing competition from the large chains and at the same time have found1 it increasingly difficult to obtain capital for improvements and expansion. It is essential that our small merchants should have the opportunity to raise capital on reasonable terms.
It is therefore with great satisfaction that we see the government adopting, even at this late date, that part of our leader's plan. This resolution-as the minister has just pointed out-is an expansion of the principle already embodied in legislation governing farm loan boards, fisheries loan boards and other bodies, such as C.M.H.C. We welcome now its extension to include small business because I think it can be argued without any doubt that the small businessman and small business enterprises are really the backbone of our Canadian economy.
The minister has told us that the definition of small business envisaged in the legislation which he proposes to bring down is one whose gross revenue is not more than $250,000 per year. I do not know what percentage of our businesses will fall within that definition. Usually not less than about 80 per cent of business enterprises come within the category of small business. That is particularly true in legislation which has been passed in the United States for a similar purpose.
Most of our provincial economies are such that small enterprises are more suitable than large ones. Economic stability depends upon orderly growth, and the well-being of small
Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses enterprises and the kind of financial assistance envisaged in this resolution is an excellent means of ensuring economic democracy and at the same time helping to overcome the unemployment problem.
In times of tight money small business enterprises are the very first victims. Large corporations can fall back on the floating of bonds and many other alternative courses of financing which are not available to the little fellow. Yet orderly financing and an orderly program of planning and improvement is just as important and just as essential to small business enterprises as to large corporations. But an orderly program of planning and improvement cannot be carried out without orderly financing.
Nevertheless many small businessmen are reluctant to take advantage of loans from a bank, even when such a loan may be available. The main reason for this, of course, is that bank loans are usually made on demand, and many small business operators feel they cannot take the risk because a sudden demand for repayment by the bank would put them out of business altogether.
The fact that this resolution will permit them to secure loans for a period of ten years will go a long way toward solving that problem. Also, when a loan is on demand, profits are tied up for four or five years in an effort to retire the loan as quickly as possible, and that leaves no opportunity for planning. These conditions are particularly hard on widows and families whose living depends upon the income from businesses of this nature.
At this stage we are merely discussing the principle of the resolution. We are in favour of the principle, but exactly how much benefit the small businessman will receive will depend upon the nature of the legislation to be introduced. It will depend upon the scope of the legislation; upon the types of loans; upon the types of businesses to be covered; the terms of the loan, and the definitions. The minister has already given us some information about this. I think it will be a source of disappointment to many Canadians that only four categories of business will be included in this legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These four categories take in practically everything. May I point out that they include retail, wholesale, manufacturing and service industries? #That is just about as broad as you can make it.


Chesley William Carter: I would like to see the cooperatives included in those categories as well as the others which the minister has mentioned. I think the co-operatives are peculiarly suited to our economy in the Atlantic provinces and in my opinion they are just as deserving of assistance of this kind from

Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses the government as the other categories which the minister has mentioned. In view of the urgency of the economic problems which face this country, and in line with the example already set today by our leader and the Prime Minister, I do not intend to say any more at this time. However, I do have a few questions which I shall ask at a later stage to elicit further information on the points I have already raised.


Erhart Regier: We in this group are certainly happy to see this resolution before us and we are especially happy to see it before us at this very early date in the current session of parliament.
I should like, merely for the record, to express also our disappointment at what has been done in the years which have already gone by. I well remember the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958 and how the Prime Minister's heart bled for the small businessmen of our nation. Then, at long last, we saw the establishment by a vote at estimate time of a branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The initial vote which at that time was voted to the branch which was to be organized to help small business was the sum of $30,000, hardly enough to mail a mimeographed letter to each of the small businessmen in my constituency to advise them how to make ends meet by getting more hours of work out of their wives and daughters engaged in helping them in their small businesses.
We were amazed to note that only one year later neither the sum of $30,000 nor a much larger one, as we had hoped, appeared in the blue book. There was absolutely nothing in the blue book of this year voted for this particular branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. That is why we are especially pleased at this action which is being taken at what I like to think of as being an emergency meeting of the House of Commons; that is why we are pleased that a resolution has been placed before us with at least as much magnitude to it as the words would indicate.
In our minds our society has not yet reached the stage where we can do without ma's corner store. In our economic world and our community life she has a very valuable ^ole to play, because ma of the corner store is the first one to respond to the needs of the community as a community. We know with regret that so very often the larger business organizations have no heart; they have no soul for the needs of the immediate community. We feel that our society has not yet developed to the stage where we can abolish ma of the corner store without a severe loss in more ways than one.


I should also like to warn hon. members that if we allow real free enterprise and real competition to be abolished in the retail world the consumers of Canada are not going to get the benefit of the abolition of such competition. They are going to suffer the consequences.
Perhaps I may point out that the first and only member in this House of Commons ever to advocate a measure such as is now being proposed in the resolution before us, namely loans for the capital needs of small business, was a member of our group, the hon. member for Vancouver East. I recall the utter disgust expressed by Conservatives and Liberals in this house at that time. We had to appeal to our philosopher, the hon. member for Kootenay West, to explain adequately to the house why it was only natural that a member of our group should be honestly concerned with the survival of the individual as an individual in our society. He reminded this house that our very movement had its foundations back in 1933 because of our concern with what the forces of finance and world events were doing to the potentialities of the individual as an individual.
I regret the insufficiency of the resolution now before us although I welcome it as far as it goes. I regret its insufficiency because I am afraid it may lead to a bill, welcome as it would be, wherein the assessment might be based only on the letter of the law and I am afraid that adequate leeway will not be given to a consideration of all the important factors over and beyond the mere statistics.
I hope that an adequate number of years will be allowed for repayment. I hope, also, each individual business will be assessed on its own merits with regard to the number of years allowed for repayment. I regret the inadequacy of the resolution particularly in one major aspect. It is all very well to offer to lend someone some money, but I feel it is much more important that we should ensure the ability of the borrower to repay the money he has borrowed.
I often feel an apprehension that when the House of Commons increases loans to farmers, fishermen and people who want to own houses we do not adequately consider the ability of the borrower to honestly and honourably meet the commitments that we ask him to undertake. Sometimes I have the feeling that we are perhaps being unkind rather than kind when we offer a loan to an individual without satisfying ourselves that he will be able to meet the repayment of the loan and discharge his obligation honourably and well. In this respect I regret the lack of assurance that small business is going to be able to command buying power equal to that of the large corporations.

I have noticed price lists issued by wholesale houses concerning goods available to the retail field. They list categories a, b, c, d, and e, and the spread between categories a and e is much larger than the spread between the retailer's purchase price and his resale price. If the government really wanted to help the small businessman they ought to restore to him a measure of equity in this regard. This, more than anything I can think of, would enable him to establish a level of earnings adequate to meet his commitments and to meet the repayments that are going to be arranged for him under the terms of the bill which will follow the resolution now before us. Unless you enable the small businessman to make a satisfactory return, it is a disservice to offer to lend him money or to make loans available to him.
I regret that the intention of the government with respect to helping the small businessman has not yet been made clear. I feel that nothing would help the small businessman survive more than the institution of a graduated corporation income tax. I feel that many of the evils existing in the business world today would be eliminated through the institution of such a system. If we can defend a graduated system of income tax in respect of the income of individuals we should also be able to defend a system of this nature as applied to the income of organizations and corporations.
In the past the Minister of Finance has attempted to define his conception of what is a small business. We feel it is not as easy to define as the minister indicates. A small business may be worth $1 million in its assets or many millions in the volume of its turnover and yet, on the other hand a business with assets of $30,000 may be a large business. It all depends on what kind of business it is about which you are speaking.
A number of years ago before a meeting of the banking and commerce committee an operator of hotels in the city of Toronto appeared and testified that he owned three hotels, including one of the largest in that city, and admitted that he had to pay up to 24 per cent interest for the money he needed for the modernization of his hotels. The only sources of funds available to him were the finance companies who at that time imposed an interest rate of 24 per cent.
You might have the operator of a barber shop, for instance, where $20,000 a year would make him a big operator. You might also have the operator of a mill in the forests of British Columbia where $1 million would be a relatively small operation. I feel it is premature to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount available. Every business ought to
Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses be gauged by its nature, rather than subject to any arbitrary figure we might decide upon here.
I was pleased to note the minister's announcement that the government intended that these loans apply to the purchase of equipment as well as to the expansion or purchase of new premises. We feel keenly that if a line is going to be drawn as between large and small business, it ought to be drawn on the basis of degree of personal ownership assuming personal responsibility in management and not on the dollar volume that happens to be involved, the volume of business or the investment concerned.
I am pleased to endorse the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo that co-operatives be included.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I tell the hon. member that co-operatives are included. They are eligible under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and they are eligible under this bill, too.


Erhart Regier: I am pleased that when the minister mentions manufacturing, wholesale and retail and even services, he is not too much concerned whether they are owned by individuals or by a group of individuals. If that is the case we shall have no more to say about that.
I also hope that the legislation now before us will be of assistance to the many thousands of operators of service stations who are now nothing but underpaid slaves of the major oil companies of Canada. I hope that adequate resources will be made available to them so that they will no longer be the lessees of the major oil companies and that the legislation to follow this resolution will enable these people to attain real independence so they will no longer be dictated to by the major oil companies as they are now.


Mr. Cathers:: Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in rising to offer a few remarks in relation to this resolution. I only wish I had the ability to unravel the line of thought of the previous speaker. I fail to see where he started or finished. The hon. gentleman talked around and about, and I do not think he arrived anywhere.


Erhart Regier: I will be here after the next election, don't you worry.


Mr. Graffley:: That is pretty cocky talk; a rather heady statement.


Cecil A. (Tiny) Cathers: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing forward the important resolution that is before the committee tonight. I think this legislation to help the small businessman is one of the best

Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced. Since 1957 the government has demonstrated that it is looking after the small businessman. The government looked after the workman by helping him finance his home. It looked after the farmers by increasing the amount of loan that a farmer could obtain from a bank to rehabilitate his buildings and equipment. One of the greatest needs among the farmers was for capital to moderize their old equipment and bring it up to date so they could compete. Now the small businessman will be able to get the capital he needs. Heretofore he could not get a loan for any great length of time through the banks. Now by this legislation he will be able to get a loan for ten years.
Think how important this is going to be to the tourist operators who do not have access to the normal channels of borrowing money from our lending institutions. They will now be able to rebuild and modernize their plant and equipment so that they can carry on the tourist business in a successful way. We all know how important it is to Canada today to have people from other parts of the world come to Canada and spend their money here. It would be a great help in remedying our balance of trade situation with the United States if the revenue we derive from the tourist business could be multiplied by ten times what it is today.
What I like most about this legislation are the mechanics of it. I am sure that if the opposition had been responsible for introducing such a measure we would have had another small loan bank similar to the industrial development bank, and God forbid that because in my opinion it would have simply resulted in the building up of another bureaucracy. I heard the speaker for the Liberal party refer to the industrial development bank and say that he was very strongly in favour of it. I took a look at the last financial statement of the bank and I find that although the bank has ten offices right across this country and over $1 million is involved in salaries the bank only made 537 loans. Just think what it is costing the country to maintain this bank and its employees. Compare that with any one of the chartered banks. They make thousands of loans. The total of their loans would be one hundred times as much as the loans made by the industrial development bank through its ten offices.
The Minister of Finance has, I am pleased to say, demonstrated to the business people of the country his interest in their affairs. During the recess I had the opportunity of discussing the situation with bankers, small businessmen and others and I should like to say that I do not think there has ever been


a minister of finance who has understood the problems of finance like the present Minister of Finance does.
It would have been very simple for the minister to set up a bank similar to the industrial development bank. However, as I have pointed out, this matter is to be handled through the well established channels of the chartered banks by authorizing them to make these loans for longer than the normal period of time. As a small businessman I remember quite well that in February, 1932, at the bottom of the depression, I went to a bank to borrow a few hundred dollars. I was entering into a partnership to carry on a business and I can remember the words of the manager of the bank very well. He said, "Go ahead and we will look after you". With that few hundred dollars and with a credit at the bank I was able to get along. How much simpler it would have been if I could have gone to the bank in 1932 and had my loan guaranteed as the small businessmen are now going to be able to do.
I think that the legislation will fill a great need in the business world in Canada today because we need an accumulation of small businesses across the country. After all, the companies that are large companies today were small companies 30, 40 or 50 years ago. What is being done by the government through this legislation is being done through the proper channels and will help to create a healthy climate. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on this measure and I am sure there will not be very much opposition to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. member for York North I rise in a very humble mood as an ordinary backwoodsman to express my views on this measure. However, before proceeding with the few remarks I wish to make may I say that the hon. member mentioned that he did not understand what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had to say. The hon. member must suffer from defective hearing because the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam simply congratulated the minister on accepting a C.C.F. proposal which we have put forward for a number of years and also outlined the need and made a few suggestions with regard to the administration of the legislation.
The hon. member for York North also said that the Minister of Finance was the most wonderful minister of finance we have ever had because in introducing this measure he had not established what we might call a junior industrial development bank. Does the hon. member not realize that years ago governments set a pattern very similar to this with the business and professional loans act



I960

[Stage Direction]
under the veterans charter legislation and under the Farm Improvement Loans Act? The pattern has been set. We give the minister full credit for following a pattern that has been proved successful and following that example.
As a democratic socialist, Mr. Chairman, I support this measure which I consider to be a form of financial lifebelt being tossed out to rescue those in small business who only need one thing inasmuch as many of them have the ability and the assets, and that one thing is medium or long term credit. We support the legislation because we think it is very necessary indeed. You know, I am very inclined to localize. I am really a small-town person. I know numbers of merchants in my district who in the last year have discussed their needs in this direction with me; small industrialists, saw mill operators, tourist resort operators and so on who are not able to finance under the usual short term bank credit. It is because of the recognition of this need that we in this group, as always, are very pleased to see this resolution has been introduced.
Now, for instance, the district I represent does provide some of the greatest opportunities in Canada. The Kootenays provide the greatest opportunities to be found anywhere in Canada for the promotion and development of the tourist industry. There is no question about it. The Minister of Public Works has just written to me to say he is going to build another launchway for launches because of the development of the tourist industry. I am serious about this. The proposed measure will be of great assistance to a number of men who were born and raised in that country; who recognize the opportunities and who have properties. I am thinking of half a dozen men now who have the ability to work, and that is something very fortunate, and who have the will to work. All they need is money on long term credit. I know a number of men who will welcome this measure tonight. They are not necessarily members of the party to which I belong. I represent all the people in Kootenay West. I advocate anything that helps even the stray Conservative in there.
This is going to be a very fortunate piece of legislation. We will have to reserve our comments about the details until we see the bill. I feel that if this type of measure is administered soundly-I am not one who would suggest that two and two do not make four-then as soon as you pass this legislation you will have quite a number of people making application. As a matter of fact, most people think they are quite capable of operating some form of business. I have met some men who can talk for hours about how to
Guarantee of Loans to Small Businesses run a business who could not operate a peanut stand when it comes to actually knowing what a man wants and administering a service. You will get large numbers who will apply who will not have the qualifications. They will find their outlets in other directions.
You are going to find large numbers of solid, good Canadians who know what they want and have the capacity to work, have the vision and have the ability to launch an industry and build it up slowly. This legislation will be of value to them. With sound administration and imagination this legislation could do a great deal toward removing this frightful situation which is developing in this country under a Conservative government, where we preach free enterprise and see legitimate free enterprise being destroyed all around us, that is what is happening today.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of National Revenue, a very kindly gentleman, a question concerning a matter which illustrates my point. There is a daily newspaper in my district which is very well established and possibly worth a million dollars. The newspaper owners own the local radio station. There is a little chap, a Canadian veteran, who comes along and establishes a newspaper which publishes every two weeks. His newspaper has a large circulation because he is a good photographer and he writes in a rather breezy way. He is getting support. He goes to the radio station and has flashes on the station, "buy the Kootenay Graphic at so and so's newsstand in Nelson or Trail". A few months ago this daily newspaper was publishing editorials urging people to vote for the free enterprise parties, support the spirit of competition. What do they do? The radio station writes to this little chap who is doing fairly well, who is just a little man trying to establish free enterprise, and tells him that because he is a competitor taking their advertising he will not be able to use their radio facilities again. This radio station operates under a licence issued by this government.
This is the sort of spirit that has to be overcome or we are going to build a monolithic state. If we have nothing in this country but large corporations and large unions, the ultimate result will be a monolithic state. We in this group believe that the safety of our society lies in the diversification of our economy, the diversification of political parties, the recognition of our different talents and so on, because in this way we get a variety of the blooms of civilization which come from genuine, legitimate competition.
I see the Minister of Finance looking rather uneasy.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question?

Business of the House


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In his interesting peroration may I ask him to which party he was referring?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am speaking here as a member of the C.C.F. party. I feel very keenly about this subject. I have noticed the deterioration, and with it not only comes deterioration in social ownership and personal ownership, but with this very development comes deterioration in character and, shall I say, stability. This is a commencement. I am speaking seriously. If this legislation turns out to be what we hope it is, and it is administered soundly and with imagination, it could do a great deal to restore to this country the economic democracy and the social democracy to which I am sure, regardless of party, we all subscribe.


Ernest James Broome: May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader if in announcing the business for tomorrow
he would indicate the order in which these resolutions will be taken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue with the resolution which has been under discussion pertaining to small businesses; following with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works dealing with amendments to the National Housing Act; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour dealing with the question of technical and vocational training; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with the establishment of a national productivity council.


Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire if, when these resolutions are disposed of, we will be discussing the supplementary estimates?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It depends on the speed with which the house progresses, Mr. Speaker. Our hope is that as these measures are presented here we will carry on with the second and third reading stages, so it is impossible to forecast the length of time consideration of the four measures will take.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 22, 1960