1960-01-28

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon.
members will recall that last July I said that the Canadian government intended to establish diplomatic representation in Nigeria as soon as circumstances permitted. We were subsequently informed that both the United Kingdom and Nigerian governments welcomed this decision. I now wish to inform the house that it is planned to open a new mission in Lagos in April of this year. Mr. Thomas L. Carter has been appointed head of the mission and, for the period up to the independence of Nigeria, he will have the title of commissioner for Canada.
Mr. Carter has served in several diplomatic posts abroad including a two year term as charge d'affaires in Warsaw. In 1957-58 he was the Canadian member of the international commission for supervision and control in Viet Nam. Last year he attended the imperial defence college in London. Mr. Carter served for five years in world war II with the Royal Canadian Artillery, and was awarded the Military Cross while with the 2nd field regiment of the 1st Canadian division in Italy.
With its some 35 million inhabitants, Nigeria will be the most populous state in Africa. It is a country with considerable potential for development, and is expected to play an important role in African affairs. As this development takes place there will undoubtedly be an opportunity for expanded trade with Canada, and for that reason I am glad that the Department of Trade and Commerce is appointing an officer to the new mission. Nigerian officials have already visited Canada from time to time in the course of preparing themselves for the new responsibilities they will take up on attaining independence. We have been pleased to give them some help, and we hope to be able to do more in the future through our technical assistance program. These associations augur well for a fruitful and cordial collaboration directly between Canada and Nigeria, as well as through our relationship within the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very happy omen that just before I read this statement I received the following dispatch directed to our Prime Minister from the Prime Minister of Nigeria:
My dear Prime Minister, I was delighted to receive your message telling me that you had selected Mr. Carter to be the Canadian commissioner in Nigeria. I look forward to welcoming him in April and I assure you that we are all very happy that this positive step has been taken to demonstrate Canadian good will toward our country.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the minister will be welcomed, of course, by those of us who sit in this group, as I am sure it is welcomed by all members of this house. One wonders why the minister has taken this particular occasion to make an announcement of this kind. However, since he has done so, we welcome it not only for the reason that it is important to establish a mission in this particular front of the commonwealth as such, but it is also a means of promoting the desired unity among commonwealth nations as an instrument for peace in the world at this time.
I wonder if the minister could now announce to the house, as he has made the announcement of this particular mission, whether the government has yet reached a decision about the appointment of an ambassador to Mexico. The vacancy there, I think, is almost a year old, and in view of the importance of that country and that mission to Canada perhaps the minister would take advantage of this opportunity to tell us what are the government's intentions in that regard.
The minister might also tell us why Mr. Carter is to be called a commissioner and not, as his associates in other commonwealth countries are called, high commissioner.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is another happy indication of the evolution of free institutions on the great African continent, and it is most encouraging to note that there is another nation on that great continent that soon will have independent nationhood, and that this has been recognized in an appropriate way by the government of Canada.
I noticed in the statement of the minister that providing diplomatic recognition and representation would likely lead to an increase in trade between our two countries.

Inquiries of the Ministry We think that is a very good and sound principle that the minister has put forth and that it is one the consistency of which should be maintained. We trust, Mr. Speaker, that Canada will lend every encouragement to developing independence of nationhood on the African continent, and that this will be done in such a way as to provide equality to all citizens in that area.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs consider deferring his reply to the question about the appointment of an ambassador until the orders of the day, because it introduces a matter not covered by his statement.

On the orders of the day:


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I could now answer a question which was asked by the hon. member for Essex East. Mr. Carter was appointed a commissioner because Nigeria is not yet independent. The date set for independence is October 1, and on that date Mr. Carter will automatically become high commissioner. There will be no difference between his position and that of the high commissioner to the United Kingdom.
With regard to the method of announcing the appointment, we are merely trying to take the house into our confidence and keep hon. members advised of these very important appointments. I hope shortly to be able to make a statement with regard to the ambassador to Mexico.


EUROPE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER FUTURE ORGANIZATION
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when on January 18 last I reported to the house on the Paris meetings which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) and I attended, I said that as soon as those to compose the committee of four to consider the future organization with respect to European trade relations were selected, I would announce the names to the house.
The four have now been selected, and their names are as follows: Mr. W. Randolph Burgess; Mr. Bernard Clappier; Sir Paul Gore-Booth, and Professor X. E. Zolotas.


Mr. Chevrier:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) announced them a week ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Correction, Mr. Speaker; the Leader of the Opposition did not announce them. They were not selected then. They have only now been selected.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. Could the hon. gentleman give us the latest figures which have been supplied to him by the unemployment insurance commission outlining the number of unplaced applicants for jobs? Perhaps he could also give us from the same source the latest figures he has of the number of what are called live claimants for unemployment insurance benefits.
I ask this question today because the government, I understand, is going to meet today with a group of important representatives of labour, and I think it would be valuable for them and for the country to have the latest figures on unemployment in Canada.


Hon. Michael Slarr (Minisier of Labour):: I gave the latest figures that are available to me when the hon. member asked for them last week.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The minister gave the figures for January 7. Does he not receive figures every week?


Michael Starr: That is right.


Peter Francis Martin: If that is correct, would the minister give us the latest figures he has available; because this is the 28th day of January.


Michael Starr: I can only repeat what I said previously, that I have no later figures than those I gave the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (SI. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on the following article published in yesterday's Ottawa Journal:
About 600 workers of Domil Limited, a subsidiary of Dominion Textiles Limited that produces synthetic fabrics and yarns, will be laid off for a week February 1.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members have points of order to make they should properly rise in their places and make their points.


Yvon Dupuis: I continue:
This second week long lay-off since December 25 is due to an accumulation of inventory resulting from increased import competition, a company spokesman said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is entitled to lay a factual foundation for his question, but should not read at length from extracts from a newspaper. I take it that his question relates to a particular lay-off. Could he ask his question?


Yvon Dupuis: I would ask, if the minister is aware of the lay-off, whether he could tell us what will be done to assist the 600 unemployed labourers of Sherbrooke.


Michael Starr: am unaware of this lay-off, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Labour not think he would be made aware of problems like this if he were to accept the proposal made by the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour that the government of Canada should sponsor a conference between labour and industry, as was proposed a year ago, and as I believe the congress proposed a week ago, and as I believe they will propose again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I may be mistaken, but my recollection is that this same point was made earlier this week. Is that not so?


Peter Francis Martin: Quite right, Mr. Speaker. The question was raised and put to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister made no reply. I am now putting the question to the Minister of Labour, asking him whether or not he does not think that the suggestion of the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour in this particular should be adopted.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, such a conference would have nothing to do with nor have any jurisdiction over any lay-offs.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-fNapierville, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Finance and ask him, in the light of the 600 textile workers who are now without employment, what effect the antidumping regulations to which he referred yesterday have had on this situation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I got half way
through an answer to a similar question yesterday and was stopped. The fact is that the anti-dumping legislation which was passed by this parliament a year and a half ago has been used to prevent the dumping into Canada 79951-0-28
Inquiries of the Ministry of grey goods which would have come here from China with little or no relationship to the costs of production that have to be met by Canadian competitors.
The house is well aware of the other steps that the government has taken in this regard, Mr. Speaker, to see that the Canadian textile industry has a fair opportunity to compete with goods coming into this country from foreign producers.
The impression has been left by this question and the supplementary question that conditions in the Canadian textile industry are deteriorating. The fact is that conditions are not uniform, since naturally the textile industry is really a group of industries because of the breadth and variety of the goods it produces; but I challenge the suggestion that there has been an over-all deterioration. Conditions are not as good in some lines as they are in some others, but the over-all picture has not deteriorated, if you balance improvements against whatever deterioration in employment there has been.
On the specific matter which was raised yesterday as to the conditions respecting the change of operations at Cornwall, I wish to point out that this does not relate to the overall position of the textile industry. I am informed-and properly informed, I believe- that it was the result of internal management questions, and not related to broader considerations.
The house is well aware of the concern the administration has entertained with respect to the textile industry from the time it assumed responsibility for the government of this country. One of the first things we did was to refer to the tariff board for inquiry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister is going beyond the normal limits of an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the fact that the minister has been allowed to make such a long reply, and to make statements which I would like to challenge, I take it that I should be allowed the same latitude. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister has stated that conditions in the textile industry are not deteriorating. I say they are seriously deteriorating.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. It is quite true that the minister went beyond the normal reply but, as I followed his answer, it seemed to me he was endeavouring to state factual information. Even though he has transgressed the rule of the house, I do not want to permit a debate on the question of the condition of the textile industry by means of asking questions. I do not

Inquiries of the Ministry think the hon. member for Laurier would suggest that we should get into a debate at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with Your Honour that we should not, but does not Your Honour think I should be entitled to the same leeway the minister was given in making a speech in reply to a question which was a perfectly fair one?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: On
the point of order, does it not perhaps occur to the hon. member for Laurier that the nature of his question was a little out of order, and that he himself by being out of order invited a discursive reply? He asked the minister to comment upon the application of the anti-dumping duties to the situation in Cornwall. My submission is-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier has been up on a point of order and the Minister of Justice is speaking to that point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: But, sir, he has misquoted me.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have his turn if he has been misquoted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point was that the question invited the expression of an opinion as to the application of certain government policy, as I recall it-the anti-dumping provision-to a situation in Cornwall. That is my recollection of the question. My point is that the question itself is not of the type which should ordinarily be asked on the orders of the day, for the very good reason that if asked it does invite the kind of reply and can only be answered by the kind of reply which the Minister of Finance in fact made.
Therefore I submit, sir, that the hon. member for Laurier has no reason to protest about the kind of reply he received. If he received that kind of reply it was because he asked a question that was out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to advise you that the Minister of Justice has been asleep this morning. He has not been listening to the question, because the question did not deal with Cornwall at all; that was a question which was raised yesterday. This question dealt with Sherbrooke and was asked by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, and it dealt with a serious situation in that area. The Minister of Justice, therefore, was entirely wrong in the statement he made.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the difficulty which the hon. member for Laurier feels, but I do suggest to the house that two wrongs will not make a right. There is no means by which I can give him the floor to respond at this time to the statement of which he complains.


Mr. Pearson:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker; if a question is out of order-is it not you and not the Minister of Justice who decides.

On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
I should like to ask him if the anti-dumping regulations were applied against the importation of foreign goods which caused the lay-off of the 600 workers in Sherbrooke.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I now complete the answer I was giving on this question, Mr. Speaker?
I am sure the hon. member is aware that the administration of the so-called anti-dumping legislation as he described it, is in the hands of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. However, I shall be glad to comment on the policy aspects of this matter, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to subject myself to further points of order on the minister's reply. The question related to a specific matter. I think it would be going beyond the scope of the proceedings at this time to deal with the matter of policy in administering the anti-dumping legislation. If there is any answer to the question which the minister has, I suggest that he give it but not enter into a general discussion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to trespass on the field of my colleague, if the question is confined to administration. But from the earlier question that was asked and from what was said yesterday we all know very well that there is being read into the situation an implication which the situation just does not bear. I tried to point out that if the hon. member would discuss the question with his colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) who is consistently attempting to criticize our efforts to help the textile industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think this matter might very well be dealt with at the proper time for debate.


Lionel Chevrier: May I then direct the question to the Minister of National Revenue, and ask



I960

[Stage Direction]
him if the anti-dumping regulations which were passed in this house were applied against the importation of foreign goods which caused the layoff of the 600 workers in Sherbrooke?
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The answer is no.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I have a supplementary question. Why were they not applied?


George Clyde Nowlan: I beg the hon. member's pardon. I thought the question was whether they caused the lay-offs at Sherbrooke.


Lionel Chevrier: No. The question was asked on two occasions, and if the minister had been paying attention he would have heard it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The question was quite clearly stated and asked whether or not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question he may do so.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister said he misunderstood the question. I should like to put it to him again. I should like to inquire whether the anti-dumping regulations passed by this house were applied in the importation of foreign goods which caused the lay-off of the workers in Sherbrooke.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the question is completely out of order, because the hon. member is asking a question and stating as a fact, or a presumed fact, that these certain things caused the lay-offs. I am not in a position to say what caused the lay-offs. I know nothing about it except what the hon. member has tried to bring into this house in the last 48 hours in the guise of questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member should justify his question in view of the point of order which has been raised. It seems to me that he asks a question and then proceeds to make a positive statement, which may or may not have any bearing on the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: Then let me put it in this way, since no answers seem to be forthcoming from the other side of the house in connection with these regulations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As the hon. member knows, he is not entitled to insist upon an 79951-0-281
Inquiries of the Ministry answer, according to our rules; neither is he entitled to comment upon the absence of an answer.


Lionel Chevrier: Then may I ask this question of the Minister of National Revenue. Were the anti-dumping regulations applied against the importation of foreign goods in the Sherbrooke area?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not foreign goods have been imported into the Sherbrooke area. I dare say that many foreign goods are imported into the Sherbrooke area, including bananas and coconuts.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, and he may take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow. Can the minister advise the house as to the number of live claimants for unemployment insurance benefits at the unemployment insurance offices in Canada at the last day for which such figures are available?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that I understood the question. The hon. member asked the number of what?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: "Live" claimants for unemployment insurance benefits.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I will provide the answer to that question as soon as possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I inform the minister that this was one of the questions I put to him, and he told the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether, in view of the fact that he is given such information every week, and in view of the fact that the last time he received information which was given to the house was as of January 7, he could give the house that figure tomorrow. Does the minister now take the position that he does not have those figures; and if he does, would he reconcile the various statements that he has made today in connection with this matter?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to be co-operative at all times in supplying any information that any hon. member of this house asks me for, and that information is always supplied as soon as possible, which will be the case here.
428	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Hees:: The hon. member mentioned January 7. This house did not convene until January 14.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member tor Essex East is reviving something we discussed earlier in the day, and he is not entitled to comment upon the absence of an answer, as I have already indicated and as all hon. members of this house know. I do not know why the hon. member is rising; if it is to ask a question, then he has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not asking a question I have asked before. What we were asking was that the Minister of Labour take the question asked today as notice so that we could be supplied with this information tomorrow. It is information which the minister, on his own statement, has now within his possession, and information which we are asking him to give the house.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, may I say that the hon. member for Essex East has just made the statement that I said I have this information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Michael Starr: I must tell the hon. member that I did not have that information earlier in the day, and he is twisting and manipulating again.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Essex East misunderstood the answer given earlier. I think all hon. members of the house, with the exception of himself, understood the replies given to his two questions. I understood them to be that the information was not yet available and would be given when it was available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of such importance that I propose, with your permission, to pursue it. Did the minister not say that he was given these figures every week? Is it not a fact that the minister presented to the house the latest figures as of January 7?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I cannot let the hon. member continue with this matter. His questions have been answered, and he is now endeavouring to cross-examine the minister. That is not permitted at this time or at any time in our proceedings, except in committee, and I would ask him to leave the matter where it is now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you with the greatest respect that we in this group are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: Paul Martin's group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know what causes this outburst in the house. The hon. member is entitled to be heard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to deal with your last observation. We have been endeavouring to ascertain from the Minister of Labour facts which, on his own statement, he has in his possession. The minister said that he received this information every week, and the last figures he gave us were as of January 7. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to you, that in the discharge of your functions we in the opposition should be given the right at question period to put questions to hon. gentlemen in the ministry without restraint and without, if I may say with the greatest respect, a strict interpretation of the rules of the house. The only protection the opposition have, with the limited numbers that are ours, is to have Your Honour protect us against the obvious attempts of hon. members opposite to squelch this opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not my function to enter into arguments about my conduct, and I do not propose to do so. The hon. member dealt with his point earlier in the proceedings today, and he received two answers which he is interpreting differently from anybody else in the house, as far as I can see. He received the answers that the minister received information weekly, and that such weekly information as he had was as of January 7. Now, those two answers are quite consistent, and it is not open to the hon. member to enter into a debate on the sufficiency of the answers. I think that is quite within our rules; I am not exercising my discretion adversely to the interests of this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of your observation
that the interpretation given by the hon. member for Essex East is different from that given by every other member of this house, may I say that the interpretation given by my colleague is exactly the same as that given by every other member of this party.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps this matter could
be very simply resolved. I have understood the answer in one way, but if the minister would again indicate what the situation is, it might be possible to proceed.


Michael Starr: The hon. member for Essex
East asked for certain figures, and I informed him through you that I did not have those

figures. As soon as they are available I shall be glad to communicate them, as I have done in the past. However, it would seem to me that the hon. member has the figures for which he is asking, and if he would be kind enough to send them over to me I will get them sooner.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister not receive these figures every week?


Michael Starr: That is right. However, it is
Thursday morning-Thursday noon-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister give us the figures he received last Friday or last Thursday?


Michael Starr: I could supply those figures,
but I have not got them with me on my desk.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: The minister of northern affairs advises me that he does exercise administrative jurisdiction over the subject of the question asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West yesterday. I therefore give him the floor so that an answer may be made, and express my regret to the hon. member for Kootenay West for having clipped his wings.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: First I should like to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question yesterday; I am sorry I was not here to accept responsibility. My department does have charge of the Migratory Birds Convention Act which deals with birds that fly from one country into another country. Under this act we have responsibility for such matters as were outlined in the question yesterday.
My officials are in touch with the officials responsible for the care of wildlife in Alberta, and they tell me they will have a report for me shortly. The special season referred to in the newspaper of January 20 handed to me by the hon. member is still going on, I understand.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesl):: can say that I am glad to know that my question did not result in a duck's egg.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the disastrously low
Inquiries of the Ministry prices now being paid for eggs in various parts of Canada. Has the minister under consideration a request by farm organizations that there be provided a stop loss floor price on eggs higher than the market price now being paid, in order to prevent further ruin in the egg industry?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Shortly, the answer to that question is no. However, actually the announcement which was made some two weeks ago that a deficiency payment would be made for the period of January, February and March means that for that period the average price of eggs to the producer will be a support price. That means, in effect, an emergency floor or relief floor, call it what you like. That is what it constitutes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will this policy provide a specific floor price, or will it be paid on the basis of a national average price?


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the basis of the national average, as already announced, Mr. Speaker.


Hazen Robert Argue: Has the government under consideration any alteration of its policy in order to guarantee specific floor prices on specific grades of eggs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as announced several times before, we have removed specific floor prices on specific grades of eggs. That is the system of support by means of purchase. We have substituted for that a method of support by means of deficiency payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: A different question Mr. Speaker, but on the same subject. Is the government giving any consideration to the wide spread between the prices paid to the producer and those charged to the consumer? On the prairies the spread has been from 14 cents to the producer and 33 cents to the consumer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we have no power to set the spread between the producer, the wholesaler and the retailer. No power resides in this government at the present time to set prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Speaker@: Order. I think the hon. member has pursued the matter sufficiently.



STATEMENT AS TO INSPECTION NECESSARY FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Yesterday the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska

Inquiries of the Ministry asked a question, and for the benefit of the house I am going to read the question.
Is it necessary, in order to obtain deficiency payments for hogs, to have the hogs inspected by a federal government inspector?
Deficiency payments are paid on A and B hogs, and to qualify for the payments the hogs have to be graded by a government grader.


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: I should like to ask the minister or his parliamentary secretary what percentage of the abattoir establishments in Quebec have grading and inspection services.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot understand the import of the question.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) or to his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Cardiff). What percentage of Quebec abattoirs or slaughter-houses are provided with both grading and inspection services?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member is mixed up. The inspection service is carried out by the dominion government veterinarians, who inspect all meat to ensure that it is free from disease and so forth. The grading service is a different matter. It is concerned with the grading of hogs on the rail; hogs are rail graded and the dominion government grades those hogs into A, B, C, D carcasses.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. In the province of Quebec there are establishments for grading hogs into A, B and C carcasses, as the minister says. Now in some of those establishments there is no inspection provided by the federal government. So here is my question. Do hogs that have been graded but not inspected qualify for deficiency payments under the act?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Hogs which are graded by government graders, although not in government inspected plants from the veterinarian service point of view, do qualify for deficiency payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister or his department would give consideration to having travelling inspectors go out to the various local communities where there are butchers who have been slaughtering for many years, to see whether or not
	*

facilities for grade inspection could be provided in order to maintain our small communities and prevent the destruction of hundreds of small businesses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated in answer to the same question some few days ago, we have been sending itinerant graders around, and have in this way brought a considerable number of plants under the grading service.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a further question. Will the minister consider having an itinerant inspector go to the local butchers once every two weeks or once a month, even if there are fewer hogs to be inspected than 40 a week which is now apparently the criterion?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have looked into all requests for grading service which have been received, and wherever it has been practical to do so we have provided it.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May
I now return to important and non-contentious matters. I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the report of the international joint commission on determining and apportioning the benefits from the co-operative use of the storage of waters and electrical interconnection in relation to the Columbia river system has now been made public, and in view of the great importance of this document and the great interest in it on the part of thousands of Canadians, and its unique nature, would the minister give consideration to having a few hundred extra copies mimeographed by his department or some other government agency?


Howard Charles Green: We will be glad to supply whatever number of copies any hon. members want.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, and I regret that I was not able to send him notice. This information just came to my attention.
Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a news dispatch from Washington by the Southam news service which indicates

that the United States department of justice is prosecuting American Home Products and Carter Products for fixing prices and restraining competition in the manufacture and sale of a tranquilizer known as meprobamate? Can the minister indicate whether an investigation by the combines investigation branch is contemplated with respect to the Canadian subsidiaries of these two companies and others who may be similarly engaged?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to the press report to which the hon. member refers. I can, however, assure him-at least, 1 can say I feel reasonably certain-that the matter will have been noticed by the combines investigation branch and I am sure that all proper inquiries indicated as a result of the article or otherwise will be instituted. I should, of course, remind the hon. member and the house that it is not the practice, for very good reasons, to give information on specific inquiries until reports have been received from the restrictive trade practices commission.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the representations I have received from my constituency requesting amendment of the recently issued regulations of the unemployment insurance commission relating to holiday pay; and as other hon. members, I understand, have received similar queries, would the minister kindly advise the house whether or not these regulations may be reviewed, taking into consideration the represensations that have been made?


Michael Starr: have been advised by the unemployment insurance commission just recently that in view of the representations made to them regarding the regulations in question, they have decided to refer those regulations to the unemployment insurance advisory committee for their consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a
supplementary question. Were the regulations, in the first place, referred to the advisory committee so this mistake could have been avoided?


Mr. Speaker:: Did the hon. member not ask precisely the same question the other day?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer was not given to that question. I checked it in Hansard. There
Inquiries of the Ministry was a lot of noise in the house at the time, and I believe the minister will agree that the question was not answered.


Michael Starr: Yes; the hon. member is quite right, Mr. Speaker. Since he asked this question I have made investigation, and the unemployment insurance commission have advised me on this matter. They inform me that they did not initially refer these regulations to the unemployment insurance advisory committee because there was no legal requirement to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have another supplementary question. Do I take it, then, it is not the practice of the unemployment insurance commission to refer proposed important changes in the regulations to the advisory committee for advice?


Michael Starr: Well, Mr. Speaker, evidently it has not been the practice in the past.



REPORTED LOSS OF EUROPEAN MARKET BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There are persistent reports that Canada is losing the European market to France for wheat, to the Netherlands for dairy products, to Denmark for bacon, to Scandinavia for lumber and to the Belgian Congo for uranium. My question is this. Can the minister inform the house what measures are being taken to regain that market?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: You will note, Mr. Speaker, that this question is founded upon what the hon. member calls persistent reports or rumours. No facts at all have been presented to substantiate the question. You will also note that the question ends with the assumption that these markets have been lost and asks what we are doing to regain them. I submit that the question is quite out of order. It is improperly worded. I suggest that the report is almost completely false.


Hazen Robert Argue: Almost?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes; I say "almost completely false" because I have not the information on one matter and that is the question with regard to lumber. But I note, Mr. Speaker, that you are not welcoming lengthy, even if they are not discursive, answers today. I should like to answer this question and set the hon. member right. He is wrong on the question of wheat. We have not lost our market in Europe for wheat, we are not losing it and France is not taking it away

Inquiries of the Ministry from us. There are fluctuations each year in the sale of goods from Canada; and the fluctuation in the sale of wheat to Europe, which amounted to a decrease of 11 million bushels, can be accounted for by two factors. First, we did not have a supply of No. 5 grade wheat for the normal requirements of the Netherlands, and they did not get that extra supply from France. Second, Russia did not take from us the commitment of 7 million bushels which they had undertaken to purchase in 1959. On the question concerning uranium-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister finds the question to be out of order I think he need not spend time in dealing with it. If detailed information on the subject of these four or five commodities is required, I suggest that the hon. member for Fort William put his question on the order paper.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether within the last few days he has received representations from individuals and organizations in the Elliot lake area with regard to the establishment of a nuclear research centre in that area. If so, has he any comment to make on those representations?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Yes, I have received representations from various individuals and organizations. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered the question the other day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. In view of the answer he gave, I think it was yesterday, that a change cannot be made because plans are so far advanced to establish this research centre in Manitoba, will the minister explain what he meant when he said on October 2 that a site had not yet been decided on in Manitoba, that this would not be done until early 1960, and that it would not be until two years after the site had been decided on that construction would begin?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Leader of the Opposition is referring to a statement I made on October 2. Some considerable time has elapsed since then. A site has been chosen which is fitting. Surveys are being undertaken, and plans are on foot to proceed with the proposed establishment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have a supplementary question. Will the minister confirm what he said in October, namely that a modest beginning would be made on building this station in about two years after the site had been fixed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was simply indicating that no crash program was in view, that we were not suddenly going to have a mushroom establishment out there in the year 1960.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government of the province of Quebec taken any steps to participate or join in the federal crop insurance scheme?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; up to date I have not had from the government of the province of Quebec any indication that they were going to participate in the scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the
minister had any request from the province of Ontario?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have had some conversation on the matter with the minister of agriculture for Ontario, yes.


Peter Francis Martin: My question is this. Has the Ontario government made a request to participate in the scheme, or was the conversation between my hon. friends simply a matter of exchanging views about the complaints registered by the farmers of Canada against the policies of this government?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member, of course, is completely out of order in the statement he has just made, as he usually is. The actual situation is that the minister of agriculture for Ontario has shown considerable interest in this matter. As I have stated, he has discussed the possibility with me, but there is no formal application from Ontario as yet to enter, and that is the situation with a number of other provinces.


Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Beauce. Would the minister be good enough to inform the house whether he has had any communication with the provincial government of New Brunswick concerning a crop insurance scheme?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated earlier, I February 3 and that filling will proceed at have had discussions, I think, with practically the rate of 500 tons per hour. They also all the provincial ministers of agriculture on confirmed that this work would be done by this subject but I have had no formal request the completion date of the contract, March from the province of New Brunswick to put 15, 1960. a crop insurance scheme into effect there.
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Could he tell me whether the C.B.C. in Montreal has arrived at a final agreement with city authorities concerning the acquisition of a site for its new headquarters in eastern Montreal?
(Text):


George Clyde Nowlan: I will take that question up with the corporation and answer tomorrow.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister any comment to make on a further contribution by Canada to the world refugee year, as it is now more than half over and Canada is reputed to have more than 2,500 empty beds in its tuberculosis sanatoria?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker; I have no comment to make, other than to say that a conference is taking place today and tomorrow under the auspices of the Canadian Welfare Council to explore the field in so far as the possible participation of the voluntary agencies is concerned.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Port Arthur, namely:
Can the minister give us any information as to the failure of Speckert and Morris, the contractors, to get under way the fill stage of the lakehead terminal contract?
I am advised that the Speckert-Morris company confirm work will be starting



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance-I think he is the appropriate minister -based on a report which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post that Saskatchewan's request for a low-cost power loan from the federal government will not be granted in 1960. Can the minister say whether any decision has been made which substantiates the report that a loan will not be made in 1960.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not seen that newspaper report at all. The matter is under consideration. I am not going to make any further comment on a newspaper report that is brought into the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, without basing my question on a newspaper report at all, has a decision now been made turning down Saskatchewan's request for a $100 million power loan during 1960, or is the question of Saskatchewan receiving such a loan in 1960 still under consideration?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have already said that the matter is under consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Since this report is obviously incorrect, can the minister say when a decision on this matter is likely to be made?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him if he has received a report from the commission set up to study the routes of a proposed railway to the south shore of Great Slave lake.


John George Diefenbaker: No, sir.

The Address-Mr. Fisher TELEVISION



REPORTED CANCELLATION OF INTERVIEW WITH PREMIER OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the minister inform the house why a very important interview with the new premier of Quebec, which had been scheduled on the French television network for 9.30 on Sunday last, was, cancelled without any reason being given? If the minister is not in a position to answer today, perhaps he could get the information from the proper authorities and give us an answer tomorrow.


George Clyde Nowlan: Naturally I am unable to answer today, but I will take the inquiry to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Some hon. members may recall that last year I brought up the issue of higher pay for members of parliament, and at that time I promised that I would put down a resolution drawing attention to this matter. I have not done so, and I thought I might take this opportunity to explain the reason.
Since I spoke last year the matter has certainly been complicated in my mind. It has not been so much a question of second thoughts, but I can see that there are more nuances about this than I thought at the time. I can only say that I hope to bring up this question again on another occasion when hon. members are at liberty to express grievances. I am glad to note that one or two other members, for example the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Chown) and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) have indicated that they are taking an interest in the matter.
Since I originally brought this up, I have found that a large section of the public does not think we are worth even what we are getting. I never mind getting bitter letters, but I am very much surprised at the generally accepted view across the country that we are not worth all we are getting at the present time.
The second thing I have discovered, after considering the membership of this house, is
[Mr. Dlefenbaker.l

that there are many more men of comparative wealth and substance than I had imagined; and while there may be urgency in some sections for more remuneration it is quite obvious that the same is not true for many of our number. No doubt this complicates the issue, but maybe if we have a debate on this subject later it would be interesting to hear from such hon. members.
Another matter which has been troubling me with regard to any move toward higher pay is this. I have come to believe that if we do get more pay we are going to require a greater diligence in attendance and this, of course, raises all kinds of problems to which I certainly have no immediate answers.
The last point which has bothered me since I brought up the matter was perhaps best expressed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) last year, when he indicated that politics for most hon. members should be a semi-professional occupation; that full time politics in the main was for a few professional politicians, but that for the generality of members of parliament it should be a part time occupation. This view, which seems to be held by most of the-let us say-more experienced members, especially in the older parties, is not one that I agree with, but it is certainly one which is going to need some shaking down.
I repeat that I will attempt to bring up this matter on a later occasion, and I trust that some of those members who are interested in it will take the opportunity to indicate their views in the house. As I say, I discovered that while many people who follow our proceedings feel that perhaps we should be getting more, there is a very strong feeling abroad in the country-it does not scare me too much-that we are not worth what we are getting now.
There has been some unrest and dissatisfaction among some hon. members about this particular debate. This found expression yesterday in the speech of the hon. member for Calgary South, and there has been some very pointed comment in the press about the performance earlier on of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in particular. I think there must be some general agreement among us that since the attendance during this debate is relatively low-and we have no committees functioning at the present time-in the main this debate is neither interesting nor edifying nor amusing to most of us.
It certainly seems to be a pity that there should be a blight put so early on the high spirits in which most hon. members gather at the beginning of a session. I certainly am not speaking for our group-if I can use that

term, since it seems to have been appropriated by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-but I do feel we should look very seriously at the way our debates are going, and the fact that obviously we do not like to listen to each other, in the main. I for one would hesitate to establish a standard for our performance, but I should like to say that if we all spoke with the fine diction, modulation and pleasant voice of the seconder, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), this unrest might not be so apparent. I have heard it said that Mr. Solon Low, the former leader in this house of the Social Credit party, used to practice his speeches beforehand by speaking into a whirring air-conditioning fan, and that the former member of parliament, Mr. John Blackmore, used to prepare for house performances by practicing yoga.


Mr. Grafftey:: How do you prepare?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I welcome that interjection from the hon. member from Brome-Missisquoi because I have heard that he prepared for his contribution to the throne speech debate by declaiming in the echo chamber of room 16 just across the hall. One account that reached me said this practice was interspersed with "pause here for applause". I can only hope that such assiduity and confidence is appreciated in his constituency.
The next topic with which I wish to deal is one to which reference has already been made, the performance of the Prime Minister. The subject of power and those who hold it has always fascinated me. The people who wield power is for me the most fascinating aspect of human society. In Canada the epitome of power rests with the Prime Minister. He is the actual head of our state. Whoever he may be, and whatever his party, he is the exemplar, one might say the standard of political action to the nation. In the light of this I wonder how much thought the Prime Minister has given to the nature of his performance, not so much as the decision-maker but as the glass of political fashion, the mold of political form.
More particularly we have had the emergence through reiteration in an uncharacteristically blunt form by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) of the charge that the Prime Minister is unnaturally concerned with an evangelistical type of politicking that is undignified and very much a sham, related to the slick, lowest common denominator approach of the huckster. And we all know who the huckster is supposed to be. I believe I can give some of the phrases used in the address of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate:
The Address-Mr. Fisher
-confused by evangelistic inefficiency which amounts very often to ineptness-demagogy for democracy and propaganda for performance. Procrastination, political manoeuvring, drift-
Perhaps we should thank the Leader of the Opposition for this head-on summation. I was here on January 20, 1958, for the Prime Minister's greatest forensic triumph. I can recall it best, as perhaps others can, with the words spoken the next day by Mr. Colin Cameron, the former member for Nanaimo, who said:
It was a rather tragic scene we witnessed yesterday. We saw something else that was not very pretty to behold. We saw a magnificent hatchet job done on the Liberal opposition in this house and, as one who on occasion can use a fairly sharp machete myself, I give the Prime Minister full marks for a magnificent hatchet job.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows it is contrary to the practice of the house to read from newspapers or outside documents which reflect upon the conduct of members in the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this is a quotation from Hansard of January 21, 1958.


Mr. Speaker:: It cannot be approved if it is a quotation from Hansard which appeared in a newspaper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, Mr. Speaker, this is a quotation from a speech made by the then hon. member for Nanaimo when he was a member of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I beg your pardon. I thought the hon. gentleman was quoting from a newspaper.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member for Nanaimo went on to say:
And yet I wonder if that is the role which a prime minister of Canada should play. I wonder if he should have rushed with such relish into the abattoir-When I saw him bring whole batteries of guided missiles of vitriol and invective in order to shoot one forlorn sitting duck-a sitting duck, indeed, already crippled with a self-inflicted wound -I wonder if the Prime Minister believes in the humane slaughter of animals.
Well, that slaughter by the Prime Minister led directly to the dissolution of parliament and the subsequent arrival here of Tories, 200 and more in strength. The scope and exhilaration of the victory made the January 20 performance-the wagging finger, the ironic pauses, the piercing "why did they hide it"; "why didn't they do it"-a political pivot of our times. But here we are, three sessions later. The government and the Prime Minister should have their second wind now, but it is still the old wind we hear soughing; attack, attack, attack interminably, with many blusters of quotations and counter-quotations.
Perhaps others get a different opinion of the political interest of the people. Frankly I

The Address-Mr. Fisher cannot find a ripple of interest in 1957 or 1958 and its events. The Liberals are gone, and except amongst a few civil servants at Ottawa there is little nostalgia for them. The interest is in this government. Where is it going? What are its ideas? What bold measures is the Prime Minister taking with this almost embarrassing mandate behind him?
Malcolm Muggeridge observed recently about Aneuran Bevan that he is the only politician of his acquaintance who is not still a boy. When I watched the Prime Minister at the sixth or seventh repetition of his January 20, 1958 performance, given here last week, I thought that are we indeed not boys to get excited or exasperated by such attacks.
Frankly, I had great hopes that the Prime Minister was not a genuine Conservative, that the approbation of bank presidents or the opinion of Bay street would mean much less to him than the little people, his fellow Canadians as he is wont to call them; that here was possibly a sort of prairie Lincoln. I can only comment that his attempt to seek a repetition of the triumph of that earlier January appeals much less than repeated hearings of the Gettysburg address.
We are in mid-term of this government, and it is almost indistinguishable in performance and leadership from the low key last years of the Liberals. What is there arrestingly new about any of its legislative acts? Most of them have been merely extensions of existing Liberal legislation. Aside, perhaps, from the creation of the new department of forestry is there anything which enables us to say "This is where a Diefenbaker government is different"? We have had, of course, the emergence of a counterpart to Mr. C. D. Howe in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
I am probably one of the few opposition members who feel there is a lot of talent and ability on the government benches, but that all too little of it is on the treasury benches. One looks them up and down. Where are the men of brilliance who should cluster in some radiance around the Prime Minister? All I can see twinkling is the Minister of Finance; and unfortunately to me his is the kind of twinkle that is orthodox and conventional, not what many hoped from Diefen-bakerism.
I have been much in Ottawa during the off-session, and I know how true it is that we have never had a cabinet that meets so much. One tries to imagine the subjects of these deliberations. Discussion can be valuable, and long discussion should precede decisions, bold decisions. But neither in

legislative programs nor in public statements by the cabinet ministers do we get an over-all picture of where all this discussion has led. We had a vision of the northland far as human eye can see, but we have little of the detail along the way. And' as an aside, Mr. Speaker, I have been surprised at the antagonism in the government ranks to the one visionary we seem to have in the cabinet, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton).
But when one judges from the statements of the farm groups which I have read, or the general forecast for agriculture, one is not really clear as to what is this over-all policy. In this very debate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) spends his time, in the fashion of the Prime Minister, in proving that the Leader of the Opposition is a fool on this particular topic. This to me is not the enunciation of any clear-cut, over-all policy.
When I think of defence I would be willing to bet that this government has pondered more on this particular topic and on the monetary situation than any other government in Canadian history. I can imagine all the weary hours they have wrestled with the submissions of all the highly technical experts, but to what avail in coming up with a policy that is immediately understandable? I noticed that one of the men in the press gallery commented the other day that members of parliament do not know much about defence policy. I will admit I do not know much about defence policy, but I am not getting it and I do not think any other members of parliament are getting it from defence policy statements released by this government or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes). This, of course, is perhaps a problem of communication; it is not coming out.
I perhaps have been a dreamer all the way along to have expected to understand the policy of the government. I know one veteran pundit of the Ottawa scene told me rather jadedly last week that there really is not any choice any more for Canadian politicians; that they are in a grey world riding on circumstances and reined in by the experts. Another professor of my acquaintance put it more bluntly. He told me, "You want to get all this out of your mind that you are important, that you politicians are important any more. You are circumscribed in Canada by the voice of the experts, by the strictures of the international situation. You are frozen almost to inanition by the contending pressures of national groups or the regional pressures within our plural society".

I refuse to believe, Mr. Speaker, that we as politicians should be so deflated and so given to a grey world, so given to compromise. I still like to hope and feel that from the radicalism-I can only look to the Prime Minister-that I am sure he has, we are going to get something at least in the field of education. This is something that concerns a great many people in Canada; and they will no longer accept the excuse in English speaking Canada, or they will not accept it much longer, that because of the French Canadian position we cannot have leadership in the field by the federal government. It comes down to this. We all want equality of opportunity for our children right across the nation wherever they come from, and we all want a good standard of education right across the country. As I look back, all I can say is that there has been great disappointment. I recall the fine remarks that were made on this subject by the late Hon. Sydney Smith when he first came into politics. But what have we had in the field of education? Nothing. We have had a few commonwealth scholarships, a sort of playing around the fringe of the problem.
In housing we are in this situation. For the middle income groups there is no longer the housing shortage there was, but we are still not getting anywhere in housing for the lower income groups. There is no great progress in transportation. We have a near chaos. You have the farmer against labour, against the railways, against the truckers in one round circle. You have another royal commission, and it is just an interim one. You have regulations abounding, hearings interminable, labour negotiations a repeated marathon; subsidy here, there and everywhere, and the whole picture so complex that hardly anyone comprehends the whole. Last year we voted $20 million to take care of an immediate crisis for the railways; and almost mocking ourselves, we pumped this $20 million through a complicated freight rate structure in order not to disturb the complex balances and pressures that we have within the freight rate structure and the transportation picture. To my mind the whole situation in transportation today is a travesty of either competitive enterprise or bright, consistent regulation. All we have is an interim royal commission.
The anomalies of government action in the transport field point less to the dilemma than to the confusion of an apparent free enterprise ethic in the government. We have been under the impression that some members of the cabinet are partial toward free enterprise. I can think of no better example than the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees)
The Address-Mr. Fisher for whom it is claimed that he has put T.C.A. in its place and has brought C.P.A. into the field. What do we get in the brief from the air industries and transport association of Canada, which was put on our desks the other day, a group of free enterprise entrepreneurs? What are they asking for? They want the government back into the regulatory field. They concluded:
It is our further opinion that the unrestricted issue of licences cannot be construed as being in the best interests of the public, either from a convenience or a necessity point of view.
This is what we find repeatedly with the free enterprisers. The point I bring out here is that enlightened public interest should be the guiding principle, and this government ought not to take action because of some free enterprise myth. Look at this example of the Minister of Transport, the great free enterpriser. What is he doing about pilotage? I wonder whether hon. members are aware that this free enterpriser added a number of civil servants to the payroll in order to provide pilotage service that is demanded by the Shipping Federation of Canada, a group of foreign shippers. Therefore we now have pilot boats, we have pilots on the government payroll, put there by this pressure from free enterprise. That is an inconsistency, a mockery. Today we have a report from Washington that negotiations seem to be completely disrupted in trying to get along with the Americans on pilotage. One of the ironies there is that those Americans who are looking after their pilotage rules and regulations do definitely believe in free enterprise. They cannot understand this free enterprise government of ours being willing to go along with more civil servants on the payroll.
My opinion is that this government service is fine; perhaps it is right, but I just want you to note the inconsistency. If we go on kidding ourselves that there is real competition, any more, or a real free market economy in the larger sense, I think we are wrong. The whole tendency of capital accumulation today is toward mammoth size or bigness; a duplication of government-like bureaucracy in business; and thus there is cut out this whole matter of competition that we have been used to in connection with the free enterprise myth. It seems to me that this is one of the arguments which we should not bother with any more, but what we want to consider is enlightened public interest and what assistance and leadership the government should give. We are operating under a chaotic set of regulations in so many parts of the economy.
I was interested to note that the Prime Minister wants a committee on scrutiny such

The Address-Mr. Fisher as they have in the British parliament. I do not know how much he has gone into the details of this committee, but it is one that goes into such organizations that are equivalent to our crown corporations. It is a small committee which operates without any publicity; in effect you might say it operates in camera. It keeps going over all kinds of complicated legislation to see that there is nothing that will impinge upon individual freedom and also impinge upon other authorities. I think myself it is a good idea, but it will have to be thought our very carefully. I did some work on committees which sat during the past session and I have done some reading, and I came to the conclusion that the enthusiasm the Prime Minister has for committees is all very well but I do not think he has thought out some of the fine points of where we should go with the committee system.
We have a committee on public accounts with an opposition chairman. This is supposed to be based on the British model. The British committee does not work as ours does. It is a small committee of only 35 members. It breaks down into groups of seven. Those groups take certain areas. They work in between sessions; they go to the site of things; they examine things closely. They are a working committee which is to check things carefully. Partisanship does not come into it; it is not that kind of a committee, and it is not the kind of committee that we have in this House of Commons. Therefore to talk about the British model and not do anything about creating something similar is just not fair.
One of the other things I noticed in all the comments of the Prime Minister on committees has been that he always says we must not have anything that is too much like the United States example, because the United States committees infringe so much upon the executive. All I can say is that, despite the McCarthy hearings and despite some of the other hearings of United States committees, if you examine what they do you cannot help but be impressed with how they get down to things and the information they turn up.
One of the decisions we have to make in regard to committees, if we are going to go further with them, concerns this mysterious boundary line between policy and administration. I know I was on a committee last year on mines, forests and waters, and I know that committee wandered far from the administrative level into the area of setting the policy the government should follow. I am not frightened of that aspect. However, if we are going to have more committees we


want to have very clearly in our minds what they are going to do, what their powers are going to be.
This may sound presumptuous to some of you, but upon investigation I found that no one had written anything on Canadian committees, aside from a very short dissertation in Mr. Dawson's "The Government of Canada". I tried, in an article that is published in the Waterloo Review, to bring some of this information together. I suggest that some hon. members might be interested in it, in that it does comment on the committees of last year.
Before I leave this point I should like to say that one of the problems I found in checking the attendance records of the committees was that on only one committee last year did the French speaking members of this house have a fairly high attendance record. I know the attendance record is not something that is completely valid, because members come in and members go out. However, if you look at that attendance record you will note what little part in our committees was played by the French Canadian members, except on one committee in which they happened to do some speaking in their own language. One of the difficulties is that if you have committee working in two languages it is going to break down or drag out. Certainly, so far as committee work is concerned, if we are going to take committees seriously then we have to do something about getting our French Canadian members working on them.
One of the other things I discovered as a result of checking the attendance in committees and the number of people who spoke is in connection with the argument that was put up a number of times in this house by the Liberals that they just did not have time to take part in committee work because of house activities. This argument is not valid. The busiest Liberal on the committees last year was also the busiest one in the house, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). One other point I discovered in my checking was that the people who took the most part in the committees, that is private members, were also the ones who took the most part in the house.
If we are to improve attendance at committees, which ranges between 40 per cent and 50 per cent during their sittings, it seems to me there is no use in passing rules and regulations. We have to have leadership from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in making sure that their members take committee work seriously. This is the point I wanted to place before

the Prime Minister in connection with this tendency toward saying that committees will do the job. They will only do the job if the members of your party are convinced that committee work is really important.
Here you will only get important work done if these members are briefed and have some kind of continuing facilities within the committees. It is almost ridiculous to put the average Canadian M.P. in a committee up against some of the specialists whom he confronts. He has not any advice; he has not any counsel, except what he can gather up by himself. This is matching David and Goliath, and David has not got a slingshot. It seems to me that one of the ways to make what I consider a fairly decadent parliamentary system work is to do more with the committees. Until we consider the points I have mentioned, I do not think the committee system is going to be as useful as some people believe.
I did want to touch in this debate on something that is, I suppose, considered by some to be a matter of importance; that is the position of socialism. At least some of us within the C.C.F. have believed we were socialists, I think most of us. I want to refer to the position of socialism with reference to what is being heralded as the new labour party.
There is one point I wanted to make at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, and that is many people are saying that organized labour has no business in politics; that it is an economic organization and as an economic organization should not get into politics. This, to me, is not a principle at all, it is an argument of expediency. It may have something of value in it, but it is not a question of principle. We have very few principles in politics other than the normal ones that we properly get from our religious heritage such as truth, justice, morality and matters like that.
Whether or not organized labour should get into politics is a different question. I am much more interested in whether organized labour, once it gets into politics, will do something to liven up the Canadian political scene. There is one point here, and my explanation may seem obscure to some of you, but one of the things that bothers me about the political scene in Canada is that the two areas in which we have the best educated people with the widest administrative experience are the civil service and the large corporations, the organizations that have knit the industrial and retail pattern of our country.
The Address-Mr. Fisher
The civil service is automatically ruled out from taking any part in politics, which is probably just as well. In so far as corporations in Canada today are concerned, I may say that the last year I worked at Queen's university there were some 27 very able boys in the graduating commerce class, but not one of them was going into business on his own. They were all going into the large corporations. The people in those corporations do not go into politics. They are forbidden; it is an unwritten law. These corporations are the part of our economy that tends to be in a power struggle with labour, and when labour goes into politics in an organized fashion one of the good things that will come out of it will be the fact these corporations will be shaken out of their indifference to the political scene. I suppose most members get as fed up as I do with the standard assumption by some of these people in business and industry that politicians are a bunch of dodos, and that they are too good for politics. I think organized labour coming into politics may change that situation a little, and there may be a greater interest on the part of people who tend to be labour's economic rivals.
Another of the difficulties of labour in politics is that they will tend to bring into politics-this is disturbing a good many people in the C.C.F.-the jurisdictional disputes. This will be difficult without doubt. Perhaps the crucial point bothering me about the new party is, is labour a genuinely radical movement? Are they not one of the groups that are now against reform and change? In other words, are they dragging their feet holding on? I have tended to wonder about this. All I can say is that I now feel, from the people who have the idea of the party-I do not argue that this has gone down to the grass roots yet-that they are convinced that organized labour in politics is going to be a radical force, a socialistic force if you want to put it that way. I am not one of those who thinks socialism is a dirty word.
In my opinion, those who decry labour in politics are missing the point. It is the right of every one of us in any group or association to take a political interest, so long as we do it on the understanding that our government is going to be carried on by evolution and not by revolution. I do not believe anybody in Canada is worried about the labour movement in Canada being revolutionary. The question that is in the minds of many of the people throughout our particular party who are going to be working in this is whether the evolutionary idea will be dynamic enough.
All I want to say here-because this may be carried beyond this particular forum-is that I and many others with whom I have

The Address-Mr. Fisher worked in the C.C.F. party will not have much time tor a new party that is stand-pat, that is not socialistic in its direction.
One of the reasons labour has thought of getting into politics and has gone as far as it has gone is dissatisfaction with the two old parties. I am not one of those socialists who feel that power is all important. I think influence is as important. If the emergence on the scene of this threat does one thing- shakes up political ideas-I shall be happy. If you look at the new party in terms of the financial strength and the organizational skill it is going to have, what you will find is this. We may not have people like Mr. Grosart, but there is a real organization and there is the promise or prospect of real financial strength behind this party.
For my part, if either the Liberal party or the Conservative party tends to answer this challenge, which is a demand for some distinctive party of reform in Canadian politics, I shall be quite happy. I should be happy to see the hon. member for Essex East rise in his place and really lay down the proposition that the Liberal party is one of the left, a party of reform, a genuine party of Liberalism.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt that it is.


Hazen Robert Argue: With Joey Smallwood?


William Heward Grafftey: Pragmatic promises.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should be quite willing to deal with this challenge. It is going to be a long and tough fight, but it is going to be tougher if the Liberal party or the Conservative party begin to act and move like genuine reform parties. But if they do not do so I think it will get on the move and go much faster. I am a history teacher, and when I say "go faster" I have in mind a fairly long period of time; I would say within a decade or 15 years. I think it will be tragic, of course, in some ways to those of us who are interested in history, to see the departure of one old party, perhaps the one that was launched by Sir Francis Hincks or perhaps the one that was launched by George Brown, but I think it is something that may very well come. To those of you who think labour has no business in politics I should like to put this question. Who has not today any business in politics?
I started off by remarking on the reaction I had found amongst many people to the effect that politicians are not worthy of the salt they now get. Unless you get more people taking part in politics, then you are going to find this cynicism about it. If there are members of the house who feel that I am far too jaundiced in my view of what people think of politicians, I should like to have that

view corrected. I should like to hear some chapter and verse that convinces me that we really have the status we think we have when we perform in this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the hon. member a question? In view of the extremely interesting and indeed important observations he has just made on the matter of politics, may we assume that the hon. member himself is going to continue in politics?


Mr. McGee:: Will the hon. member permit a further question? He mentioned that there were certain areas of activity in which he thought government should not participate. I wonder if he would care to enumerate them?


Douglas Mason Fisher: There are a number of them. I certainly feel that within the retail field, in the foreseeable future, we should not particularly have government operations. But I should again like to see some government leadership in that field of the development of co-operatives. However, in the small retail field and in the small manufacturing field, especially in secondary industry, I cannot see any place for government action. I can see a place for government encouragement and perhaps government financing, but not for government activity.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. I recognize the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet.
(Translation) :


Mr. Louis Fortin (Montmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise this morning, to take part in the debate, my mind naturally goes back to a year ago, when on January 15, 1959, I had the privilege and pleasure to be introduced to the house.
First of all, I would like to say how much I was impressed, during the last session, by the splendid and masterly way in which you guided the discussions of this house.
We were therefore pleased when, at the start of the session, we found you again at your post after your long period of travel across the world. We are now assured that our discussions this year will again be marked by dignity, and even good-fellowship, as you will be there to guide them with efficiency and impartiality, and I wouldi even say, with your usual sense of humour.
This year, Mr. Speaker, you will be seconded by a colleague of mine who is one of the most brilliant barristers of Quebec. The choice you have made of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), as deputy chairman of this house could not have been more fortunate.
My ties of friendship with the hon. member for Quebec South, go back 30 years or

so, when we were at college together. I had the opportunity of observing him in the exercise of his profession in Quebec, and I may assure you that the House of Commons will greatly benefit from his experience as a lawyer and as a politician.
As it is only proper, I also would like to congratulate the new Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), who after having played a very significant part as Deputy Speaker, has now brought his experience and his fine personality to the federal cabinet.
The new minister is the son of a great lawyer of rare distinction. He will certainly continue to bear proudly on the political scene a name which, about 15 years ago, he covered with courage and glory on the battlefields of Normandy during the dismal, gory hours of the last war.
I have much the same feeling with regard to the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). May I be allowed to congratulate him too on the great ease with which he expressed himself in our own language. The hon. minister enjoys, without any doubt, the esteem of all members of the house, as well as an unquestioned prestige in every province and throughout Canada.
And now, what about my good friend the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who a few days ago, gave us his views, those of a specialist, on the economic situation in Canada.
I believe, and I told him so, that he would have made an excellent lawyer, for many reasons, not the least of which is certainly the fact that the hon. member for Rimouski knows how to select his cases. He pleaded a great cause, and did so with elegance and much success.


Guy Rouleau: He does plead bad causes well.
(Text):


Mr. Foriin:: I wish to extend my most sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Gren-ville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) for her well prepared speech. I recall that she was introduced to the house with me last year. I may say that her charm and courtesy, added to her intelligence, have contributed to her success, and that we have the assurance that she will -make an extremely important contribution to the debates in this house. We are also assured that her constituents will always be proud of their representative in the nation's parliament.
(Translation) :
Before I tackle my main theme, Mr. Speaker, allow me to recall painful and sad events, as my colleagues from Quebec have done before me.
The Address-Mr. Fortin
Without any partisanship-if I have any such-I would like to say a few words, with all the objectivity of which I am able, about the disquieting events which happened in my province last fall.
You will recall that, on September 7, a Quebec premier, the Hon. Maurice Duplessis, died in the sparsely settled northern area which he had largely helped open up to civilization.
His province had found to replace him a great and gallant soldier. It had found a public man of great integrity, a brilliant lawyer and an excellent orator.
Immediately, the Hon. Paul Sauve set to work. He worked for the sole purpose of carrying on a task which had forcibly been abandoned, but he was imbued with great patriotism, one which, I would say, was both provincial and national. Unfortunately, death, whose sinister activity never abates, picked him as a second victim.
The province of Quebec and the country as a whole will no doubt remember that great Canadian who, in the troubled hours of the last war, did not hesitate to leave his seat in the Quebec legislature to fight in Normandy at the head of the gallant soldiers of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency which last year was suddenly, and for no valid reason, left to fend for itself. Just after the general elections in March 1958, in which the voters of Montmagny-L'Islet reelected their former member after he had promised to put forth his best efforts on their behalf during his term of office, he dropped them without prior consultation. Perhaps this was unfortunate, but it had a happy result, because it gave the people of Montmagny-L'Islet an opportunity to recover and to show their confidence in the Conservative government, a confidence which they would again display if the opportunity arose.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, my constituency is located 35 miles east of Quebec city, on the left bank of the St. Lawrence, that is to say on the southern shore. On the north, it is bounded by the St. Lawrence, on the east, by the constituency of Kamouraska, on the south by the United States, and on the west by the constituency of Bellechasse.
From the standpoint of economy, the constituency may be divided in two sections. First there is the industrial section, which includes the city of Montmagny and the smaller but thriving town of L'lsletville. There is a spirit of friendly competition between the two. Two well known foundries are established there. There are also factories turning out furniture and metal goods. It can

The Address-Mr. Fortin be said, Mr. Speaker, that the city of Mont-magny is among the most prosperous and progressive in Canada. Thanks to its industries, it is self-sufficient.
The remainder of the constituency, of course, is essentially agricultural. However, I should like to mention the fact that there is, in Montmagny-L'Islet, a delightful spot located on the banks of the St. Lawrence river. I refer to the lovely village of St. Jean Port-Joli.
This community is famous for its craftsmen. There are about a hundred of them engaged in wood carving and ceramics. The better to identify this little village for the information of those who are familiar with that part of the country, may I just mention, for instance, the masterpieces of wood carving turned out by the Bourgault brothers.
They had the honour of carving a bas-relief panel that was presented to Her Royal Highness, Princess Margaret. They also made one for the former governor general of Canada, the Right Hon. Mr. Massey and, if my memory serves me well, I think that among the distinguished citizens who received some of their work I might mention the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming).
I wish-and this is a recommendation I am making-that the Canada Council would assist those craftsmen who, apart from pursuing their art for their own personnal profit, operate a school of wood carving where, each year, quite a few pupils acquire a basic knowledge of that art. There are also in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet two islands. One of them, Crane island (lie aux Grues) is also the site of a small rural parish. It seems that the citizens of that parish have preserved more than others the customs and traditions of the past. I am pleased to point out-which is all to their credit-that even in their speech they have something that we lack. They have preserved old expressions dating back to the beginning of the colony, and their very accent singles them out as islanders although they live only three miles away from the coast.
There is also a second island, Grosse Isle, now administered by the federal Department of Agriculture where a pathology laboratory is located.
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with other parts of my remarks, may I call it one o'clock?
(Text):
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
28 January 1960
Sir,
I have tne honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber on Thursday, the 28th January, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. Joly de Lotbiniere
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson.
(Translation):
Louis Fortin: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned I noticed that I had made an omission which I would like to correct at once. I realized that I had unwittingly omitted to tender my congratulations to the new parliamentary secretaries. Though coming a bit late, my tribute is none the less sincere. I also would like to express my best wishes to our two new colleagues, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb), and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif), to whom I wish a lot of courage and patience, because I feel he will greatly need them.
Before bringing my audience back to Ottawa, I would like to recall in this house the memory of a great citizen who was a credit to the political world of his country in the last century. I refer to a citizen of Montmagny whose name you cannot fail to remember, I mean Sir Etienne Pascal Tache. Tache was born in Montmagny. His family was of rather modest means, though it is reported that before the war, or rather, before the battle on the plains of Abraham, the Tache family was considered very well-to-do. He practised medicine in the constituency of Montmagny-L'Islet for several years. When the war of 1812 broke out, young Tache spontaneously and voluntarily offered his

services. He was no doubt inspired by his patriotism, and perhaps also by the spirit of adventure, being a direct descendant of the great discoverer of the Mississippi, Louis Joliet.
During his first years of medical practice, Sir Etienne Pascal Tache remained in the background. He devoted himself to his fellow-citizens. He applied all his sympathy and knowledge to the healing art. But one day, however, this devotion became a burden. His fellow-citizens pressed him to go into politics, and it is thus that he was elected member for the constituency of L'Islet in the legislative assembly.
After filling several positions in the country's government, Sir Etienne Pascal Tache became prime minister of Canada. Before confederation he was twice prime minister. He was also chairman of the famous and historical Quebec conference which laid the foundations of Canada's constitution. Tache was a great patriot. He was also a great soldier. He served as aide-de-camp to Her Majesty Queen Victoria who, at one point, decided to call this outstanding Canadian citizen to Windsor castle to make him a knight. Later he was given the title of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache.
Soldier, physician, statesman, knight, prime minister and a father of confederation, Tache was above all a great Christian, of the type you still find among our people.
Even on his deathbed, Sir Etienne Pascal Tache appeared to have forgotten all the glory he had reaped throughout his political career, and he made this confidence to a close friend who was at his bedside: A man does not have to be a prime minister, nor to reap his share of human glory; the one important thing is to be a good Christian and an honest man.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have discharged a duty which I consider sacred, by lifting the veil of Canadian history and reviving the memory of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache, a great Canadian who was particularly gifted as far as intellect is concerned, but more so with regard to character, a quality which is as precious as it is rare and only belongs to those who know how to dedicate themselves. May I be allowed to say, in closing this part of my remarks, that it is the intention of the people in my riding to erect this year, a monument to the memory of Sir Etienne Pascal Tache. A subscription has been launched among the people, and we hope
The Address-Mr. Fortin to be able to proceed with a demonstration of national scope, because, in my constituency, we consider Sir Etienne Pascal Tache as a local son, though it should be kept in mind that he was, first of all, a great Canadian personality.
Mr. Speaker, last November I had the privilege of attending the parliamentary conference of NATO in Washington. Before going there I also had the advantage of taking part in an organized tour in the United States which enabled us to learn something about American military organization. We toured all the main military facilities on United States territory. There were delegates from every member nation of NATO. My companions were the hon. members for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon) and Vancouver South (Mr. Broome).
First of all, we were able to visit Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, which is the centre of the airborne regiment of the American air force. Thanks to a very careful schedule, we were shown all phases of the training of American paratroopers, from the moment where the young man arrives at the base to the minute he makes his first parachute jump. We also had the privilege to attend the launching of a rocket, of the type called "Honest John".
From Fort Bragg we went to Norfolk, Virginia, which Americans pronounce "Nor-fik". There we had the opportunity to attend extremely interesting lectures by admirals of the American, British and French navies. We also had the privilege to see and visit the magnificent American aircraft carrier Randolph and the whole naval base.
From Norfolk we went to visit the Marine Corps training camp where, by means of graphs and most interesting talks, we were given a demonstration of a marine corps landing. We also saw the military camp for American troops at Fort Eustis and, lastly, we went to Fort Langley, Virginia, where we were able to visit the air base.
At Fort Langley our attention was held by something very special, because we had the great privilege to attend a conference given by American scientists specializing in space research. We were privileged to see that famous capsule which some day, we trust, will carry a human being in space, and some of the delegates even sat in it, not without first expressing the hope it would not be fired just then.
From Fort Langley, we crossed the United States to go to Colorado Springs to visit the

The Address-Mr. Fortin NORAD organization. There we visited the control room and witnessed a very interesting demonstration. But I believe that, at Colorado Springs, what was for us, Canadian delegates, the most important and interesting feature was the astonishment of our European colleagues who were literally astounded by the spirit of co-operation which exists between Americans and Canadians.
When we met General Kuter and Air Marshal Slemon, we had the opportunity of exchanging a few words about Canadian sovereignty in the field of defence, in relation to NORAD.
On that point, Air Marshal Slemon said, in the presence of the hon. member for Algoma West, that the American commander, who has to be absent from the base about two thirds of the time, was automatically replaced by the Canadian commander, Air Marshal Slemon. That goes to show that, most of the time, American troops under NORAD come under the complete and absolute command of the Canadian commander. Furthermore, after having explained to us what was going on, Air Marshal Slemon asked me to convey to my Canadian fellow citizens a message which I consider of great importance. We often hear it said in Canada, he remarked, that when Canada joined NORAD for the defence of the North Atlantic, our country sacrificed a part of its sovereignty. Now, here is what Air Marshal Slemon said in this regard: "No one sacrificed its sovereignty in adhering to NORAD, but if someone had sacrificed it it would certainly not have been Canada, but rather the United States, because most of the time it is I, a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who am in command here.
From Colorado Springs, we went to Omaha, Nebraska-and that was the last leg of our trip-where we visited Strategic Air Command, called SAC. We saw the underground control and we had a demonstration of the communications which operate twenty four hours a day between the strategic centre of defence, at Omaha, and different areas of the globe. A demonstration was given us by General Power himself, which allowed us to note that in ten to fifteen seconds General Power was able to communicate with all bases, either American or NATO, spread around the world, with Turkey, Italy, Portugal and France.
I should like to express my gratitude to those who enabled me to make this rewarding
[Mr. Fortin.1
and instructive trip. Allow me to express a wish that was also voiced by the NORAD authorities in Colorado Springs. I wish that other members were given the opportunity- and I must call this an opportunity-of visiting the NORAD organization in Colorado Springs, so that they might be more familiar with the situation. Then, being better acquainted with the policy agreed on, we could together discuss these matters in public or in the house.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I listened to the speech delivered here a few days ago by my good friend the member for Hull (Mr. Caron). I listened to him and I even read his speech afterwards, because we know that the editor of debates makes certain corrections at times so that speeches are more easily understood when they are read than when they are heard.
It was quite amusing to hear the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) say that he was scandalized because a great number of Conservative members took part in the election campaign in Russell constituency.
He particularly took to task the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon); however he did not mention any other member of this house, but said that there were many. By inference, we can deduce that if the member for Hull can say that there were many Conservative members in Russell constituency, he must have been there himself.
Then how could that right, which the member for Hull claimed for himself, of campaigning in Russell constituency be denied to other members? Perhaps, you will say, there was the question of distance, since he lives so close. And I admit that this is a point in his favour.
But just the same there is one thing which I want to draw to his attention. Let me remind him of the days that he spent in Mont-magny-L'Islet constituency last September. I had no objection whatsoever because I got the impression that, following every meeting addressed in Montmagny-L'Islet by the member for Hull, my position was improving.
In this case, though, he should agree that he was far from home. I see him looking at me and smiling. He smiles more readily now than he did at that time. But he was not the only one.
Before criticizing people who participate in an electoral campaign, one must have a

clear conscience. And I find satisfaction in reminding him of this saying:
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
In Montmagny-L'Islet an army was routed. I think of my friends, the members for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) and especially the member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) driving his Cadillac around along the border doing all he could to reverse the verdict.
There were a good dozen of them. But that is not all. We even saw, at one time, the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier). He was given the opportunity to learn a lot about the province of Quebec. At the last moment, the Liberals realized that the situation was almost desperate. No doubt you will understand, Mr. Speaker, for you are from Quebec. Well, they even brought in the former minister of veterans affairs, the Hon. Hugues Lapointe, and that settled the question once and for all.
One thing struck me also in the speeches delivered by my friends and more particularly by my friend the member for Hull. I wish I could quote his own words in their entirety, but at one point he talked about horses. Here is what he said, Mr. Speaker: I am not an expert on horses, but when it comes to election horses I know what I am talking about.
I pondered these words and tried to make out what the member for Hull had in mind, which is no easy task. It is just like trying to make one's way in a virgin forest. You have to push branches aside to make headway and recognize the situation.
However, coming back to the horses of the member for Hull, I wondered, when he mentioned a political horse, whether he was referring to the horses which, under the former Liberal administration, used to be on the payroll at Petawawa.
In any event from the way he talked of horses, I thought he might have had some experience as a horse-trader. With his permission, I should like to make a suggestion. Perhaps the hon. member might go to Quebec and try to sell the provincial Liberal party a better horse than they have now.


Mr. Caron:: Why don't you see Dr. Lizotte?


Louis Fortin: In the speeches we have heard from the Liberal group, great stress has been laid on the so-called emptiness of the speech from the throne.
The Address-Mr. Fortin
One thing that struck me is that the first Liberal members who spoke said there was nothing in the speech from the throne.
Surely, you heard them mention that. Then they read the speech again, and they did find something. Some people are slower learners than others. Well, they finally realized that there was something in the speech from the throne.
I should like to point out a few of the things contained in that speech.
The first point was to the effect that the government continues to regard as a primary goal the achievement of the greatest possible measure of controlled disarmament.
Now this opens the door to a debate on international and military matters as well. My hon. friend the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has dealt with this at some length, so there is little need for me to stress it. However, perhaps I might say-and this is a personal view, and I hope no one will come back tomorrow and say it was the opinion of other people I know-I think this matter of disarmament should be considered with the utmost care.
I remember and could hardly ever forget that ever-famous statement made by Mr. Manuelsky, one of the first graduates of the Lenin school in Moscow. Speaking to the Americans, he said: "We are not yet ready to fight you. We need thirty years, and when we are ready, we will launch a great peace offensive."
I think they are pretty well on schedule at this time. Since 1931, which means 29 years ago, we all know how the U.S.S.R. has been concentrating on rearmament.
Do they now feel they are in a position to destroy the world? It is not for me to say. However, they had in fact planned 30 years ago that when they were ready they would launch a great peace offensive. Well, what is the nature of this peace offensive?
First, there is the matter of uncontrolled disarmament, and second, this new form of war known as economic warfare.
Therefore, without going further into this matter, I will say that the question of disarmament is an extremely topical question, and a very touchy one. However, I am fully confident that the leaders of the NATO countries will exercise control over the field of disarmament.
In the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, mention is made of economic and technical
446	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fortin assistance to underdeveloped countries. I think this matter may be related to my earlier remarks to the effect that if today Russia considers it necessary to assist underdeveloped countries, it is certainly not for humanitarian reasons, but as a means of spreading its disastrous influence.
We are obviously living in an era of uncertainty. Can we truly say today that we are in danger of war?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the apprehension of war, felt by nations in the past, no longer exists.
In the past, when a country thought of declaring war, it was most of the time with the assurance of winning that war. The victim of such an aggression also felt sure of destroying the aggressor.
This is not the case now and nuclear war means world destruction. Russia knows it as well as NATO countries. This is why they now resort to a new policy. The economic war.
After a close study of the speech from the throne, I note that mention is made of a project of lesser concern perhaps to easterners but surely of interest to westerners and that is the development of the Columbia river. The Liberals are greatly concerned with the economic situation. Let me tell them that they will have ample time to discuss this matter.
They said they wanted to discuss at once the unemployment problem which is mentioned in the speech from the throne. We hear talk about seasonal unemployment, and just plain unemployment. Here again, they will be given the opportunity of studying these conditions.
The speech from the throne mentions the revision of the Civil Service Act.
There is talk of establishing a new department of forests, forests being the wealth of our country. A Department of Forests will be created to develop them, to stimulate research in the field of forestry and thus automatically improve this country's economy as a whole.
There was also some mention of housing assistance and, quite recently, it was announced that the federal government intended to raise from 4 to 6 billion dollars the loans guaranteed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and from 1 to 1J billion dollars the loans to be granted by that organization.


Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that this legislation will certainly help procure jobs for our workers and, in consequence, contribute to the welfare of our Canadian people.
At any rate, I shall close my remarks by saying that even if the speech from the throne does not mention in detail each and every piece of legislation which the government proposes to introduce, it was worked out so as to allow all possible discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to mention the proposal which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) recently made with regard to the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. It is needless to say that in this matter I share the views of my good friend, the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau). All Canadians favour the bringing home of the constitution and, as the time I have at my disposal prevents me from elaborating on this point, I shall just say that the remarks of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue are very much in accordance with my way of thinking.
Mr. Speaker, if ever a commission is set up-as I wholeheartedly wish it will be- in order to proceed with the entire revision of the Canadian constitution, I would like, as the Prime Minister pointed out, the articles 91,	92 and 93 of the British
North America Act to remain unaffected. Besides I would even go further than the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue on a particular point, and ask that the scope of section 133 be extended.
In the field of bilingualism, we have today, so to speak, the bare essentials. We want more than that, and I am pleased to tell the hon. member for Hull-which will make him realize that when I spoke to him a moment ago I was sincere-that the little inquiry he is conducting at present has its good side. We are entitled, in view of the country's development and the good will of the various departmental heads, to demand total bilingualism.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, despite the assertions of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the traditional speech from the throne is more noticeable this year for what it leaves out than for what it reveals about government policy or about important legislation to be introduced.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who moved the address in

reply to the speech from the throne. I congratulate him first because it was a personal honour for him, and also for his constituents.
I also congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) who brilliantly described the political situation as she sees it. Unless I am mistaken, I think this is the third time that a member of the three united constituencies of Stormont, Dun-das and Glengarry either moves or seconds the address in reply to the speech from the throne in this house. I think the fact that she was chosen bodes well for her future.
To you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I renew the congratulations I extended to you a few days ago, and I add my very best wishes.
Mr. Speaker, this government refuses to solve the grave problems facing Canada, and in many cases even denies their existence.
Tight money, housing, high interest rates, unemployment, the unfavourable trade balance are all problems which are being left unsolved.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) had an opportunity, while he held the floor for 40 minutes, to give us his views on those important matters which concern the Canadian nation. He also had an opportunity, in the time at his disposal, to tell the Canadian people and the house what action his government is contemplating to deal with the problems I have mentioned. He preferred to deal with other matters. That is his problem, Mr. Speaker, but I say that the financial and monetary policy of this government is in a slump. And although a Conservative member said the other day that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was hailed by the British people at Albert Hall in London -which is true-nevertheless it is as true today that London newspapers take an altogether different stand towards the present government. Indeed, one has only to read London newspapers, and many others throughout England, to see that, as far as economy is concerned, they feel the present government is a bad government. Such is the opinion of the London Economist which says that the policy of this Conservative government is a poor example of economic and monetary administration.
Tight money and high interest rates are the most important problem now facing the government. Since the Conservative party came to power, the cost of living has increased by 5 per cent; interest rates have
The Address-Mr. Chevrier reached an unprecedented level. Workers, farmers, businessmen, merchants, school boards and municipalities can borrow only at prohibitive rates.
Small merchants are now in a state of uncertainty and on the brink of bankruptcy. What has he to say now, that minister who interrupted me last year when I referred to the policy of the government towards small merchants, and who was telling me: "But what did you do yourselves?"
What is now happening to small merchants is pitiful, so much so that, as a result of credit restrictions, they are now in very serious difficulties. And to prove it, I merely have to quote an article published in La Presse of January 12, 1960, entitled:
Bankruptcy increased by nearly 50 per cent in the Quebec area. Credit restrictions and irresponsibility on the part of those concerned are to blame.
Those were the words used by Mr. Robert Cotd, protonotary of the Quebec superior court.
A little further on, he stated:
That increase of nearly 50 per cent is, first of all, the result of credit restrictions which were in force during the last twelve months.
And I go on to say that a man has to pay from 7J to 8 per cent interest to get a mortage loan.
Government bonds have decreased very much in value. In some cases, they are only worth $80. Why is this? It is because the government, having to borrow large amounts of money to make up its shortages, is causing a record inflation in this country.
Those shortages, Mr. Speaker, have reached a fantastic sum, about one billion more than under the Liberal administration. Yes, it was those same Conservatives who had promised to cut down expenses by eliminating the wastefulness and extravagance of the previous administration. They promised an increase in social security benefits. It is true that they increased those benefits by $106 million in 1957, but they made it up by increasing taxes by more than $350 million.
They had promised a new agreement with the provinces. However, last October the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), answered categorically that there would be no other formal agreements before 1962. They had promised to reduce expenses; but they increased them by one billion dollars. They had promised lower taxes but they have raised them considerably. They had promised

The Address-Mr. Chevrier to balance the budget. In 1957-1958 they had a deficit of $38 million. In 1958-1959 the deficit reached $862 million whereas in 19591960, according to the figures now available, the deficit will be about $425 million.
Moreover, the government is spending much more than it collects in revenue. It is piling deficit upon deficit, and, in order to fill the gap, it resorts to enormous loans, causing a scarcity of funds, and the tight money policy which the government says it does not favour. They have increased the national indebtedness by nearly $2 billion because of repeated borrowing. When a1 government competes with private enterprise for cash loans, money obviously becomes scarcer, and the interest rate goes up. From August 1958 to January 1960, the revenue of treasury bonds climbed from less than one per cent to more than 5 per cent. This, in a word, is tight money policy. All the while, the cost of living is rising considerably. It has now reached its highest level since the Conservatives have been in power. And to exonerate itself, the government tries to put the blame on others. That monetary policy also has an impact on unemployment. During the twelve months of 1959, unemployment figures in Canada reached an average of 350,000, a third of whom, i.e. about 130,000, being in the province of Quebec and from 50,000 to 60,000 in the city of Montreal. Conditions in the province of Quebec from an employment point of view, are worse than in any province except in the maritimes. And what is the government doing to remedy unemployment?


Mr. Keays:: If, when he was administering this country, the hon. member had cooperated with the province of Quebec as is done today, we would have less unemployment to complain of in that province.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member who interrupted me rise and tell us here, in this house, when he has the opportunity of speaking, what plan the government intends to put forward to help the unemployed? They have none.


Mr. Ricard:: And what do you suggest?


Lionel Chevrier: We are asked, Mr. Speaker, what plan we have to suggest. That is your responsibility. You are responsible, but you are doing nothing about it.


An hon. Member:: And what did you do
in 1953?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You organized-


Lionel Chevrier: I asked what overall plan you had. And now I ask: Are you in favour of an employment program? What plans have you got? I think we might at least be told what the plans are under the circumstances.
Of course, we are told about winter projects.
But everybody knows that winter works were announced too late last year to be of any help to municipalities in the province of Quebec. And everybody knows again this year that winter works, because of restrictions and prohibitive interest rates, cannot be of any help to municipalities in the province of Quebec.
Do you know exactly what it means, that plan-


Mr. Tremblay:: Do you mean the Colombo plan.


Lionel Chevrier: Not the Colombo plan,
I mean the winter works plan. I will tell you: the winter works plan, according to which, 50 per cent of the cost of labour is paid to municipalities, resulted in the federal government paying, under that plan in 1959, $6,250,000, less than $1 million of it in the province of Quebec. And it has employed from
35.000	to 40,000 persons, 6,000 of them in the province of Quebec, which is very little when we know that there are between 135,000 and
140.000	unemployed in that province. Of what use is a winter works plan employing but 6,000 people?
Therefore, it is obvious that such a plan does not live up to the expectations of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), as he expressed them a few weeks ago, and even in October last.
I ask the house: what has become of that public works program of $1,180,000, so much advocated by the Conservatives? It simply evaporated. We do not hear anything about it any more. It evaporated just like the famous vision of the Prime Minister is now evaporating slowly but surely.
What about the statements of the Minister of Labour on the subject of unemployment?
I will recall them to the house. In 1958, the Minister of Labour said:
It is our duty to see to it that not a single Canadian should lose his job this year.
In 1959, the Minister of Labour said:
Toward the middle of 1959 we will have reached the end of our difficulties.

When there are 370,000 unemployed, are we at the end of our difficulties? The Prime Minister said, in 1959, when referring to unemployment-and listen to this, it's brilliant:
The worst is over, and we are slowly heading towards better conditions.
And it is needless to recall the famous statement made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, when he said:
As long as I am Prime Minister, no one will suffer from unemployment in Canada.
I now pass to another point, the deficit in our external trade. The hon. member who spoke before me did not seem very concerned about this unfavourable trade balance. But just the same, it has reached a disturbing level, that is, nearly $1,200 million, which represents, Mr. Speaker, 42 per cent more than in 1958; and the economic blocs now forming in Europe are a danger for our external trade as well as for our export trade.
I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) that in my opinion measures that he seems to be taking now should have been taken three years ago, so as to get in touch with representatives of various regional blocs in Europe. It is only at the beginning of the present session that he and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) went to Paris to discuss the relations that should be established between those various groups.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that our exports have gone up slightly, but our imports have increased much faster. Our trade balance with the United States shows a deficit of 80 per cent. On the other hand, our exports to the United Kingdom have increased by only $6 million, but they have decreased not only with other Commonwealth countries but also with other world countries, except the United States.
In 1958, 58 per cent of our exports went to the United States. In 1959, this percentage was increased to 62 per cent. This goes to prove that we depend more and more on the American market. The same applies to our imports of which about 68 per cent come from the United States.
This is just what the Conservatives complained about so bitterly when they were sitting on this side of the house. They promised to straighten things out and in proof of this, the Prime Minister made his famous statement to the effect that 15 per cent of our American imports would be transferred to Great Britain.
This dangerous situation of which our opponents complained so much is only getting worse today. It is a dangerous situa-79951-0-29
The Address-Mr. Chevrier tion for the Canadian economy and it is due to the financial policy of the government, in that it has caused a scarcity of money and therefore high interest rates.
There is another conclusion to be drawn from the present situation, Mr. Speaker. It is our economic integration with the United States which would greatly endanger our economy, as does a considerable decrease of our exports to the commonwealth and European countries.
To what extent will our trade be affected by the organization of regional blocs now being formed? Will the common market and the free trade area adversely affect our export trade? And how about the Soviet union bloc? If countries of the Soviet union ever decided to enter into serious competition with us, it may well be that the European countries would be obliged to buy products and goods from those countries rather than from Canada. Such questions should be considered seriously and continually by the government, whose policy is uncertain and confused.
The common market, as I said a while ago, has been operating for three years now. How does the government plan to overcome the effects of the tariff union of the Six and of the free trade union of the Seven. Indeed, a proposal was put forward by Britain to the Minister of Finance, but we never heard about it and this house was never informed of the plan put forward. In order to stimulate trade between themselves, European countries are lowering tariff barriers while Canada is raising its own.
The Minister of Finance is sly. Mr. Bennett at least was not afraid to express his views on the question of tariff protection. He said on many occasions: I will blast my way into the market of the world. The Minister of Finance, I say it again, is sly. He gives us to understand that he will liberalize the trade market but at the same time he raises the tariff barriers. The anti-dumping legislation, the tariff increase on wool and vegetables, the Japan agreement, those are trade restrictions aimed at a greater protection.
How can we ask the European countries to adopt a freer trade policy if we increase our tariff protection? There is only one solution and it was given in this house two years ago by the Leader of the Opposition, that is, an agreement with the countries of the Atlantic community for the establishment of a free trade area between those countries and the United States and our country.
Since that proposal was put forward, many businessmen accepted it and have sponsored it throughout the United States. I feel that

The Address-Mr. Chevrier as far as we are concerned such an agreement would have the effect not only of guaranteeing the military existence of NATO but also of placing the western countries in a better position to enter into pacific coexistence with the Soviet union in the economic field. We Canadians have another reason for promoting such an agreement because it is the only real and positive way of reducing our economic dependency on the United States and of diversifying our trade while increasing it. For all of those reasons, the Canadian government should have, as early as 1957 I think, started negotiations for an agreement.
(Text):
Now, sir, if I may, with your permission I would like to pass to another matter which to me is of extreme importance and which I think is also of importance to the Canadian people. I refer to the policy, or the lack of policy, of the government in the field of international aviation. That policy, it seems to me, is not only shortsighted but is doing Canada a great deal of harm. It is doing Canada a great deal of harm because of the concessions that are being given to foreign countries, because of the exchanges in traffic rights, exchanges far in excess of what we receive, which have been made since this government have been in office.
Before the present government took office, Canada in its negotiation of bilateral air agreements with other countries held consistently to the firm position of exchanging third and fourth freedom rights; that is to say, giving the right to pick up and discharge traffic at one point in Canada in exchange for the right to Canada to pick up and discharge traffic at some suitable point in the other country. It was recognized that to go beyond that would not be in Canada's interests, and certainly not in the interests of Canadian aviation.
Since the present government has been in office it has deviated very materially from that policy. Concession after concession has been granted to foreign carriers, to the point that our own position has been endangered. In some cases the concessions have involved the granting of fifth freedom rights in exchange for rights which were not the equal of those we were giving; that is to say, we were granting rights to pick up and discharge traffic at a point in Canada to be carried onward to some other point in some other country. This policy has been detrimental to our own carriers, and has particularly hit a hard blow at Montreal as an international airport.
Mr. Speaker, these statements which I have made are broad and of a general nature, and

perhaps they will be found sweeping. But I intend to give details. I intend to give four examples of cases where the Canadian government, because of what I have said in the first place, gave away rights far greater than it received in exchange.
The first example is the granting of fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Chicago to two European air carriers. The present government has given to both France and Germany the right to pick up and discharge at Montreal traffic between Montreal and Chicago. Before these concessions were made, France and Germany had the right to carry traffic originating in their own countries to Montreal, and traffic from Montreal back to their own countries. These two countries also had the right to take traffic originating in their own countries to Chicago and back to their own countries from Chicago. However, neither of those countries had the right to pick up traffic at Montreal and carry it back to Chicago or vice versa.
Canada itself, under its bilateral air agreements with the United States, does not possess the right to fly non-stop between Montreal and Chicago. In other words the Canadian government has been entirely unsuccessful in obtaining rights from the United States for a Montreal-Chicago route. However, by the agreements it has made the present government has enabled two foreign air carriers to operate a non-stop service between Montreal and Chicago. Those two European carriers have been able to enjoy obvious rights and advantages in Canada without competition from a Canadian carrier. The loss of income, sir, in this case has been considerable.
What did we receive in exchange for these valuable concessions? We obtained from France fifth freedom rights between Paris and Rome, and from Germany fifth freedom rights between Dusseldorf and Vienna. But the obtaining of these traffic rights in Europe was only part of the operation, and it was still necessary to negotiate an air agreement with the two countries in question, namely Italy and Austria and, in order to obtain them, to grant to Italy and Austria traffic rights in exchange for what we required.
To my mind this is clearly a case of exchanging the substance for the shadow. There is no doubt that we have given in this case far more than we have received, for we have not only diverted a considerable amount of traffic from a Canadian carrier, but in the process we have also weakened our own bargaining position with the United States and have placed fresh obstacles in our path in an effort to obtain a change in the bilateral agreement with the United States so that we may ourselves operate a non-stop service between Montreal and Chicago.



I960

[Stage Direction]
There is a further disadvantage which must not be overlooked because of its dangerous implications. Permitting the two European carriers to serve Montreal and Chicago on the one flight provides them with an additional heavy traffic generating point, and consequently allows for a frequency of service through Montreal to Europe far beyond the requirements of the traffic originating at Montreal. This results in two foreign carriers obtaining at Canada's expense an undue proportion of the traffic offering at Montreal.
The second example that I want to bring to the attention of the house is the naming of Toronto as an additional point of call for the British air carrier. The naming of Toronto as an additional point at which the British carrier could pick up and discharge traffic was a very far-reaching concession; because Toronto, as the house probably knows, originates more air traffic than any other city in Canada.
There was no compensation whatsoever to Canada in exchange for this lucrative privilege. We obtained from the British government certain rights between the United Kingdom and the continent which, however, have no value unless, as in the case of Germany and France, the other countries concerned agreed to grant them, and they could be expected to do this only in exchange for the granting of further traffic rights at some point in Canada. I am not unaware that the granting of this concession to the city of Toronto might, on the face of it, appear attractive, but when one goes into it one can come to no other conclusion but that it is detrimental to Canadian aviation, that it is not in the interest of the air lines and that is is also not in the interests of their employees.
I tried to put on the record the other day a telegram which I had received from the president of local 698 of the United automobile workers. I should like to take this opportunity of doing so. It was addressed to me on November 27 following a speech on this subject which I made in Montreal, and the president, Mr. Malley, says:
Local union 698 UAW absolutely concurs with criticism Conservative air policy. Certain granting British Airlines Toronto rights will in the near future cost some members of our union their jobs through pooling forced on TCA to protect lost revenue.
I should also like to read a further telegram which he sent me on January 22 in answer to a request from myself for permission to read his telegram. It is as follows:
Reference your telegram January 22. Permission to use our telegram November 27 granted. Know for certain pooling negotiations TCA-BOAC almost 79951-0-294
The Address-Mr. Chevrier
concluded. BOAC has advised if successful all ground handling and maintenance engineering positions our members wiped out. Have learned British government contemplates major changes BOAC management due unfavourable financial position.
In an editorial which appeared in the London Daily Mail dated January 18, 1960, it is clearly set out that B.O.A.C. is in a very serious financial position-there was a £14 million deficit for 1959-and it seems to me that what is being done is tacking on to a Canadian carrier some of the financial difficulties of the British carrier,
The third example is the recent negotiation of an air agreement with Italy. The primary function of a bilateral agreement is to provide for air service between the two countries involved. This agreement is simply one-sided. The government has negotiated an agreement which does not in the usual manner provide for the exchange of traffic rights for a Canadian air line at Rome and an Italian air line at Montreal. It grants Canada the right to operate to Rome by way of Lisbon or Paris, with intermediate pickup rights at Lisbon or Paris, and to operate with the onward traffic rights from Rome to Bangkok and points beyond.
What concessions did Canada make in order to obtain from Italy the right to land at Rome passengers picked up at Lisbon or Paris and for the further right to carry traffic beyond Rome to Bangkok and other points? Canada granted to Italy the right to operate on a route from Italy to Montreal without intermediate pick-up points but with onward rights from Montreal to Mexico, Montreal to Chicago and Montreal to Los Angeles. These were three tremendous rights given in exchange for the little pick-up right we got from Lisbon, and/or Paris. Not only that, but the Canadian government gave the Italians the right to go on to Chicago, a right which no Canadian carrier itself does possess. Furthermore, that concession affects the revenue of the Canadian carrier which operates to Mexico by creating additional competition, so that the revenue position, because of these three onward rights granted to a foreign carrier, will substantially affect the position of Canadian aviation as a whole.
Finally, there was the granting of additional rights to air carriers of the United States in April, 1959. The only concession which the United States gave to Canada-and it is of doubtful value-was the one whereby the Canadian carrier was authorized to extend its Halifax-Boston service to New York. The United States, on the other hand, obtained several trans-border routes which they did not have before.
I will concede at once that one of the most difficult air agreements to negotiate is with
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Chevrier the United States. They will not give an inch. Then why should we give an inch? Why, if we are unable to obtain rights we want from the United States, should we give them the advantages which they have obtained under this agreement? I have a list of them here, but unfortunately because of the lack of time I am precluded from putting them on the record.
I cannot in the time available to me deal more completely with the subject, but I do want to mention two serious difficulties. One is the establishment of the air union in Europe, a kind of common market in the air. Three of its members-Air France, Lufthansa and Air Italia-all possess these onward rights in Canada, and the position created by the establishment of the air union means that there will be a great deal of pooling by these companies which will detrimentally affect the revenue position of the Canadian carriers.
Then again there is the question of the jet age. The countries which negotiated these agreements with Canada knew full well what the jet era meant before they negotiated to obtain these rights from Canada. I say this with respect to the minister, who is in his place: that it appears to me as if in some of these cases the delegation acting on behalf of Canada was told "go over to the foreign country and come back with an agreement at any cost." It also looks as though the foreign country-the country negotiating with Canada .-knew that Canada wanted an agreement at any cost. If that is the case, I warn the government that it has a long way to go in order to recoup these concessions which it has in so many cases given away to foreign countries in exchange for rights of dubious value.
I am sure this must have been in the minds of the air industries and transport association when at their last meeting, assembled in conference at Montreal, they took a very dim view of the position in the international aviation field. In the first place, they took the minister to task for his interference with the decisions of the air transport board and condemning the policy of the government in respect to the field of aviation. Then, on Friday last, they saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker)-and I presume the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) was there also-and submitted a brief outlining the detrimental position in which their industry had been placed.
Here may I be allowed to put on record, with respect to another class of traffic-not the international class-this sentence which is contained in that brief:
It is significant to note that commencing in 1958, jthe year that decontrol of class C came into effect,

the air industry met its first serious reversal. The real effect of this decontrol could not be evaluated until 1959 when a full year could be analysed. This analysis showed that many established operators of long years standing will not be able to break even, even before depreciation and that this is caused by loss of revenue to the new class C type operators. It is alarming to note the number of carriers who have, within recent months, gone into either voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or else just out of business.
I thought I should deal at some length with this matter because I believe it is of extreme importance to the Canadian people who take pride in the aviation industry which has played such a tremendous part in the war and postwar periods.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minisier of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, before going into the subject matter of the remarks I propose to make this afternoon, may I first according to custom, extend sincere congratulations to the young and able member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Dealing with a subject with which he is quite familiar, the economic situation, the young member for Rimouski painted a very clear picture of it.
I would add that as a result, he has disposed of many arguments put forward by some of our hon. friends opposite who dealt with Canada's economic situation.
May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the highly capable, charming and amiable representative of Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), who seconded the address. The member for Grenville-Dundas has learned from the long experience of two former members dear to her, the former member for her constituency and the present member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). With remarkable talent and assurance, she gave us a clear and precise picture of the life and problems of her constituents.
It is a great pleasure at this time to congratulate the new Deputy Speaker of the house, the highly popular member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), who was appointed to this high office by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Having known the member for Quebec South for many years, I have every reason to believe that he will do a fine job and show the same judgment as he has shown in many other occasions, with honour and dignity.
I have known the Deputy Speaker in other circumstances, because for several years-I

shall not say how many, as I have little desire to add to his years-he was my legal adviser when I was mayor of my municipality and reeve of my constituency. I therefore wish him every success in his new duties. When serving as legal adviser to various municipalities, he was liked of all and numbered only friends in the municipal field.
I must also say a word of the appointment of our two new colleagues in the federal cabinet, namely the Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Sevigny) and the Minister of Public Works, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker). I wish them both every success in their new office.
During the memorable visit last autumn, of the Prime Minister and his lady in the province of Quebec, I had the pleasure and honour to accompany them for one day. The warm welcome they were tendered everywhere we went was in contrast, and still is in striking contrast, with the dim picture which hon. members of the official opposition are giving us today, when speaking of our leaders, and ourselves, that is the Conservative members.
The Prime Minister was warmly received by the people of the province of Quebec, and, the province, on the other hand, remembers this with pleasure. During that tour, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a gesture on which I would like to draw your attention. Setting aside every political implication, and showing himself the great leader he is, he asked to visit the house of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the lovely and attractive village of Arthabaska. That trip delayed him much, but also impressed him to a high degree. He did not fail to show great interest in seeing the home and study of that great Canadian who was Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his visit to our province and to remind him of the warm welcome which the population gave him. Needless to add, Mr. Speaker, that we should like him to come again often to keep in touch with Quebec people.
Being the representative of a rural constituency, before dealing with defence production, which is the field of my department, may I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the problems of my constituency, whose main industry is agriculture, forestry and various other undertakings which are a secondary source of revenue.
The Address-Mr. O'Hurley
I realize that agriculture has its problems at present, but I am not of those who see only its problems.
I have the opportunity to meet quite regularly farmers and leaders of farm organizations of my constituency and of surrounding constituencies and they keep me posted on the developments in that field.
I have always watched with great interest the march of events in the field of agriculture and I must say that that very important class of our society deserves all my consideration.
In Lotbiniere as in surrounding constituencies, a problem exists now in the field of agriculture; it concerns the price maintenance in some sectors of production where there is overproduction, and in sectors where that overproduction recently increased substantially.
Why, for instance, those hog and egg surpluses? I think that they are the result of the so-called vertical integration, that is because companies have been set up and have taken up hog raising and egg production. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hark-ness) has stated on many occasions: "We shall guarantee each year a support price for A and B hogs up to 100 a year per farmer and for 4,000 dozens of eggs, grade A, for each producer. Statistics show that very few farmers exceed that quota and I mean real farmers who raise hogs and chickens on their own. So we shall keep a very close watch on the problems arising in every field, but our attention will bear mostly, for the time being, on those two categories we are more concerned over.
Mr. Speaker, I should like at this point to mention the recent decision taken by the government to make payments in April, for the first three months of the year, based on the statistics for the twelve months of the year ending next October 1. If the average price is 33c. a dozen throughout the year, a farmer receiving the 33c. support price for grade A large eggs in the year ending April 1st will have nothing to refund.
Mr. Speaker, a problem arises in my constituency in the field of forestry work; that industry has been very close to my heart for many years, and forestry work is quite profitable in my area. In the dead season, woodcutting is an important source of income for our farmers.
A new approach to woodcutting, involving new methods of cutting, of protecting forests
454	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. O'Hurley against fire and disease, and of clearing overage and harmful trees gives us hope of producing more abundant and better quality-timber, thus giving the farmers an important extra income on their farming operations.
You will agree that agriculture has been going through important changes in the last few years. Agriculture has changed from a manual to a mechanized activity, because in order to apply the many new agricultural methods that are needed by our farmers to meet competition and reduce their costs, they have to mechanize their farms. However, there is always the danger that our farmers will be carried away by their enthusiasm and will buy agricultural implements beyond their means. Therefore, agricultural leaders should make it a point to advise farmers to remain within the bounds of reason. If changes are being made in the field of agriculture, there must also be changes in the management and maintenance of farm wood-lots, and we are pleased to find that many of our farmers show increasing interest in forestry.
Mr. Speaker, a danger hangs today over our forest growers, especially sugar bush owners in the province of Quebec. As we all know, the maple industry is a profitable one in our province. Because I know that in recent years many of our forest species are exposed to disease, I want to warn sugar bush owners against a disease that came to notice last year and affects maple trees. To date we have lost our birches and our elms and now we have found traces of this disease on maple trees. Our farmers and sugar bush owners should know that at the first sign of this disease in our forests they should warn entomologists in order that this calamity may be checked or controlled immediately if possible.
(Text):
When I first took over this Department of Defence Production, in the first intimate talk I had with the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) he confided to me his anxiety about the differences in purchases made by Canada in the United States and contracts from the United States in Canada. It was at his suggestion to see what could be done that, with my officials agreeing 100 per cent, that we started in late 1958 this production-sharing program. I wish to state at the beginning of my remarks that the officials in the depart-


ment right down the line not only worked intensely and conscientiously but I can say they were practically dedicated to making the result a good one in this production sharing with the United States.
It is now six months since I reported to the house, when my department's estimates were considered last July, on the progress of the Canada-United States production-sharing program. At that time I reported that we had obtained a framework of United States policy and regulations which was favourable to Canadian participation in United States defence production programs. The principal need for the future was to intensify our efforts in two directions: first, to make United States procurement agencies and contractors aware of the meaning of production sharing and of the capabilities of Canadian industry; and, second, to help our industry to find and exploit the new opportunities for sales in the United States.
I should like today to report to the house some of the more important actions we have taken during the past six months to meet those objectives. In addition, we have now had a full year's experience in the working of the production-sharing program and are in a better position to measure its progress. First of all, we have continued our efforts to ensure top level support for the program by the United States authorities. The matter was discussed, for example, at the meeting of the Canada-United States committee on joint defence at Camp David last November 8 and 9. I am happy to report that the United States secretaries joined willingly with Canadian ministers in reaffirming the importance of the program and the determination to give it continued active support.
In addition, since I last reported, there have been two meetings of Canadian and United States officials at the deputy minister and assistant secretary level, as well as frequent meetings of other officials of the two governments, in the course of which progress has been kept under close scrutiny and problems have been examined with complete frankness and resolved in a most co-operative spirit. On our own part there has been the build-up of effort which I promised last summer. We have acquired and are still acquiring additional officers for both our headquarters staff and our field representation in Washington and the major defence procurement and production areas in the United States. Arrangements have been further developed for the Canadian government to help in the administration of both prime and

subcontracts placed in Canada under the production-sharing program, and procedures are being improved for Canadian quality control inspection of such contracts.
A detailed index of defence commodities showing Canadian sources has been prepared and distributed very widely through our Washington office to United States government procurement agencies and defence contractors.
We are continuing our effort to encourage United States contractors to visit Canadian industries. So far at least 20 major United States contractors have made such visits on a comprehensive scale. In all, some 100 Canadian firms have been surveyed in this manner, many of them by a number of United States firms, and both my officials and the Canadian manufacturers involved have been impressed by the thoroughness and apparent sincerity of these plant visits. We have been encouraged to find that the United States prime contractors have reported in all cases a sound capability across a broad front within Canadian industry, and extremely high capabilities in special fields on the part of a number of Canadian firms. I might say that the visitors have been very forthright in their comments, and some of their critical findings have been of very great value.
We have also encouraged Canadian industry to present its case and seek out opportunities in the United States, with the result that about 115 Canadian firms visited United States government procurement agencies and major contractors during last year. In all, some 100 United States defence contractors have been visited.
I have on a number of occasions stressed the value of these face to face meetings between Canadian and United States manufacturers. They are, I feel, largely responsible for the fact that during the past year United States defence contractors sent 1,900 invitations to bid to Canadian firms, in response to which 1,400 tenders were submitted. I should add that 365 bids by Canadian firms were successful. I think this is a very encouraging proportion.
My officials will continue to work closely with Canadian manufacturers and trade associations to discover any difficulties encountered in trying to enter the United States defence market and to give what advice and assistance we can. I might mention in this connection, that I paid a visit in mid-October to British Columbia and had an opportunity, which I greatly appreciated, to meet with west coast manufacturers for a discussion of production sharing. Arrangements are now being made for similar talks and a visit to the Winnipeg area in the near future. I wish to
The Address-Mr. O'Hurley assure members of the three Atlantic provinces and Newfoundland that I have not forgotten the promise I gave them last summer to visit them.
I might mention that at the beginning of the year I wrote to several hundred Canadian firms to review for them the progress of the production-sharing program, and to ask for their comments and suggestions for the future. The replies to date have been very helpful to us in assessing the effectiveness of our efforts and, on the whole, indicated to us clearly that Canada's defence industries are taking this program seriously and are anxious to discover and exploit the opportunities which it represents. I should add that the replies have almost invariably contained the highest praise for the effort which the department has been putting forth to make the program succeed.
Members will recall that under the estimates approved last year provision was made for more tangible forms of assistance to Canadian industry seeking a share in the United States defence programs. During the past six months the government has, on a number of occasions, agreed in principle to underwrite tooling and pre-production costs in order to enable Canadian firms in special cases to bid on more equal terms against United States firms which have been able to write off such costs against previous orders. As a result of these undertakings a number of Canadian bids have been successful, involving orders with an immediate value of about S3j- million, and an even greater potential future business.
The other major fund provided last year in support of production sharing was designed to support a long term defence equipment development program aimed at maintaining scientific and technical ability in Canadian defence industry at a level which will enable it to participate effectively in future production sharing. Since last summer, discussions with the United States army and air force have produced agreed principles for the control and management of projects financed out of this fund to meet the future potential requirements of those services. A similar agreement is now being worked out with the United States navy. In Ottawa, a committee representing interested Canadian departments has been established to review development proposals and recommend selected projects to the treasury board, and to monitor the execution of approved projects. By the end of the year six projects with a total estimated cost of $5.6 million had been approved.
The results of all these efforts must, of course, be judged first and foremost by the

The Address-Mr. O'Hurley value of United States orders placed with Canadian defence industry. Since the Prime Minister spoke in this debate last Wednesday, it has been possible to arrive at some preliminary figures which will indicate the value of such orders during the full calendar year 1959. These give a total, for prime contracts and subcontracts combined, of $96.3 million.
This total includes the sum of $51 million for prime contracts and $45.3 million for subcontracts, and it is important, Mr. Speaker, for members to understand how these amounts are arrived at.
First of all, in both cases we have taken into account only those orders which have the direct effect of supporting Canadian defence production industry. We have excluded a wide range of contracts for such things as construction and maintenance, petroleum products, transportation and communication services. The United States has, of course, placed fairly substantial orders in these categories in Canada during 1959 -our preliminary estimate places their value at $25.1 million. But these are not considered, either by the American authorities or ourselves, to be relevant to the production-sharing program and have therefore been ignored in our record of results.
Second, the figures represent a total in each case of new contracts and amendments which increased commitments, less any cancellations or decreasing amendments relating to commitments which had been made during the year. They do not reflect all the decreasing amendments, to the extent that these relate to commitments made prior to the productionsharing program.
Third, both totals are based on a record of orders which are known to have been placed in Canada. I have called them preliminary estimates only because we do not yet know whether or not that record is complete. For the prime contracts, it probably is since all such contracts, with only a very few exceptions, are placed by the United States services with a crown company under my direction, the Canadian Commercial Corporation. We believe we know of all exceptions of any consequence. For the record of subcontracts, we depend upon a system of monthly reporting by about 350 Canadian industries and there may be a few orders of which we have not yet heard. However, it is unlikely that we have missed any subcontracts large enough to change the total significantly.
A number of attempts have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and by the press to compare the current record with that of past years. Naturally, we are also very interested in the results of

such comparisons. Unfortunately, however, we have run into a number of difficulties in pursuing this. As I have pointed out, our current records have been built up on the basis of the nature and aims of the production sharing program, and figures are not available for previous years on an exactly comparable basis.
What we have had to do, therefore, is to take our records of the United States prime contracts for past years-the figures shown in the annual reports of the Department of Defence Production-and delete all contracts in those categories which we exclude in our current reckoning:	construction, petroleum
products, general services and the like. This, as the Prime Minister explained, was the source of the figures which he gave the house last week. At that time, however, the Prime Minister was dealing only with production sharing orders for the first nine months of the year. Consequently, the amounts which he quoted for the years 1953-58 also reflected only the first nine months of each of these years.
On a full calendar year basis, the closest approximation we can get to figures comparable to our production sharing record are as follows: In 1958, $37.9 million; in 1957, $58.7 million-which included the American share, amounting to $33.1 million, of the cost of CF-100 aircraft supplied to Belgium by Canada and the United States jointly; in 1956, $20.5 million; in 1955, $28.5 million; in 1954, $19.2 million and in 1953, $47.8 million.
As is well known, the United States services placed substantial orders in Canada during the years of the Korean war. In 1952 United States contracts for Canadian defence manufactures amounted to just over $150 million. About the same amount, or slightly more, was ordered between April 1 and December 31, 1951, the earliest period covered by the records of the Department of Defence Production.
However, in view of the exceptional circumstances of those war years, when the United States were hastily rearming, it does not seem useful to attempt any comparisons with our current experience. It might also be borne in mind that Canada, too, was hastily re-arming. As a result, we placed direct defence orders in the United States during the same period amounting to $357 million, in addition to which there was massive Canadian subcontracting of defence production which is estimated to have totalled, at the very least, some $500 million. This, too, can be attributed to the unusual circumstances of the time, and any comparisons with our current spending in the United States would be pointless.

I should point out the curious fact that the 12-month figures which I have given for 1953 and 1954 are lower than the 9-month figures given by the Prime Minister for the same years. The explanation lies in the fact that during the last quarter of each of these years the value of terminations and decreasing amendments actually exceeded the value of new contracts and increasing amendments.
As I have said, these figures are not exactly comparable with those I gave for 1959, even after making the exclusions I mentioned. Some very minor differences may arise because the records of past years, as published in our reports, reflect the value of orders placed for the United States by Canadian Commercial Corporation and Defence Construction Limited. The exclusion of construction contracts, of course, eliminates the latter. In 1959, on the other hand, we have based our record on the value of orders received by Canadian Commercial Corporation from the United States rather than the corresponding orders with Canadian industry in which these subsequently resulted. The principal reason for making this change was that we wanted our records to agree, as far as possible, with those kept by the United States services. In the last analysis, of course, the value of orders received by C.C.C. from the United States is equal to the value of orders placed with Canadian industry, but in any 12-month period the two are very unlikely to be exactly the same.
A more important difference lies in the fact that the figures for 1958 and earlier do not include United States defence orders placed directly with Canadian industry, either by the American services or by their contractors in the United States. However, as I have already indicated, direct prime contracts are very rare and would have little effect on the totals. As for subcontracts, no records are available because there was no system of reporting such as we now have. We have, however, made inquiries both among the companies now reporting to us and with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and have been advised, in every case, that subcontracting of the kind with which the production sharing program is concerned was rare. This seems to be further confirmed by the fact that in 1959 virtually every subcontract reported to us by industry was directly attributable to the production sharing efforts of the two governments together with, of course, the co-operation of their respective defence industries.
Taking all these factors into account, it is our conclusion that the production sharing program is responsible for, in the first place, 79951-0-30
The Address-Mr. O'Hurley virtually all of the $45.3 million in subcontracts received in 1959. In addition, it would seem reasonable to attribute to the program at least some of the increase in prime contracts, since there are no specific contracts of an unusual nature or size, such as the 1957 joint arrangement for the provision of CF-lOO's to Belgium.
There is, in short, evidence of real progress. With only one full year behind us, there can be no let-up in our efforts-but we now have tangible grounds for optimism.
I should add that there are signs of intangible benefits too, which may in the long run outweigh in importance the defence orders which are obtained. It is becoming increasingly evident that, in effect, successful production sharing requires some fairly radical changes in deeply-rooted commercial habits and attitudes within both Canadian and United States industry. With every new order received in Canada we move another step in this direction. The Canadian manufacturer discovers that United States industry is not entirely the threat which he had regarded it as being; it is, in fact, a market of enormous potential. The United States prime contractor learns, by direct experience, that there are efficient sources of supply readily available to him in Canada. Not every Canadian firm will be successful, and not every United States firm will find Canadian sources; but every move in this direction can obviously have lasting effects going well beyond the defence programs of the two countries.
While the close integration of Canadian and United States defence programs in North America has led to the development of the production sharing programs, we have not lost sight of the close ties which bind Canada to other countries. Within NATO we are following closely the efforts of our European partners to develop common requirements and integrated production programs. On a number of occasions we have drawn attention to Canadian developments which seemed of potential value to the other members and have offered technical co-operation where it might assist their efforts. My department has also, in conjunction with the R.C.A.F. established close consultation with the German defence ministry concerning our common interests in the CF-104 and F-104G. Now that the Netherlands and, more recently, the Belgian air forces have adopted the same basic aircraft there will be new questions of common concern to be considered by the various governments. I propose, later in the session, to report on the progress of this program in all its aspects, including this matter of inter-allied co-operation.

The Address-Mr. O'Hurley
The government has been particularly encouraged by recent developments in our relations with the United Kingdom respecting defence equipment. For the first time in some years the United Kingdom government has turned to Canadian industry for defence equipment of significant value. The first sign of this revival of British purchasing came last September when a $2.6 million order for torpedoes was placed in Canada. More recently, as hon. members will have seen from press reports, the United Kingdom announced its decision to purchase Beaver aircraft from de Havilland of Canada. More and more we find among our friends in the United Kingdom a willingness to consider not only the merits of Canadian designs but the capabilities of Canadian manufacturers as well.
Needless to say these developments reinforce our own interest of long standing in the role which British industry can play in Canada's defence program. In recent months, for example, we awarded to a United Kingdom firm an important contract for the flight and tactical trainer which simulates operations of our large new transport aircraft, the CC-106, whose turbo-prop engines, I might add, are also of British manufacture. Even more recently, it was decided that the newly adopted wireless set for Canadian army vehicles, the C-42, will be purchased from the British manufacturer. We are more than ever convinced that co-operation in defence production with the United Kingdom can be of great value to both countries. Such cooperation, of course, reflects not only our traditional ties with the United Kingdom and commonwealth but also, as is true as well of our production sharing arrangements with the United States, Canada's interdependence with its partners in the Atlantic alliance.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder whether the
minister would permit a question by way of clarification before he resumes his seat?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Yes.


George James McIlraith: I want to ask the minister whether the figures he used in connection with production sharing included the expenditures in Canada by the United States on the three defence warning systems and in the related telecommunications?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The figures I gave are only defence contracts from the United States being manufactured in Canada which will return to the United States. The early warning systems are not included in the figures I have given. It is those United States defence contracts placed in Canada which, after manufacture, are returned.


George James McIlraith: Which after manufacture are returned to the United States; is that right?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: They are United States
defence contracts.


George James McIlraith: That last phrase does not quite answer my question, that they are returned to the United States. Advance warning stations are for the benefit of the United States as well as Canada. Do I understand the minister to say that they are not included in these figures?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: They are not included. I will check up to be absolutely accurate, and if I am not right I will let the hon. member know.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a supplementary question by way of clarification. Are the figures given available in any published record of the defence production department which is available to members?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: The figures I have given today and which I have been giving are, the result of research I have had made in the Department of Defence Production, taken from defence production reports of amounts spent by the United States government in Canada in past years. But, as I said at two different times in my speech, we took out petroleum services and those contracts which did not have any effect on technical skill in their manufacture in Canada. These figures were also taken out in past years as well as this.


George James McIlraith: Is any publication of them made?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: No publication is made. Officials of the department have been working on them to get the facts.


George James McIlraith: Could they be made
available?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Yes, they could.


Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Conceplion):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I, too, would like to add my personal pleasure in seeing you occupy your very important seat, looking so well and, as usual, so dignified. Your position carries with it many decisions and rulings which you are called upon to make from time to time, especially during orders of the day, and I am sure your patience must be tried many times, and today was no exception. Naturally, your decision does not always please all hon. members all the time. Nevertheless I think all members on all sides of the house will agree that it would be difficult to have any member on



[Stage Direction]
either side of this house fill your present position with more dignity or carry out the rulings of the speaker with more justice, and I hope that you will be spared to occupy your high office as long, at least, as your party is in power.
I would like to follow the tradition of this house and join the previous speakers in extending sincere congratulations to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette), for the very able and masterly manner in which he carried out his important duty.
I would also offer my heartiest congratulations to the seconder of the address in reply to the speech fom the throne, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman). The applause which she received proves without doubt that her speech was very acceptable to all members of the house and will long be remembered by those who heard it.
May I also extend my congratulations and best wishes to our recently appointed Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), and as far as I am capable of judging, his appointment is a very popular one.
I must also include the chairman of committees, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea), who carried out his duties during the last session of parliament in a manner acceptable to all parties. I feel sure that he will receive co-operation from all members of the house during the session, and I hope that he will soon be able to get around without the help of his crutches.
Congratulations are also in order at this time to the two recently elected members, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif). I hope their term in parliament will be one of pleasure to themselves and one of profit to their respective ridings. Naturally, the one which gave us on this side of the house the greatest pleasure was the by-election in Russell, where a David was successful in battling against the hosts of the Philistines seeking to invade the land with promises and menaces.
Mr. Speaker, the perennial nightmare of unemployment looms just as big as ever here in Canada, and in my humble opinion no government, including the present Diefen-baker government, has had the courage to face up to this problem and do something tangible about it and about curing this ill that will ever haunt the people and the government of Canada, and retard progress and prosperity. This expedient of the government trying to provide, and persuading companies, industry 79951-0-30J
The Address-Mr. Tucker and private citizens to provide, employment opportunities during the winter to offset seasonal unemployment is commendable. Yet we must all agree that it is not the solution to the question and our problem. At most it is only a temporary remedy.
Has this government ever tried to analyse this problem and get at the root of the cause? If it has, then we have not been told the results of such investigations and what suggestions were adopted or what plans were made to try and kill this stigma on our natural progress. Did the government ever consider the fact that the figures quoted each year by the government at this season of the number of people in Canada out of work due to seasonal unemployment are never correct, because only the persons registered with the national unemployment service are counted, which is by far short of the total number unemployed. Again, the count by the national unemployment service includes all unemployed persons, some of whom have been unemployed for some considerable time previous to seasonal layoffs.
In the past two years we have treated this matter of unemployment in Canada too lightly and have not given it the consideration that the problem deserves, for whilst we have unemployment on a large scale we can never achieve that measure of prosperity and economy that we are striving for in this great dominion of ours so that we can have a happy and contented people.
As a government, we are bringing into Canada immigrants which in itself may be a good thing. We are sending money out of the country to help relieve distress and hunger in other countries, which again is commendable. But with regard to our own people, our own contrymen and women, what are we doing for them? We are asking industry, employers and private citizens to provide work for them to tide them over this year, last year and every year. Of course, the government does provide a little help in this respect by having some public works projects started during this season for that purpose, but this is only advancing some of the public works that would have to be done later anyway, just like a person getting a loan to tide him over difficult times. But the piper must be paid soon or later. Consequently, in the overall picture, it is not much of a help anyway because what they get now they cannot get later.
Another matter I would like to mention at this time is the rate of pay the government pays to casual help during this season of the year. I refer especially to those employed by the unemployment commission and by the post office in Newfoundland. The rate paid is $1 per hour, which is the rate paid after regular
460	HOUSE OF
'i fie Address-Mr. Tucker hours on overtime work; that is a thirty seven and a half hour working week. This, I say, is not right, as according to government law and enactments, whether provincial or federal, the rate which employers are bound to pay for overtime is time and one half. Why, then, should any government take unto itself such liberties to pay just what they please, thereby profiting by the misfortune of the unfortunate people of Canada who find themselves out of work during this particular time? If employers used similar methods, what a howl the government would set up. So, to offset any such awkward position for the government, a law is passed making it obligatory for all employers to pay the prevailing rate of wages for regular hours worked, and time and one half for overtime. Why does the government not fall into line with the laws it makes for other employers?
Is this wage rate helping to relieve distress during the seasonal unemployment period? The national employment service should provide the answer. In some cases, people on claim, without working, were receiving more money per hour while unemployed than they are now receiving as casual workers with both the unemployment insurance commission and the post office. I say there is definitely something wrong, and it appears to me that the wrong is on the side of our government. If we are to be sincere and logical, we should not legislate to make other people-employers-pay wages at a rate that we, as a government, are not prepared to pay ourselves. The fault does not lie with the legislation, nor with the employer; the fault lies with this government and with this government's method of doing business. Let the government be honourable, reasonable and logical in its dealings with the people of Canada.
While I am on the subject of unemployment, I would strongly urge that as much of the public works program for Newfoundland as possible be carried out in the spring of each year rather than in the fall. Much of the work done on wharves, slipways and breakwaters in the fall has to be repaired in the spring or early summer because of damage caused by heavy seas and ice during the winter months. In addition, if the work were performed in the spring, the government would get better value for the money spent and the money obtained by fishermen for the work performed by them could be used to buy the materials necessary to prosecute the fisheries.
On a wider topic, it appears that instead of consideration being given to carrying out vital public works irrespective of where or in what province they may be required, consideration is extended to all provinces on a share basis, and even those provinces in which
[Stage Direction]

all vital services and necessities are well cared for get a goodly share of the allocated expenditures at the expense of those provinces where public services and necessities are far behind what is required and what they should be if all the public services of Canada in all ten provinces are to be brought to the same standard, or something approaching this standard.
For example, Newfoundland has been a province of Canada for more than ten years, yet we still have not a standard gauge railway such as exists in the rest of Canada. Despite the promise made by the Prime Minister at St. John's in 1957 it seems that no serious consideration has been given to a change. In fact, this aspect of confederation has been entirely forgotten; perhaps the government is of the opinion that a narrow gauge railway is good enough for Newfoundland. If that is the case, and if the government of Canada has decided that the narrow gauge railway should remain, then I think it is the duty of the government to compensate Newfoundland in some way for the effects of this decision by at least completing the trans-Canada highway through Newfoundland at no cost to the province. The present attitude of the government of Canada in trying to appease the provinces by sharing public works on a per capita basis and not in accordance with requirements and necessity is simply playing politics with the lives and welfare of the Canadian people; it is not worthy of our day and age.
Some provinces have been in confederation for a great many years during which time they have built up their public services to a standard comparable to their requirements and adequate to meet the needs of the times. Other provinces which joined confederation years later have not had the same opportunities and have not had the same assistance in bringing their public services up to the standard considered to be necessary and equitable for a province of Canada. We in Newfoundland feel that after ten years in confederation public services have not advanced as far as they should and that the present government has repudiated the agreement with Newfoundland, torn up the British North America Act and failed to live up to its signed, solemn and sacred agreement with our province, as set out in the terms of union. We believe, moreover, that this government refused in particular to honour term 29 of this agreement; yet it has the effrontery to bring into this house for the consideration of hon. members a bill entitled a "bill of rights". What rights can any Canadian have or expect to have if the government of the day repudiates with impunity its scared,

sealed agreements as this present government did in respect of the province of Newfoundland?
Newfoundland is entering a critical period in her 10-year period as a province of Canada. We have in Newfoundland less than 200 miles of paved roads, whereas in New Brunswick they have approximately 3,000 miles of paved roads.
It was, indeed, a shock to the province of Newfoundland to receive early this year an official announcement of the closing down of the United States air force base near St. John's known as the Pepperrell air force base. It was chosen in 1940 as the first overseas base of the United States army and was then known as Fort Pepperrell. Many buildings have been built to fit into the everchang-ing pattern of this strategic defence base which covers about 1,600 acres, and on some of this land more than 200 buildings have been erected, worth, at today's value, more than $30 million. Approximately 1,100 Newfoundlanders were employed on this base, and the payroll amounted to $4 million annually. In addition we benefited by the sums spent by military personnel and by their purchasing of local supplies.
It has been estimated that the net decline in the distribution of money in the area as a result of the decision to close down Pepperrell will amount to more than $10 million a year. Hundreds of United States families rent houses, apartments and rooms in and around St. John's, paying very fair rentals. In addition, much employment has been given to those occupied in a wide variety of trades- plumbers, painters, electricians, garage mechanics, carpenters, labourers, waitresses, and so forth.
In the years 1955-56 at the peak of activity Pepperrell air force base had 5,779 enlisted men which included officers and 2,008 civilians. It is estimated that more than 30,000 Newfoundland girls married United States soldiers since the commencement of the base in 1940. In addition several Newfoundland children have been adopted by United States families.
The close-down of this base is serious enough for this government to consider some of our special economic problems on a national basis and I was very glad when the Prime Minister stated in this house in reply to my question on January 19th that everything possible will be done to offset unemployment resulting from the shutdown of the United States air force base in St. John's. But the people in St. John's are anxious to hear just what is going to be possible.
In a recent release it was shown that in the eastern section of Newfoundland there
The Address-Mr. Tucker are more than 18,000 unemployed to which must be added 7,000 fishermen scattered all over Newfoundland who are receiving unemployment insurance, plus approximately
4.000	unemployed on the west coast of Newfoundland, thus making a total of about
30.000	Newfoundlanders not gainfully employed.
The national winter employment program has not helped to solve the unemployment in Newfoundland and something else must be substituted. There are no municipalities with the exception of St. John's and Corner Brook, in the sense that they exist on the mainland, and for most of Newfoundland there is no municipal organization in the province with power or resources to carry out the national winter employment program. The increased freight rates have driven freight costs to an all time high and help to make living for the residents of our province burdensome.
It may be asked in what way could this government further help the province of Newfoundland. There are many ways. For instance, give assistance in the building of schooners from 100 to 200 gross tons to be used in our coastal fleet which is practically a thing of the past. Newfoundland is an island and coastal boats will be needed to carry provisions and supplies to many of our outports.
Another way would be to construct dockyards which are badly needed all over Newfoundland to service ships, schooners, motor boats and longliners, especially at Harbour Grace and Clarenville. Approximately $500,000 is spent annually by Newfoundland boat owners in having their boats repaired outside Newfoundland.
Another way would be to construct more community fish stages because I am sure that those already built will prove very beneficial to the fisheries and also place more mobile bait depots in Newfoundland. Recently eight new units were sent to Newfoundland, each capable of holding 20,000 pounds of frozen bait.
A number of public wharves are still urgently needed and last year I presented the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) with a petition from Dildo in Trinity Bay, requesting that immediate action be taken to construct a public wharf and I hope that the said badly needed wharf will be constructed during this fiscal year.
The time has long passed for Newfoundland to have a freight-passenger boat, plying from St. John's to Halifax or Sydney, and it is hoped that some definite action in this direction will be soon forthcoming.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Tucker
I was glad to hear in the speech from the throne that a proposal will be placed before this house to extend the period during which payments may be made in respect of construction of the trans-Canada highway. The present contracts with all provinces expire at the end of the present year. If a new trans-Canada contract is reached it is hoped that Newfoundland will receive a better deal than the one now in force because it places a financial burden on Newfoundland that is almost three times worse than that of any other province. Estimates are that as much as $60 million will be required to complete the trans-Canada section in Newfoundland.
Since our last session of parliament we were glad to have a few brief visits from the member of the cabinet from Newfoundland (Mr. Browne) and were glad to hear that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) is to pay a visit. To all cabinet ministers I say, come early, more often, and stay longer, as a real welcome awaits you.
If there is any truth in the old proverb that what is forecast in the throne speech will show what policy the government has and what it intends to do for the betterment of the country and its people, then the only conclusion that one can draw from what this throne speech contains is that the government has no policy and is a shortsighted government.
The foremost topic that is facing all governments of all countries at the present time is the matter of defence and this government has seen fit to ignore this vital question and did not consider it important enough to include it in the throne speech.
I notice that the government is contemplating the rewriting of the Civil Service Act, and I hope their "purpose in this matter is not to prohibit civil servants looking for an increase in wages from time to time, as time and conditions demand.
In the past, good relations have existed between the government and its employees. The government has established the principle that civil servants receive salaries which bear a fair relationship to those paid under comparable conditions in Canadian industry. To this end a supposedly independent agency was to conduct an exhaustive study of comparable business salaries. The civil service commission has devoted a great deal of time, effort and money to doing just this. And what are the results? When the findings of the commission confirmed the government's policy of holding the line, its results are published and highly publicized, but when
IMr. Tucker.]
the commission concludes that a pay boost for civil servants is long overdue, their conclusions are suppressed.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) said that salary increases would seriously upset the budget. Is it up to the civil service to balance the budget? The government should do that. If the only way they can balance the budget is to refuse to pay fair wages to their employees then the government should not be in business.
I maintain that this new Civil Service Act should give the civil servants the right to a fair wage, otherwise the Prime Minister's bill of rights, that is supposed to give equal rights to all Canadians, will prove to be a farce and not worth the paper it is written on, just as this government considered term 29 of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. Let us be sincere when dealing with our own people.
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on entering this debate my first words must be an expression of congratulation to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and to the seconder, that gracious lady, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man), whose poise and the quality of her speech should stand as an example for all hon. members who follow her in this debate.
I must also congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) upon his elevation to his high position which duties I am sure he will carry out with the distinction he has shown in the house to date.
May I also offer my congratulations to the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and to the new Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), as well as to the parliamentary secretaries.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Springhill is in my constituency, and all hon. members are aware of the problems that have faced this disaster scarred town. It is with pleasure that I am able to inform this house that it is now well on the way to recovery. In saying this, I do not mean to create the impression that there is not substantial unemployment still existing; that there are not problems still to be faced; but what I do mean is that the town's survival is assured and it is my sincere hope that 1960 will see a marked change in its economy.
We saw first in Springhill, after the disaster of 1958, the location of the Springhill Woodworking plant through the work of the Nova Scotia government; then, the establishment of a battery factory, nearing completion at the present time-again with the assistance of the Nova Scotia government-and the announcement of the location of a new federal

penal institution at or near Springhill, and the still later announcement that the former mine site would be the site of this institution. I know the residents will be pleased to learn that an announcement is expected shortly on the tender award for the construction of the temporary buildings associated with the institution, and they will be further appreciative when this work is completed and inmates are moved in, which we hope will take place early this summer. Late in 1959 the spirits of the people were further lifted with the announcement of the opening of a new mine, again assisted by the provincial government.
As hon. members will note, the situation has improved considerably since I spoke last in the house and, although there is still much to be done, we in Cumberland have a great deal to be thankful for in this regard.
May I now turn to transportation, for in this field lie the hopes and fears of all in the Atlantic provinces: the hopes that we can overcome our present transportation problems, thereby bringing our area a new prosperity, the opportunity to catch up with the rest of Canada, and the fears that this will not be done or that it will not be done in the bold and imaginative manner that is necessary if we are to catch up.
This government through its many programs in the past three years has greatly assisted the Atlantic provinces; indeed, I dread to think where we would be today without the $100 million grant to the provinces, the thermal power program, the increased subventions on coal, to mention just a few; but it must not stop now, for we are on the way up. Today in the Atlantic provinces there is a new attitude replacing the old. The old was to run to the government for a loaf of bread and then accept the crumbs that were tossed from the table. Today we are aware that we have a government quite willing to give the loaf if it can be shown that the project proposed is feasible and sensible for the over-all good of the area. Today, this attitude is made abundantly clear by APEC, by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, which has many fresh ideas on its editorial pages, and by the Atlantic Advocate, a magazine that is today without equal in promoting the welfare of the Atlantic area.
But this new approach does not stop there. It filters down to local boards of trade and individuals. Last year we learned from the premier of New Brunswick that an economic survey would be carried out by an independent group into the feasibility of the Chig-necto canal from an economic standpoint. He did not say the government at Ottawa should do it; he said we would do it ourselves, and if the report is optimistic, then we will press
The Address-Mr. Coates our case with Ottawa. This is the only sensible approach to matters of this nature and we all look forward to the results of this survey.
In my constituency, the town of Parrsboro enjoyed a ferry service across the Minas basin to the Annapolis valley for a period of 90 years until, in 1940, as a war measure, the ferry was removed. It was moved to an area where it could better serve our cause and the people accepted this inconvenience for the period until the end of the war but, as things have so often happened in the east in the past, it was the end of the service. Here was a transportation link, provided for a period of 90 years, maintained through a federal subsidy, that disappeared. In the 90 years it operated the ferry's value decreased for with the coming of the automobiles and trucks of this modern day the type of facility, old-fashioned and inadequate, did not change. This ferry service was of a tidal nature and, because of the lack of proper docking facilities, could not make scheduled runs. In 1945 there was no great hue and cry for the return of this outmoded service; but it Was not long before the residents of both Parrsboro and the Annapolis valley realized what a terrific loss this service was, especially if it were re-established on an economic basis.
With this realization, committees were formed and they took their arguments to the provincial and federal governments. With the election of the Stanfield government in Nova Scotia in 1956, one of its early acts was to appoint the Acadia University Institute to make a traffic study of this proposed service. Premier Stanfield, like Premier Flemming, is aware that facts are necessary before action can be taken. The Acadia University Institute report was favourable and called for the reestablishment of the service. During this period the federal departments of public works and transport carried out engineering surveys on the cost of piers and came up with an estimate of approximately $10 million.
The Nova Scotia government was not completely satisfied with the cost figures on the piers; they felt there must be alternative methods and had an engineering survey carried out as well. Their engineers recommend an alternate type of piers which will cost in the vicinity of $6 million. Still further, the Nova Scotia government, in order to be completely certain of the traffic possibilities, had a Toronto firm also carry out a traffic survey. Their approach differed from that of the Acadia University Institute, but the result was the same, favourable. In view of these facts and in view of the assistance such a service would provide to the agricultural industry in the Annapolis valley-always at a

The Address-Mr. Coates transportation disadvantage because of the manner in which the Minas basin cuts into the heart of Nova Scotia-to the fishing industry of the south and western shores of Nova Scotia in cutting many miles off their trips to markets, to the tourist industry which means so much to the economy of the maritime provinces, may I recommend this project to the ministers of transport and public works as a vital need in our economy.
It may be argued by some that because it is within the province of Nova Scotia it is a provincial responsibility. This is not the case. It was a service, provided through federal subsidy, taken from us by the federal government in time of war and never returned. It is necessary to the economy of the maritime provinces, and this was clearly shown by the maritime provinces' boards of trade last June when they met in Saint John, New Brunswick, and supported the re-establishment of this service. Could this project not become a part of the trans-Canada highway program? I say it could and should.
It was with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I learned from the Minister of Public Works of the naming of the new headquarters building located on Riverside drive in Ottawa after Sir Charles Tupper. This recognition of Sir Charles Tupper is in keeping with the contribution he made during the conferences leading to confederation, as well as after as a member of the Macdonald cabinet and as prime minister of this country. This announcement follows closely the publicity given to the late Hon. J. Layton Ralston, another great Canadian whose birthplace was Amherst, the shiretown of my constituency. May I recommend to the minister of northern affairs the erection of a memorial in Amherst in order that attention is drawn to the fact that Amherst was the birthplace of Sir Charles Tupper, and that Cumberland was the contributor of four fathers of confederation as well as cabinet ministers to both the Conservative and Liberal parties down through the years.
When I speak of Sir Charles Tupper a matter comes to my mind which has been receiving a good deal of attention in recent days. I refer to the use of Wallace sandstone in the construction of federal buildings in the maritimes. This is not a new problem. In fact, it was one which existed when Sir Charles was the member for Cumberland and, in an effort to promote its use, he was able to have sandstone from Wallace used as one of the building materials in the original parliament buildings.
In recent days it has come to my attention that limestone from outside the maritimes would be used as the building material in a new federal building to be constructed in

Glace Bay. On learning this, I immediately communicated with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and the Minister of Public Works. As a result of our representations the minister is obtaining an alternative quotation to ascertain the possibility of having a building material from the maritimes used in this new structure. The Halifax Chronicle-Herald had this to say about the use of a material from the maritimes in the construction of federal buldings in an editorial dated January 23, 1960:
Present plans of the Department of Public Works require the use of limestone of a type found chiefly in Quebec. There can be no quarrel with the product of another part of Canada but it appears sound to suggest that when a local resource is available it should be preferred over an import.
The bringing of stone into this province is akin to the carrying of coals to Newcastle. With a foundation of rock as varied as the successive geological periods through which it was laid down, Nova Scotia possesses this commodity in an abundant and comprehensive measure. With such a supply at hand it appears unnecessary to bring this heavy material from beyond our borders.
Nor is it easy to believe that local stone is unsuitable. Many homes and other structures have been fabricated from the substance of the earth's surface. Brick from clay, slate, ironstone, sandstone, beach boulders-these are but a few of the materials successfully used by Nova Scotia builders. If this region cannot duplicate the stone of another area, it most certainly can provide a suitable substance, one which is often superior.
From the economical point of view, sight must not be lost of the unemployment problem which confronts us. Use of a local product involves the province's working force and this, in turn, brings in the dollars needed to bolster the economy.
It is to be hoped that serious consideration will be given by Ottawa to using Nova Scotia stone or brick in the building of the post office at Glace Bay, as in all other public structures here. It would mean not only more employment, but would not the folk of the Cape Breton mining town also generate an even greater measure of pride in the new building because it was finished with a native material?
The words contained in this editorial are only too true. The Minister of Public Works is to be congratulated upon his efforts in this regard. It gives me pleasure also to report that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan) has informed me he is making every effort to see that Wallace sandstone is used in the new federal building slated for New Glasgow. The hon. member for Col-chester-Hants (Mr. Kennedy) is making a similar effort in connection with the federal building slated for Windsor. Is this not the co-operation that was promised the people of Nova Scotia by the Conservative candidates during the last election campaign?
In conclusion, I wish to bring to the attention of the house one further point concerning Wallace sandstone. Shortly after the editorial of January 23 appeared I received a letter from an eminent physicist in Nova Scotia who had been closely associated

with Wallace sandstone as a building material. He pointed out that the stone is much better in appearance than any of the imported varieties, and indicated the reason it had not received the consideration it deserves. In order to have this stone finished it is necessary to ship it to New Brunswick or Quebec because Nova Scotia is without modern facilities for finishing and cutting stone. The transportation charges involved in the finishing of the stone almost remove it from the competitive field. Let us hope this situation is rectified by the establishment of a modern cutting and finishing plant in the Wallace area.
(Translation):


Mr. Adrien Meunier (Papineau):: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate you on the duties that were entrusted to you as vice chairman of the house. Your great qualities have been recognized in you; your appointment is also an acknowledgment of your legal sense which will enable you to make just and fair decisions in the discharge of your duties.
On the other hand, as vice-chairman, you can depend on the complete and sincere cooperation of opposition members.
I associate myself to previous speakers in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Casselman).
I congratulate the mover on his conjuring trick of outlining the economic situation of the country, its stupendous development, as if everything was running well in his province and there was nothing to be straightened out.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, whose charm and refinement are known to us all, has extolled the beauty of her constituency, the contentment and happy life led by the residents, so that we envy their lot and can only regret not living in that part of the country.
Canada covers a vast territory which extends from sea to sea, and inevitably has many problems. The speech from the throne therefore reveals to us part of the legislation which the government will ask us to approve in order to meet the wishes of the people and see to its material welfare while safe guarding its rights.
I said "part of the legislation", because the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has reserved the right to announce other bills when he rose in this house in order to answer the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
Two of the bills that he announced in this house, have more particularly retained my attention. I would refer particularly to the
The Address-Mr. Meunier appointment of a commission of inquiry on federal civil servants and to the repatriation of our constitution.
That commission of inquiry on the civil service will probably serve a useful purpose, and I presume it will recommend ways to increase the efficiency of the administration and to reduce, if possible, government expenditures. However, before that commission is established, has held meetings and given its decisions, who will suffer in the meantime? Not the government in any case, but the civil servants who have been waiting for over two years for a salary increase.
Why is the civil service commission report submitted to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), not made public? That report which the minister wishes to keep secret must contain certain revelations which would be of interest to a part of the population and, above all, to government employees. Why does the government refuse to yield to the demands of federal civil servants, when business and industry have been granting raises to their employees?
Must we single out federal civil servants to hold the line against inflation, while in other fields, the federal government makes unwarranted expenses and causes inflation?
The result of government policy is that civil servants have been leaving their jobs to enter private industry. Some day, the federal government will find itself faced with a problem of inefficient and inadequate staff. In support of this argument, I repeat what the Minister of National Revenue and his deputy minister stated last winter in the estimates committee, namely that in the last few years, the department has been unable to hold on to its assessors for more than two or three years, on the average, when it is known that it takes at least a year to train a good assessor, as was stated by witnesses in the committee, and two years of training for the average assessor. We must realize that it is just when he has become an asset for his employer that he takes a job in private enterprise because the pay is better.
The Prime Minister also mentioned, as I said a moment ago, the repatriation of the constitution. Many things have already been said about this. It is nothing new. That question was brought up in 1950 and, after two conferences between the federal and provincial governments, nothing was done because it was impossible to reach unanimity on the matter.
I heard the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) give his personal views on the question. No doubt, if his proposals were to be adopted, we would

The Address-Mr. Meunier still be a long way from the goal, and the question is far from being settled. The hon. member questions the ability of supreme court judges to interpret and settle these constitutional questions because, as he said, they are appointed by the federal authority. Naturally, he did not question the integrity of those judges in other matters.
I do not share his views on the matter and I may say to him that I have perfect faith in the integrity, the wisdom and the deep sense of law and justice of supreme court judges in settling constitutional problems. If we adopted the point of view of the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau), and established a constitutional court, consisting of judges named by the central authority and the province, the question would be under perpetual discussion, and contradictory rulings rendered, which would weaken the scope of the matters submitted. The country would still be in an embarrassing situation and things would constantly have to be started all over again.
It seems to me that instead of establishing constitutional law courts, instead of relying on the supreme court, it might be better to amend the constitution and proceed as was mentioned this morning by Le Devoir, from which I will now read an excerpt:
The most Ingenious proposal, which also seems to us the most appropriate one, was put forward a dozen years ago. This is the gist of it: an amendment to the constitution is valid only if it obtains the assent of the central government and of two thirds of the provinces, as long as the assenting provinces comprise three quarters of the Canadian population.
In practice, this means that, in the present state of affairs, any amendment would be rejected, if it had against it:
1.	a group of four provinces, or
2.	a province representing by itself more than a quarter of the whole population of Canada.
This is recognizing the right of veto at the same time:
-the natural provincial groups, that is to those which have common interests, like, for instance, the four western provinces or the four maritime provinces; and to
-Ontario and Quebec, as each one of these provinces has more than a quarter of the Canadian population.
Thus, the vital interest of the larger regions and of the principal cultural groups are protected.
Has Prime Minister Diefenbaker such a reform in mind? Or else a solution which would lead to the same results by other ways and means?
If that is so, he will probably succeed in attaining his objective. If not, we may foresee that he will meet significant obstacles. In any case to repeat the words of Mr. Lester B. Pearson-he will be up against "an opposition, and particularly the opposition of one province"-and we know which one.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that instead of embarking upon a very complicated course


which might infringe upon the authority of the supreme court, it would be better to seek agreement from the provinces in bringing about those amendments.
There are other matters I should like to bring to the attention of the house and of the population. When the Prime Minister took the floor here, on Wednesday, January 20, he spoke emphatically and at length about the benefits his government had brought the population. He spoke of increased social security benefits, of public works expenses, of international matters and other things. However, he overlooked two matters of vital importance to all Canadians. I refer to unemployment and credit restriction.
When one recalls the words of the Prime Minister to the effect that no one would suffer from unemployment under his government, one may very well wonder what he now thinks of his failure in this connection.
Recent statistics are alarming, and the government is not suggesting any means of solving the problem. What strikes me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is in the province of Quebec that the plague of unemployment is most noticeable, particularly in Montreal.
What is being done to solve the problem? Last year, reference was made to winter works designed to check unemployment; well, that program seems to have gone out of fashion this year. We have come to the conclusion that winter works were expensive and were giving jobs to only a small minority of unemployed.
Unemployment being greater in the province of Quebec than elsewhere, are we to blame provincial authorities for their lack of foresight, in previous years, with regard to the level of employment and industrial expansion?
In the province of Quebec, municipalities and school boards are complaining of not being able to honour their obligations because they cannot finance works they would like to undertake. The first city to complain is Montreal, the metropolis of this country. This year it faces a budget of $30 million more than last year, and has just borrowed money at an interest rate higher than 7i per cent.
I said a moment ago that Quebec municipalities had no money and that, in many cases, their borrowing capacity was exhausted.
I was wondering also whether the Quebec provincial government had not made a mistake, during the last 15 years, with regard to prevention of unemployment and expansion of its industries. However, had the

Quebec government signed agreements with the federal government, it could have used the money to provide incentives for industry and to make grants to municipalities for works and projects.
Between 1946 and 1956, we lost $629 million in failing to lease those powers of taxation; $11 million between 1952 and 1956 in refusing grants to universities; $12 million between 1956 and 1959 in refusing to join the unemployment assistance program; $8 million for civilian rehabilitation, youth training, apprenticeship training, vocational schools, agricultural training, because the province of Quebec has not shared in those programs since 1954 and 1957.
We have lost a substantial part of the $160 million voted for hospital insurance.
1 hope this amount will be paid one of these days, because a formula is being considered which might settle the hospital insurance problem.
We have lost an amount of $32 million from the department of national resources for the development of camping grounds, access to forest resources, forest fire protection, reforestation and national parks.
If you add up those figures, Mr. Speaker, you reach the conclusion that, if the province of Quebec had all that money-about one billion dollars-it would be in a better position, would have less unemployment, and its municipalities would not now be faced with financial problems that can only be solved by tax increases which the taxpayers, not to mention the unemployed, are in no position to bear.
Such being the position, I say that this government should help the Quebec municipalities, as it promised it would do through its general program of assistance to municipalities: the government has a double duty to help Quebec municipalities in a particular way, because of the money lost by Quebec through the lack of foresight of its government in the past 15 years.
What has this government done to help the municipalities despite the promises made by the leader of the Conservative government during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, as I said a moment ago? The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has made many statements since. Allow me to quote some of them with regard to this question. Among other things, he made speeches at Massey hall in Toronto on April 25, 1957,
The Address-Mr. Meunier on T.V. on April 30, 1957 and at Three Rivers on June 5, 1957; but I am not going to quote all those speeches, for they were reported in the newspapers on those dates. Nevertheless, I must say that he stated at the time that municipalities should have their share of the national revenue in order to carry out their plans and fulfil their obligations.
At that time, the government meant well and the municipalities put all their trust in it. But since then, the government has done nothing, and has left all the municipalities in the lurch.
In the fall of 1958, the government invited representatives of all the municipalities across Canada to come to Ottawa and make their needs known. Since then, nothing more has been heard about it.
What will happen to those municipalities which relied on the government? They will be cruelly disappointed and will have to make up for it on their own by increased taxation, with no help from level authority.
During the Russell by-election, I heard the Prime Minister say on T.V. that money should be made available for the ordinary businessmen, small tradesmen and farmers. He criticized the strictness of the banks and their restrictions on credit.
If the banks are to be blamed, under the law they come under the authority of the federal government. All the government has to do is introduce legislation to bring them to reason if they are wrong.
If they are not allowed to do otherwise, let it be known and let us take steps to correct the situation.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to bring the attention of this house on a current problem facing the small tradesman, the ordinary businessman and the farmer: that is the tight money policy applied by the banks and brought in by the government, a situation which the government will not admit.
The consequences of that tight money policy are disastrous and in many instances have caused work to stop on alterations to buildings, housing and major undertakings such as waterworks and sewer projects which would have helped the economy of the country and secured jobs for the people. In many cases, it resulted in contractors going bankrupt because they could not carry on nor meet their obligations.
The government has never lived up to its responsibilities in that field; instead of that, it has tried to blame others for those credit restrictions.
On this matter, I would like to read an article published in the Montreal Star of October 9, 1959 concerning a speech made

The Address-Mr. Meunier the previous day by the Minister of Finance at the Empire Club of Toronto. This is what he said:
(Text):
The speech gave the impression that Mr. Fleming, in resentment over outcries that Ottawa should do something about it, diverted the blame once again to the chartered banks.
He admitted, that, in his opinion, "the chartered banking system ol Canada is as good as any in the world." This should surely imply that the Canadian banks know how to conduct their business. Yet, he implies that they were not showing good banking sense in the manner in which they allocated their loanable resources.
(Translation):
In its October 23, 1959 issue, La Presse expressed the same opinion as the Star in criticizing the government for its lack of definite policy on the matter and for shifting its own responsibilities upon others. I quote:
They now approve what they were disapproving in 1956 and during the first six months of 1957. But one has the impression that their heart is not in it.
In fact, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have kept trying to decline all responsibility in the matter. They were mainly interested in finding scapegoats. So credit restrictions were attributed to the current national development, to the stand taken by the banking institutions where the general public transact business, and finally to the Bank of Canada, as if the bank could apply a monetary policy liable to affect the national economy without the formal or tacit consent of the government.
Mr. Speaker, that is the opinion expressed by publishers, editors and noted economists about the stand taken by the government on this matter which the government never dared tackle and never tried to solve.
The government never gave reasons for those credit restrictions laid down by the banks, but the banks did openly state their reasons. What were the reasons given by the banks? They explained that they have to keep a high percentage of savings deposits in order to be able to pay withdrawals by customers. Now, under the law, when the government's debt was converted in the summer of 1958, all bank savings were exhausted so that banks had only two solutions left to maintain their reserves: sell their securities or borrow from the Bank of Canada at a higher rate than they could lend money under the law. Placed in a dangerous dilemma with regard to the conduct of their business, banks preferred to restrict credit to their customers and recover their funds in order to meet their obligations on the exchange market. To this matter of credit restriction is linked also, Mr. Speaker, that of interest rates which prevent capital

expansion and industrial and. commercial development.
Credit restriction is linked with interest rates. For the last two years, interest rates have skyrocketed and the government has had to pay a very stiff rate on its 1958 conversion loan. It is the government which sets the example, and no one knows where that inflationary trend will stop. As I said a moment ago, municipalities and school boards cannot borrow any more, are paralysed in their development, although the Prime Minister had promised to do his utmost to put money at the disposal of everyone for the expansion of the whole community.
What is the government doing to prevent such conditions? Nothing. And it intends to let things follow their course without doing anything to lessen the uneasiness which is paralyzing this country's economy in several sectors.
I should have liked the Prime Minister to deal with those issues that are vital to the people of Canada, when he rose in this house last week.
I should have liked him to tell us if he shared the views which Mr. Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, expressed in his report that was published early this month, and in which he said that when the money supply is not being increased, the interplay of offer and demand causes the interest rate to rise; and he also notes that government borrowings have absorbed the savings deposits.
We also noticed that the industrial bank has raised its interest rate, which is now 7 per cent, so that the support and assistance it could give to the small industry are now limited.
However, I still hope that a minister of the crown, namely the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for several of the matters I have dealt with, will spell out the government's policy. This is being anxiously awaited by the people of Canada.
When sitting on this side of the house, the Minister of Finance-who was then an expert -embarrassed the government of the time by criticizing the interest rate set by the Bank of Canada. Thus he pointed out that on October 12, 1955, the interest rate set by the Bank of Canada had risen from 2 to 2J per cent, whereas on November 18, 1955, the same rate set by the Bank of Canada had risen from 2J to 2J per cent. Here are his words on the subject, as reported in Hansard for March 27, 1956, on page 2648:
The effects of this series of sudden increases in the bank rate have been disturbing to confidence. Every time the bank rate was raised it had the effect of subtracting millions of dollars from the value of bonds held by Canadians, including dominion government bonds.

We should like to know, and surely this house is entitled to know, what is the government's purpose in this matter? How serious is the view they take of the way inflationary forces are working? What is to be the scope of anti-inflationary policy? Give us something to judge their efforts by.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the shoe is on the other foot. Now it is the government's turn to shed some light on those matters, and to give the people of Canada a clear and definite picture of those matters that are vital to Canada's economic life. We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to hearing the Minister of Finance answer these questions.
(Text):


Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: Mr. Speaker,
the third session of the twenty fourth parliament has been ushered in in a notable and colourful way. The mover (Mr. Morissette) and the seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne have discharged their responsibilities, and are to be congratulated. The new members of the house are welcome to this exclusive assembly. All of us wish them a measure of success and satisfaction as they exercise their responsibilities as members of parliament.
Our parliamentary system is the result of the devotion of dedicated men and women to the principle of government by the people through their elected representatives. The supremacy of parliament was not easily won, and is one of the dearest possessions that can be claimed by those who believe in democracy. There have been times even in the history of our nation when ministers of the crown and governments have not been too careful of their responsibilities to parliament. During the recess, I took the opportunity to refresh my memory in regard to some of that history and the part taken by some of those on the front benches on both sides of the house.
The present government is comparatively young. Most of those who are ministers are comparatively new to their tasks. Those of us who sit as ordinary members are in many cases even less experienced in the usages of parliament. But if we heed the message of previous parliaments we cannot escape the conclusion that the fate of governments is often decided by ordinary members who have endeavoured to uphold the traditions of the democratic process by a frank and forthright appraisal of the progress of the administration.
Those who sit in the opposition are in an enviable position in that regard, in so far as their appraisal is expected to be a critical analysis of the government's program. History has proven that numbers mean nothing in so
The Address-Mr. Nasserden far as effectiveness of an opposition is concerned. The role of an ordinary government member is much more difficult, particularly when there is a weak and decadent opposition in parliament. Such is the case in Canada's parliament today.
It is against this background that I would like to discuss what has been happening in agriculture and bring to the attention of the government the views of a great and growing number of farm people, including many of my own constituents living in such centres as Kinistino, Weldon, Brancepeth, Birch Hills, Beatty, Fenton, St. Louis, Domremy, Hoey, Tway, Tarnopol, Meskanaw, Ethelton, Path-low, Cudsworth, Carpenter, St. Julien, Alvena, Smuts, Fish Creek, Viscount, Young, Colon-say, Zelma, Allan, Bradwell, Dundurn, Blucher, Elstow, Warman, Osier, Hague, Rosthern, Duck Lake, Batoche, Laird, Hepburn, Waldheim, Mennon, Dalmeny, Aberdeen, Vonda, Prud'homme, Rak, Dana, Peterson, Bruno, Fulda, Pilger, Middle Lake, St. Benedict, Reynaud, Plunkett, St. Isidore de Bellevue, Crystal Springs, Cheviot, Sutherland, Floral, Rutan, Meacham, Ens, Laniwci, Cory, Burr, Hagen, Tiger Hills, and Guernsey.
I hope no one will think that my remarks today are in any way critical of what the government is doing. It is the job of the opposition to be critical, and during the past year the opposition has not touched upon the matters with which I wish to deal this afternoon; they have only given them passing reference during the present debate. One would think they were unaware of the situation, or careless of its consequences.
I am one of those who believes that agricultural policy has one prime and overriding objective, namely a fair share of the national income to those who produce the nation's food. Down through the years farmers, farm organizations and most of our ministers af agriculture have agreed that stability of production and orderly marketing were instruments valuable beyond compare as a means of achieving that objective. So it was that the former government, under the guiding influence of the minister of agriculture, the Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner, brought into being, among other measures, the old prices support act. Farm people across Canada wanted something better. They were encouraged to believe that the new stabilization act would provide that something better. I would remind hon. members of the preamble to that measure. I quote:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour
470	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nasserden
and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income-
As I look around this assembly I need not ask how many of us are here because of the wording of that preamble together with the great decision taken in 1957 by the government led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) which placed an additional $50 million at the disposal of the supporting fund to finance that program.
Several months ago the government announced sweeping changes in the support price structure for eggs and hogs. These changes have caused a great deal of anxiety among farmers in Rosthern constituency. That anxiety has been shared by the member who represents those people in this parliament. It has been proposed by the stabilization board that deficiency payments will be paid to those marketing limited grades of quality eggs and hogs; that the returns across Canada will be averaged on a national basis and that a fiat deficiency payment will be available to those who market, regardless of what they received in the market place.
If I understand this program correctly, it is the most retrograde step that could be taken from an already established position. Moreover, the arguments used are unworthy of an informed ministry. As you all know, the government and individual ministers get a lot of advice. Some of that advice is good; some of that advice is bad; some of that advice is simply outrageous. I know that there are those so-called economists who believe that cheap food is the answer to the problems in the Canadian economy. However, when it comes to industry, these so-called economists have no trouble in establishing the need of a return on investment.
I am told that when the board of transport commissioners for Canada make their decisions and recommendations in regard to freight rates, some of these so-called economists maintained that the railways were entitled to a return on their investment. These same economists have no trouble in promoting the establishment of those instruments that prevent low priced goods from entering Canada. Somehow, only the farmer can be left to rely on his own resources.
Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that these so-called economists are not economists at all. They are out for hire to prove any case you want to place in their hands. In the case of eggs and hogs they have exhibited the ultimate in their trade, and I would seriously suggest that the government take a good close look at where it got its advice, and the supporting premises,


in so far as deficiency payments are concerned as they apply to eggs and hogs.
It has been said that the plan of deficiency payments will protect the small farmer. I want to suggest to the distinguished gentlemen sitting on the front benches that I even tried to sell that argument, but I never could convince myself that it was valid. The producers of eggs and hogs have been placed at the mercy of the speculative market; I believe some call it supply and demand. There is no effective support price for eggs and hogs today, even for the limited grades which will command deficiency payments. The return to the individual farmers is a fluctuating question mark.
Equally serious is the demoralizing effect on prices for those grades not covered by deficiency payments. Grade B eggs, for instance, are still considered eggs of good quality. They are a sizeable portion of the market. The economists might be consulted, and even they could verify that the same chicken that lays a grade A egg today can lay a grade B egg tomorrow.
A great deal of attention has been focussed on the surplus aspect of support prices. Our surplus problem, while considerable, is not nearly as difficult as some would have us believe. Quotas on producers could have been just as effective under a support price program as under deficiency payments. Furthermore, as I read the stabilization act, it was not designed to solve our surplus problems; it was designed to ensure income, stability and a measure of security to the people engaged in Canada's basic industry of agriculture. The problems of surplus disposal are related but, nevertheless, altogether separate and distinct, as such.
As I see it, the policy as announced and explained has withdrawn every incentive to stability in the production and marketing of these perishable products. This policy cannot help but be self-defeating. This policy cannot help but drive the small producer out of business. This policy cannot help but encourage the speculator to manipulate the price. This policy cannot help but encourage disorderly supply and marketing. These facts are so self-evident that the chaotic consequences of this policy on the Canadian economy cannot escape anyone knowing the agricultural situation.
But the reason that prompts my bringing this matter up for discussion at this time is more far-reaching than what will happen to the producers of eggs and hogs alone. Every agricultural producer in Canada can clearly see how dangerous this interpretation of the stabilization act could be to the agricultural

The Address-Mr. Nasserden
community if this program were allowed to continue unchallenged and to become a precedent.
I was not in the house when the stabilization bill was under enactment. However, during the election campaign I certainly did not interpret its provisions in such a way as to even allow the possibility of what is being proposed taking place. I may have misinterpreted the act, and if I did so I make my sincere apologies to my electors, and on their behalf I now urge upon this government, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) and the Prime Minister the necessity of removing the inconsistencies and contradictions now so apparent in the application of an otherwise outstanding piece of legislation.
The other matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the house concerns an omission from the speech from the throne, one that is most disturbing to those engaged in grain growing in western Canada. I refer to the two-price system on wheat used in domestic consumption for food. Hon. members will recall that in the dying days of the 1958 session of parliament an acreage payment was made available to the producers under the wheat board which was roughly equivalent to what they could expect under a two-price system. The sponsor of that motion was none other than the Prime Minister. His eloquent words appear on page 4747 of Hansard of September 6, 1958.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to authorize provisional payments for the 1959-60 crop year in respect of unthreshed grain in the prairie provinces.
An act to provide for short-term credit to prairie grain producers.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was dealing with
the farm income situation in western Canada with regard to wheat particularly and had referred to the acreage payment made in 1958 to the producers in the wheat board region and to the fact that the sponsor of that motion had been none other than our Prime Minister. I was about to quote his words found at page 4747 of Hansard of September 6, 1958, which are as follows:
The principle was set forth by the Minister of Agriculture, and I set it forth the other day. It is a provision that is meant to meet an immediate situation. The amount in question is, as I stated the other day, more than the amount which for so many years represented the request on the part of hon. members of the C.C.F., the amount that would have to be paid into wheat board funds in order to secure for the farmer under a two-price system a fair and proper return for that portion of his wheat production which is used in Canada.
Last year there was unequivocal agreement with regard to the fairness of the two-price system as evidenced by the debates in this house. I should like to quote from the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Rogers) found at page 2980 of Hansard of April 23, 1959. They were as follows:
With respect to the western grain grower, I think we will have to go to the two-price system. After all, why should the people of Canada consume farm products purchased at prices giving a return to the farmer below his production costs?
He went on to say this:
If we add a dollar a bushel it would only mean about two cents per loaf to the consumer of local bread.
On the same day and in the same debate the distinguished and hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) had this to say as reported at page 2985 of Hansard:
It is a sad situation in western Canada today to observe that on a loaf of bread costing 20 cents or 22 cents, the western farmer receives only 3.2 cents.
He went on to ask for an inquiry into the bakery business and concluded with these words, "in other words a two-price system".
In the same debate, as reported at page 2997 of Hansard of that year, can be found the words of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), who lives in the very heart of Saskatchewan's wheat land. He said this:
Instead of the income of the western or other grain farmer going up, it has been gradually going down. Today the Canadian people are buying wheat cheaper than any person on the North American continent can buy it. This is not a fair situation, in an economy that is rising.
My only comment in that regard is this. How much more true today. I should now like to quote from an authority unequalled in the history of this parliament. I refer to none other than our Prime Minister (Mr. 472	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nasserden Diefenbaker). This is what he had to say as reported at page 4345 of Hansard of August 30, 1958:
The most outstanding characteristic of the prairie farm situation since the opening of the prairie provinces has been the variability of income.
Further he had this to say:
Averages are often used, but the use of average in relation to farm income conceals the real problem of a large proportion of prairie farmers who are operating small farm units.
Further he had this to say:
It is therefore this problem of the small farmer, together with the general problem of the variability of farm income, which the government seeks to meet through a comprehensive farm program.
The omission from the speech from the throne of any reference to this matter of a two-price system or an acreage payment in lieu of it is certainly disappointing to the people of Saskatchewan and those in Rosth-ern constituency. Surely a situation so eloquently acknowledged when the acreage payment was voted by parliament in 1958 cannot be ignored, and a situation so eloquently brought forward again for attention by such outstanding members as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Rapp), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Homer), the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir). I refer to the debates of February 3, 1959.
I would not bring this matter forward at this time except that viewed in concord with what has been proposed for the support of eggs and hogs farm people in the province of Saskatchewan and in Rosthern constituency cannot help but question the direction this government seems embarked upon taking with regard to the people in agriculture.
I notice that my remarks have been causing some little stir among those in the opposition. They would be well advised to control their contortions. If there had been only one from among the whole lot of them, C.C.F. and Liberals combined, who had discharged his duty and responsibility faithfully here in the past year, I need not have made the remarks that today constitute my contribution to this debate.
It will be asked of me: how can you support the address in reply to the speech from the throne after voicing these doubts? I need only look to the opposition ranks and their record in Hansard to confirm my belief that notwithstanding the present shortcomings the policy of this government is in general one that still commands my support and confidence. The government has a good record of achievement in many fields. As


was pointed out by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), the economic outlook for 1960 shows promise of improvements. My remarks today have been designed to signify some area of endeavour where more particular attention is required if farmers are to share in the optimistic outlook referred to by some people recently.
Furthermore, I believe that the people of my constituency share with me a confidence in the present administration and its sincerity of purpose. Their belief in the Prime Minister's integrity is still unimpaired. I am heartily in accord with these views and will support the motion.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate you and tell you how glad we are to see you again presiding over our deliberations.
I also congratulate the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) on their appointment to the cabinet.
I also extend my best wishes to the new parliamentary secretaries and sympathize with those who hoped for such appointments and failed to get them.
My congratulations also to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who moved the address. He performed his task most creditably and his Conservative colleagues were no doubt pleased with his speech. If his supporters were pleased, no doubt his speech caused astonishment to many taxpayers who have to face realities and problems left unsolved by the present government. I do not want to forget to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) who seconded the address in a most objective fashion and won the admiration of all the members in this house.
I also congratulate the two new members now sitting in this house, the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) both of whom we are particularly happy to have among us.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention during this debate to follow the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) into the morass into which he led us this afternoon. I take my function as a member of parliament too seriously to waste my time identifying the cars owned by the hon. members in this house. I must say quite frankly that if I spent my time doing this I would certainly not be appreciated by the people of Beauce constituency. If the people of Montmagny-L'lslet are satisfied with such remarks, well it is up to them.

The speech from the throne which was presented to us was most vague and, particularly, most incomplete. I call to witness the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) himself, only a few hours after the address, chose to announce legislation which the government had not seen fit to include, or nad simply forgotten to include in the throne speech itself.
Among the few pieces of legislation it contains, we find the government's intention to create a new department, the department of lands and forests, so as to co-ordinate research and promote production and conservation of natural resources in Canada with regard to woodlands.
To date, only the provinces have such departments for administering woodlands inside their limits, and it is to be hoped that this department will be able to give significant service without raising any jurisdictional issue with the provinces.
The speech from the throne also indicates the government's intention of extending the delay which had been determined with regard to payments concerning the trans-Canada highway, a project which was to be completed by the end of 1961.
Such a decision could be most advantageous for the province of Quebec, which has not yet seen fit to join that program and which consequently has lost millions of dollars each year in the last few years.
Here, I especially call upon the associate minister of defence who, according to his November speech in Toronto, seems to be somewhat in the confidence of the present Quebec provincial government. I would ask him to press his friends to have the province participate in that program.
I should like now to make a few comments in regard to suspension of mortgage loans by the government and the nefarious results of that decision. It was the Minister of Public Works himself, in his message on the occasion of national housing week, who said that housebuilding is of vital importance for every Canadian.
The minister added, in reference to national housing week, that this was an occasion for each and every one of us to remember that home building plays an important part in Canada's economic development, and that the housing industry ranks second on the national level-immediately after public works-in the field of capital investment.
The Address-Mr. Racine
And according to a report published in Le Devoir on September 26, 1959, the minister went on to say this:
There is every indication that housebuilding will continue to spearhead our expansion in future years. As the minister responsible to parliament for the operations of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is the federal government agency in the field of housing, I am particularly concerned with the achievements of the house building industry.
Housing construction must maintain its healthy condition. With the help of each and every citizen, at all levels of society, we shall, no doubt, reach our goal.
The Minister of Public Works at that time asked in that message, the help of each and every one. And yet the government of which he is a member was the first one to withdraw when it froze mortgage loans and unexpectedly stopped them.
As recorded in a Canadian Press release dated November 5, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), when explaining the suspension of those loans, stated that new loans would have little effect. The minister at that time was speaking on a C.B.C. television program entitled: Press Conference.
The great moneyman of this government emphasized that, even if the government lent more money right now, the effect on the number of house starts this winter would be scarcely perceptible, as the season was already far advanced.
I do not at all agree with that statement, for the suspension of the loans left those who have to deal with construction or other connected industries rather in a quandary, as they were not given any assurance that the loans would be re-established in the near future.
There are, in my riding, large forest operations-
(Text):


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member tell the house the total amount that the government has placed out on national housing loans as of June 10, 1957?
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, I do not have here the statistical data my hon. friend is asking for. If he wants to wait until I have finished my speech, he could then make his remarks about C.M.H.C. loans.
There are in my riding extensive forest development projects that were curtailed after this government announcement. We cannot blame forest contractors for doing as they did and for not relying on the vague and inexplicable policy of the present government.

The Address-Mr. Racine
This government policy gave rise to a feeling of uncertainty in the building forecasts for 1960 and even if the Minister of Public Works stated in his October 30 announcement that he did not think the freeze on credit facilities would affect winter employment in the building industry, I do not share his opinion.
I agree that the 20,000 houses started through loans granted in August, September and October will keep on supplying employment this winter, but on the other hand, related industries have reduced their output with the result that lay-offs are taking place.
The rise of interest rates from 6 to 6| per cent is hardly more encouraging and will certainly not prompt anyone who wants to build a home to do so when money is as scarce as it is now.
In the field of labour, unemployment is still rampant and the government has no effective policy to cure this ill.
The statistics I got from the unemployment insurance office of St. Georges de Beauce show that nothing has changed in our area as far as unemployment is concerned. And according to the statistics obtained, from November 1, 1959 to December 16, 1959 inclusively, there has been a 5 per cent increase in the cost of claims, as compared to the same period last year, which is not very encouraging and should be noted by the government.
In a televised speech, the Associate Minister of National Defence said that the government had taken dynamic steps which had proved most successful. Among other things, as a solution to unemployment, the minister mentioned house building-that statement was made on October 10-while he probably did not know that the Minister of Public Works, twenty days later-that is, on October 30-would announce that C.M.H.C. loans were being suspended.
Another measure announced by the minister and which, according to his forecasts, was to improve the unemployment situation, was the so-called improvement to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I do not see how that could reduce unemployment, and its main purpose was, above all, to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, of course at the expense of the workers.
The minister also mentioned another measure, that is, federal assistance to municipalities for winter works. That is a measure which has not obtained the results contemplated by the government, and several

municipalities did not avail themselves of it, realizing that the federal government's offer was not even sufficient to cover the supplementary expenses involved in winter works.
Furthermore, municipalities had another problem on their hands in 1959, and that was the difficulty of obtaining funds; there again, when they did obtain funds, it was at most exorbitant interest rates, a result of the present administration.
If we take a look at the statistics of the Quebec municipal board, we readily realize that municipalities must borrow at interest rates reaching unprecedented levels.
On September 2, the city of Abord a Plouffe, in the constituency of Laval, borrowed $965,000 at a net interest rate of 7.28 per cent; once again, that is quite different from a similar issue, made at the rate of 5.59 per cent, in September 1958.
On October 27, the municipality of Ste. Brigitte de Montmorency borrowed $55,000 at a net cost of 7.65 per cent. Yet in 1955, the same municipality had floated a loan at an interest rate of 4.32 per cent.
I could go on adding to the list, which clearly shows that interest rates have increased to such an extent that they practically preclude any new works being undertaken by municipalities, except in emergency cases.
When you think that a town such as Sillery, which in March 1958 borrowed at a net cost of 4.91 per cent, had to face a rate of 6.93 per cent on October 19, 1959, I can imagine that it will limit itself to really urgent works.
With the government measure not being too attractive and with this exorbitant interest on top of it, I seriously doubt that the municipalities, however much they may wish to co-operate in relieving unemployment, are financially able to help the Conservatives solve the problem.
That is why I disagree with the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) when he looks upon the so-called help to the municipalities as an efficient legislation particularly now when money is tight, because the present government has captured the market in order to pay its deficits.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, during the last election, promised that nobody would suffer from unemployment as long as he would be Prime Minister, might perhaps incite his government to accelerate public projects, as he promised to do.

The Address-Mr. Racine
The government could, as it indeed does, go on with projects that have already been prepared and provided for by the former government, and add to them the works it has promised to have done.
The construction of post offices, for instance, could be accelerated in order to give employment to the jobless.
At this point, I would be remiss if I did not thank the former minister of public works (Mr. Green) for carrying on with work undertaken by the former government and endowing the town of St. Georges with the proposed federal building. I also thank him for the new post office in East Broughton.
I hope that the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), will follow suit and may I point out to him that in some municipalities of those counties it is urgent that similar constructions be proceeded with. Even if he announced them himself, I am sure that the voters in my riding would be most satisfied, and so would I.
In Beauceville east, for instance, it seems that the revenue of the post office would justify the construction of a postal building. I humbly ask the minister to consider my request and I am convinced that the people of that community would appreciate getting a new post office as soon as possible. The policy to be followed with regard to the erection of the other post office buildings could be based on their respective revenues.
Another good way of providing employment in my constituency would be to undertake certain works along the Chaudiere river.
I am perfectly aware that the initiative for such works would have to come from the province of Quebec, but the head office in Ottawa might get in touch with its office in Quebec to consider the possibility of undertaking the works required to prevent the damage caused by floods and ice floes along that river. Such works might be started at St. Lambert and progress upstream via St. Georges. They might be restricted to the removal of islands and obstacles which hamper the flow of water and ice floes.
According to estimates by the Beauce country employment advisory committee, such works, if started soon, would provide employment for over 200 men, and the governments would be credited with cooperating in the winter employment campaign in Beauce county. A resolution to this effect has been submitted to the Minister of Public Works, and I hope he will be able to act upon it. Another matter that is close to my heart, and which I have been raising repeatedly since my election to this house,
is the extension of unemployment insurance to Canadian citizens working in the forests of Maine and New Hampshire. I shall have a further opportunity to raise this matter, because the resolution I placed on the order paper in this regard is the fourth on the list of those to be studied of this session.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet told us this afternoon that his constituency is bounded to the south by the state of Maine; I hope when the time comes, he will support me, in getting this resolution passed by the house, so that the people involved in this work may receive unemployment insurance benefits.
I should like to take this opportunity to offer my warm congratulations to the members of the Beauce regional employment consultative committee for the job they have done and their public-mindedness. Naturally they do not have available the same means as the government, but that question of unemployment seems to concern them more than it does the present government.
How will those restrictions and that unbearable money situation affect the fight against unemployment? In answer to that question, I shall read a resolution adopted by the Beauce regional employment consultative committee:
This committee suggests that a letter written in the following terms be sent to the federal Minister of Finance and to the member for Beauce. The Beauce regional employment consultative committee regrets that credit restrictions jeopardize the efforts being made to find work for the unemployed during the winter season.
Such is the verdict of people of all political affiliations who work generously to find a solution to the unemployment problem without the co-operation of this Conservative government.
Our money situation had other effects. Among others, according to a pamphlet issued by the Bank of Canada, Summary Statistics, the consumer or taxpayer, since he could not get any help from the banks, the normal financial organizations has applied to finance companies.
In July, 1958, again according to that pamphlet of the Bank of Canada, small loan companies had made loans available to the amount of $1,421 million and up till November of the same year the situation hardly changed since the same statistics show that the figure for November 1958 was $1,428 million. However, things have changed in 1959 and the total loans which reached $1,486 million in July 1959 increased by $68 million

The Address-Mr. Racine for five months only, and we find that the amount borrowed from those finance companies in November 1959 was $1,554,000.
Unable to borrow from regular sources, because this government monopolizes all the money available to meet its deficits,-the consumer went to those companies which lend at prohibitive interest rates.
In agriculture, a new policy has been established concerning quotas on hogs and eggs. It may be a little early to appreciate the results of this new policy. Under that program the producer will over 12 months, receive payments on 100 hogs only.
I wonder what some farmers will do who, for various reasons, were getting substantial revenue from hog breeding which they practised on a fairly large scale in order to make up for the loss of revenue on otherwise unprofitable lands.
Will this new policy mean that small local abattoirs-whose profits in many instances do not warrant the high expenses of organization for inspection and grading-will close down?
Will this new formula help solve the problem of surpluses, while maintaining satisfactory and fair prices to the farmer?
We shall probably have an answer to those questions as soon as we know the real effects of that legislation.
Without wishing to voice a final judgment on this form of farm relief, it as a (remedy for all the ills that befall the farmer. The compromise which the policy of deficiency payments represents is not a guarantee of prosperity for the farmer. The legislation rests on a principle tending to control farm production.
The farmer, who is at the same time a consumer, like all other taxpayers, has had to face a constant rise in the cost of living since 1957.
As a matter of fact, the consumer's price index shows that the cost of living index which had reached 123.1 in December 1957, had risen to a level of 127.9 in December 1959, which is an increase of 4.8 per cent.
In a branch which is of particular interest to the county of Beauce, maple products, the Stewart commission on price spreads mentioned that the price of maple syrup at the producer level is lower in Quebec than in any other province.


When one considers that Quebec, during the last ten years, produced 86 per cent of all Canadian maple syrup and 92 per cent of our maple sugar, and that the county of Beauce is the largest producer in this field, it is no wonder that I renew my request whenever I get the opportunity.
The reason given by the commission for these ridiculously low prices in Quebec is that the producer has to sell large quantities in bulk, at wholesale prices, for industrial use.
It seems to me that the government could initiate some research on the processing of this product so as to make it more profitable for the producers. The government could help the industry a great deal through research and through the giving of grants to the co-operative unions for the purchase of the necessary processing equipment.
Legislation which would be of great help to the consumer would be the reinstatement of the subsidy on sap buckets. Such legislation could be applied immediately. Every time I speak about those conditions in this house I am asked why the act that was enforced in 1940 was abandoned in 1955. I have answered many a time.
There are, at present, 21 million maple trees in Quebec and, thanks to the 1940 act, about 17 million sap buckets have been replaced. Is the former administration to be blamed for discontinuing legislation which made it possible to renew the sap-buckets when almost all of them had already been replaced? I must say that, at the present time, a great number of sap buckets should be replaced. The former administration has on three occasions taken action to help maple producers. In 1940, the preceding administration introduced the bill concerning this exchange; and the federal government undertook to pay a third of the cost of the sap bucket replacement. In 1945, the former administration passed another legislation to relieve maple sugar producers. In 1959, the government had, in fact, voted a bill to grant loans to co-operatives.
I can well remember that, last year, when I was dealing with the same matter, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), asked why the government-the former administration-had discontinued the legislation in favour of the maple sugar producers. I think that, now, like all other hon. members in the house, he will realize that, if the act was discontinued in 1955, it

is very important to enforce it again today. I also would therefore ask him to convince his Conservative colleagues before blaming the former administration for anything.
I was reading this afternoon in the debates of the House of Commons for 1950, page 3562, the words of a Conservative member who is now sitting here today. The house was then considering item 36 concerning the replacement of maple production equipment for an amount of $500,000. Here is what the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) said:
We again have this item, and I should like to ask the minister when it is going to end. An item to replace maple production equipment has appeared in the estimates in various amounts for the past fifteen years. As I said last year, if this goes on much longer we will be replacing the replacements.
I should like to point out to some hon. members of the house that it is at present necessary that those sap buckets be replaced.
I hope the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm will be able to convince them of that necessity. As the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin) was saying this afternoon-and he has none the less lauded a former citizen of Mont-magny-L'Islet-that one must not forget his predecessor; I recall that, when the former minister of northern affairs and national resources-who is now the Liberal party leader in the province of Quebec- replied to the member for Wentworth who was opposing the adoption of the item because it was the province of Quebec which benefited the most from it, he said:


Mr. Lesage:: May I ask the hon. member for Wentworth if he is outlining the Progressive Conservative policy when he objects to this item?
And later on:


Jean Lesage: That is what you are. You object to it because it is for the province of Quebec. We know you.
I have received several requests from small companies and rural telephone co-operatives in which I was asked to support their brief to the Minister of Finance, asking an amendment to the legislation governing the industrial bank development, in order to include them.
These small independent companies provide service covering three quarters of the geographical area of Quebec and Ontario, generally outside the larger centres, where the big corporations are not interested in establishing themselves.
I hope the Minister of Finance will do something about the brief submitted to him
The Address-Mr. Racine on March 23, 1959, and to which he replied that such a request would be considered when the new legislation was introduced.
This government, which has stopped giving grants to these companies for the improvement of their equipment, could at least grant that request.
I should not like to close my few remarks without referring to the fact that the constituency of Beauce has had the great privilege of welcoming the Prime Minister of Canada during the parliamentary recess. I did not have the pleasure to shake hands with him since I seldom go to functions where I am not invited. Since there was no civic reception in his honour, I gathered that it was first and above all the Conservative party leader who had been invited. I regret that it was not the Prime Minister who was invited instead of the Conservative leader because I would no doubt have been asked to meet him as a member of Parliament for my riding and also because he could have seen by himself that the people of Beauce county can extend a warm welcome to prominent figures who honour them with their visit. And Beauce county knows how to do things properly when it is the first citizen of the country who pays them the honour of a visit. That is why I say that only Tory organizers were in charge of the visit. This explains why the Prime Minister did not get the warm reception he was entitled to expect from the honourable citizens of Beauce riding who can justly appreciate the high office of the first citizen of our country.
I do not want the Prime Minister to be mistaken and I hope that he did not take seriously the promise made by a Beauce Conservative to the effect that he would win over the riding at the next election. Being himself an expert in the matter of promises and knowing very well what he does about them, he certainly did not take his supporter's promise too seriously.
I gladly invite him however to come back in the beautiful Beauce county as Prime Minister before the next elections if he cares to come in that capacity. First of all, he could appreciate for himself the warm hospitality of the people of Beauce county and nothing could be more helpful to me in my efforts to keep the county in the Liberal fold.
(Text):


David Vaughan Pugh: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?
478	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Stinson


Mr. Denis:: Ask your question of the ministers. You never get an answer. (Translation) :


An hon. Member:: Ask your question in French.
(Text):


David Vaughan Pugh: My question is this-you can translate it-in view of the fact that national housing loans on June 10, 1957, totalled approximately $100 million and in view of the fact that this government has advanced an additional $900 million and is now asking for an additional $500 million, does the hon. member feel that practically everything is being done in regard to national housing that can be done by this government?
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: I think the hon. member has not been following the remarks I made with regard to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
What I said was that the government had suddenly discontinued loans, which had the effect of placing industries dependent on construction in a difficult and uncertain position.
Surely my hon. friend must realize that certain materials are used in home building. With regard to wood in particular, forestry operations have slowed down rather than expanded, because the industry lacks confidence in the government. In fact, unemployment has increased in that industry.
(Text):


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for his clear and concise answer to my question.


Guy Rouleau: The question was quite confused.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
(Translation):


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Coles Stinson: -congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and offer him my best wishes; he was a gallant soldier and a distinguished businessman, and he also has been a popular member of this house. He will make an excellent Associate Minister of National Defence. I also congratulate the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker), who has been a Progressive Conservative in the city of Toronto for the past 35 years. He has been, and still is, one of the leading lights of the Ontario bar; he is well known for his loyalty-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Coles Stinson: -his diligence and his sense of humour.
As Minister of Public Works he will render great service to Canada. Equally fluent in both French and English, he sets an example to all members of the house.
(Text):
May I congratulate, and in no perfunctory way, the mover (Mr. Morissette) and the seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, whose speeches, read together, give a very splendid report on the state of the nation. A more extensive report can be found in the report of the proceedings of this house over the last few days of this throne speech debate.
In this connection I find myself, of course, in disagreement with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) who spoke earlier today and who I regret is not in his place at this time. I recall him saying in the course of his remarks that he had found nothing in the debate so far which could be called interesting, edifying or amusing. Mr. Speaker, I for one have benefited greatly from listening to the speeches made up to this time. I think the report of this debate is a unique report of the social and political conditions in this country and of some of the problems and difficulties that confront Canadians, of the actions taken by this government and of proposals for the solution of some of the problems and difficulties to which I have referred.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur, for whom I think most of us have considerable affection, has become a bit of an oracle in recent days. So that he will not think I have used an unparliamentary description of him, I would point out that the dictionary description of oracle is: "Any person reputed uncommonly wise and whose opinions have great weight." One can almost imagine that at a time, perhaps two or three years from now, when the hon. gentleman retires from politics, as he has said he plans to do, the hon. citizen undertaking what he might term Fisher planned parliamentary tours. I think hon. members could bring their imaginations to the point where they could see the hon. gentleman standing outside the peace tower on parliament hill, taking visitors by the hand and bringing them down the corridor here to the House of Commons and saying, "Now, my friends, we come to the place where the Canadian politicians carry on their activities". He might be expected to say, "Do not think that these activities involve any real work. Those people come down here, make speeches which they hope will sound good in their constituencies, do their best to appear as good fellows in the eyes of the prime

The Address-Mr. Stinson
minister and the other ministers and occasionally go back to the hustings and extol the virtues of their party and the government of the day". I do not think that many of us here look on our obligations in that way, nor will the visitors who might come under his direction get that impression. The hon. member was particularly critical of the role of the private member and of the level of parliamentary debate carried on by private members. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman has forgotten that in office today we have a government, and an administration, which pays very careful attention to the opinion of the private members of this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Very little.


Frederick Coles Stinson: I would remind the hon. gentleman and others who are interrupting at this time that the legislation which has been introduced in the last two years by this administration was introduced by people who sat here a long time as private members and who, in those many long years when they were in opposition, worked hard to bring about the ideas and legislation which are responsible for the great resurgence we have seen in recent months in the Canadian economy. It may just be, Mr. Speaker, that in the fullness of time the party to which the hon. gentleman belongs will assume political office in this country. I hope he remains in politics. I hope he stays here and listens to the debates and learns therefrom. Perhaps, when he is an old man he may be called back by his party and may some day be a minister of the crown and carry on the work which has been so well begun by this administration.
Mr. Speaker, the longer I spend in the House of Commons the greater respect I have for parliamentary institutions. I know that this respect has been deepened in recent months as a result of my having an opportunity last July to travel around a country under communist rule. In July I went by myself to the mainland of China. I went there, not merely out of a feeling of curiosity, but because I believe that in the next 50 years- and few of us will be around in public life or anywhere else when that time comes- the things that are happening in that country will greatly affect the way people will live in Canada and in all parts of the world. I went because I wanted to see how the communist political machine works and to try to determine what might be done by the government of this country and by Canadians to meet the world-wide communist offensive.
With this belief, and with these objectives, I travelled some 4,000 miles in the eastern part of the mainland. I came back detesting
the communist philosophy as I did before, but greatly disturbed by the indifference of Canadians to the communist threat and to the fact that communist controlled administrations now dominate about one third of the world's population and are steadily extending their influence. It is very difficult for a westerner to understand the attitudes and thinking habits of the present rulers of the mainland of China. I believe it is an obligation of our educators to become informed on these matters and to make the study of communist doctrine a part of the Canadian school or college curriculum.
I know, Mr. Speaker, one does not bring that kind of thing about by merely having conversations with professional educators. I intend to bring this matter to the attention of the responsible ministers in the ten provinces of Canada. This is a political philosophy, it is a way of life, which is affecting the daily conduct of millions of human beings, and yet how many Canadian can talk intelligently about the Marxist explanation of history or dialectical materialism? I suggest very few indeed. In order to defeat an enemy, we must know what he thinks; what he is trying to achieve, and the tactics he is likely to employ. The Chinese rulers, like their Russian counterparts, believe capitalism will crumble through internal weakness and the revolt of the proletariat, and will be replaced by what they term a classless society. For communists, the whole purpose of life is to promote world revolution.
When Chairman Mao or Mr. Khrushchev talk about working for peace, they are talking about peace in a world under communist domination. Education in communist doctrine is a never ending process in China today. It is carried out by a policy of mass persuasion in the kindergartens, schools, technical colleges, factories, communes, hospitals and jails. Hard work, physical and mental, is presented as the source of all wealth. In the kindergartens I saw children reading the communist version of the comic book which contrasted the greedy landlords of the past with the dedicated supervisors in the new people's communes. In a girls' school in Peking the lady principal told me that her pupils held a two-hour session each day on the subject of how they might increase agricultural production and thereby overtake what they termed the decadent bourgeois west. This was in a secondary school of 500 adolescent girls, and here they were devoting two hours a day to what was presented to them as the most pressing national problem. I wonder how many hours per year are spent by the school children of this nation on matters of that kind?
480	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Stinson
Down the street from this school there was a huge poster depicting a Wall street capitalist shaking a bomb in the faces of eager looking Chinese workers. In the technical colleges cadres of party members conduct regular classes in doctrine and practice. These are always very closely related because there is no place in that society for the pure theorist. In 1937, Chairman Mao Tse-Tung wrote:
Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action. If we have a correct theory, but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it, and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, has no significance.
Students at technical colleges in that country, Mr. Speaker, do not lack opportunities for practice, for each year they are sent out for two months' physical labour in the field or at dam building or on an irrigation project or something of that kind. Similar cadres are at work teaching in the factories. There the office workers are required to go down into the plant for two days each month on the machines so they will not forget that the work that really matters is done on the production line.
Near Peking I made a tour of a people's commune which was a combination of a state farm and eight agricultural collectives. Every worker was made to take part in one of the daily political discussions which were held in the mess halls after dinner. Perhaps the most politically active centres in the nation are the jails. In one jail I saw, nearly half the inmates were political prisoners. The warden told me that while it was important that a prisoner learn a trade while in jail, it was more important that he elevate what they called his political consciousness. In China today there is really no escape from the political influence. If a man seems to be wavering at all he is set upon by members of the street committee or a group of party workers who consider it their duty to reform his thinking. He is required to stand up and confess his past sins or to write out a laborious confession. If the instructor thinks it is incomplete, he is required to do it all over again.
This brainwashing, Mr. Speaker, can go on until a man begins to doubt the ordinary, simple things in which he used to believe. He gets to the point where he can hardly remember his own name. There is no place to which you can turn. If you try to find solace with your friends or children, you might find that they fear for themselves and their own future and will report you to the party.
Writers and artists are expected to express themselves in ideological terms. As


for literary criticism, a leading communist official has said that anything that is helpful to the development of productivity and social progress is good and the reverse is bad. I do not think there is anything in history as destructive of human values as this massive campaign of brainwashing. Millions of Chinese are now cut off from any connection with any ideas except those acceptable to the communist regime. Foreign books and periodicals except technical journals are not to be found in the country. The Christian ministers to whom I talked showed little interest in activities outside their country and declined to discuss social or political questions.
As the international commission of jurists reported last year, the pre-1949 judicial system has been abolished and has been replaced by people's courts. There is no written criminal code and a citizen can be arrested on mere suspicion of being a devi-ationist or, as they might call him, an enemy of the people. Civil liberties including the right to a fair trial are completely unknown in China today and hundreds of thousands of children who are receiving a good technical education have no opportunity to learn about any political system but their own. When the western democracies are mentioned, they are represented as countries ruled by greedy capitalists who control the administration of the government.
I do not presume to know how the Chinese people can be freed from the bondage of communist rule but I think that Canadians should be encouraged to go to China and to be as vigorous about defending our institutions as are the communists in extolling the virtues of theirs. I also think that the United States government must find a way of having United States correspondents and visitors admitted to mainland China. It would be useful also if students from the China mainland were invited to study in Canada. No doubt those who would come would be well indoctrinated communists, but who can assess the political effects of such students being exposed to a year or two of study in a free society?
For a long time to come the government of China will be preoccupied with the task of providing food for its rapidly expanding population. But the industrial revolution which is taking place in the country will make mainland China a major industrial power within 20 or 30 years. By that time it is to be hoped that with a rising standard of life and a closer connection with the people of India and of other countries of

the west the Chinese people will break free of the conformist communist regime which is now in control.
The question' of diplomatic recognition on the part of this government of the people's republic government has received a good deal of attention in editorial columns during the past year and has been touched upon by two or three speakers in this debate. Some observers and politicians think that public opinion is divided on this issue and that most Canadians believe that our government should extend this recognition. I do not think this is so but, in any event, I cannot see any advantage to Canada or to the free world arising from a change of Canadian policy in this regard.
This matter was discussed rather carefully by the late Mr. Sidney Smith, speaking in the House of Commons on February 26, 1959 and more recently by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) in Vancouver. I do not intend to review their arguments, but if the Chinese administration failed to meet the tests outlined by Mr. Smith a year ago they are less qualified now by reason of their excursions in the past year on the border of India.
But this is a matter, Mr. Speaker, which goes beyond questions of law and power politics. The Chinese government, the government on the mainland of China, is promoting a political ideology as part of the world offensive of the communist movement. The Canadian government should do everything in its power to resist the spread of this ideology and should give its unqualified support to the policy of the United States in this regard. When the policy of the United States is right, let us stand up and say so. There is no loss of sovereignty in staying with your friends when they are taking the right course.


Harold Edward Winch: How about the United Kingdom?


Frederick Coles Stinson: My friend the hon. member for Vancouver East asked the question: how about the United Kingdom? It was not long ago that I met a senior foreign service officer of the government of that country to whom I put such a question. My question was this: what advantage has accrued to your country or to the free world as a result of your recognizing that government? He said to me, "the simple answer to that question is 'no advantage' ".
I believe the course taken by the United States in this regard is right, for the following reasons. By refusing diplomatic recognition, the United States government is helping to keep alive the hopes of freedom loving people in southeast Asia. While it is quite impossible, because of economic conditions 79951-0-31
The Address-Mr. Stinson and illiteracy, to establish in those countries the kind of democratic institutions that we enjoy, the anti-communist forces in those countries are standing in the first line of defence against communism. Recognition of the Chinese communist regime by the United States would be interpreted by these people as a sign that the west had abandoned southeast Asia to the communists. Diplomatic recognition would be followed by the admission of communist China to the United Nations and other world councils. This would be a great victory for Peking and the world communist movement, a victory which the west would have handed over without receiving anything in return. To those who would say that having China in the United Nations would improve the chances for peace may I point out that there is no evidence at all that the Chinese would change their anti-western policies if admitted to that body. There is overwhelming evidence that they would use their position to extend communist rule.
It is frequently argued that extending diplomatic recognition does not imply approval of the internal policies of a foreign government. I believe this is true. But I also believe that when the avowed policy of such a government is to spread the communist ideology and to extinguish free institutions- and it is just as simple as that-the government of Canada and the government of the United States should refuse recognition to the government of mainland China and attempt to take whatever political action may seem advisable in all spheres to meet the communist offensive.
I said that I have been disturbed by the indifference of Canadians to the advance of communism. 1 am equally disturbed by the complacency of Canadians toward certain trends in our own economic and political system. With the resurgence of the economies of the countries in western Europe Canadian exporters are going to find it harder to sell their goods in that market. Management and labour representatives should be working together to bring down the prices of Canadian goods. In this connection I think it would be useful if delegates of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress-and some of those delegates are in this city today; that is to say delegates from that latter body and I have had the opportunity already today to bring this proposal to their notice-held a conference this spring which should be named "the bring down prices conference". We have had from the opposition suggestions-one as recently as today, I believe, from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-that this conference should be convened by the
482	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Stinson government. It seems to me that it would be a good thing in a matter of this kind if the initiative could be taken by either or both of these organizations.
Perhaps each of them has come to think that the government should take the lead in a matter of this kind. I think it would be a very healthy thing if business and labour undertook projects of this kind on their own initiative and without forever leaning on the government and looking to the government for the solution of all their problems. They would be setting a very fine example to other organizations in this country.
Mr. Speaker, recently a Toronto educator said that you cannot build a strong nation out of a soft people. While there is increasing interest in public affairs, and I have evidence of this in my own constituency, I am not satisfied that our educators are making their students aware that they are going out into an increasingly tough and competitive world. I said earlier that students should be taught what the communists believe and how they operate. It is equally important that they should be taught what their responsibilities are as free citizens.
A Toronto paper reported on January 9 that in a poll of the first year class at the University of Alberta, half the students could not locate Ottawa on a topographical map of Canada. With the acquiescence of parents, students are placing athletic achievements and social standing ahead of high standing in the classroom. With this scheme of priorities, how in the world will they be able to compete with people of other countries where hard thinking and hard work are the only things that matter?
For many years in this parliament there have been debates on federal aid to education. There are bills on the order paper in respect of education, and I hope to have an opportunity to speak more fully on this subject later in the session. I am familiar with the constitutional difficulties in this regard, but I think we should remember that this constitution- by that I mean the British North America Act-was written almost one hundred years ago and that many concerns which were expressed at that time have no foundation today. I have not met one member of parliament who did not believe that we should work toward equalization of opportunity for all Canadians in the field of education. No doubt much can be done in this regard through the machinery of tax rental agreements and tax sharing arrangements; but I think that a federal advisory board on education-and I advocate the establishment of such a board-


would be of great value in the matter of curriculum and in the matter of promoting educational research.
A survey conducted last year by Anthony Frisch of Toronto, the results of which are published today and which are in the hands of hon. members, shows that there is strong support for such an agency from members of parliament, members of legislatures and chairmen of school boards across Canada. Such a board could be quite adequately financed for many, many years by a sum of money equal to the price of a single Bomarc installation.
In a recent issue of the Ottawa Journal the editor proposed some new year resolutions, one of which was as follows:
To quit viewing things with alarm but to act instead with the serenity and courage that befits representatives of so fortunate and prosperous a people.
While I have not adopted the first part of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think that any of us can, I think that all hon. members will support the second.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: 
Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. allow me a question?


Samuel Boulanger: After I finish my speech, I shall gladly answer the questions of the hon. member for Dorchester.
The Minister of Agriculture may go on saying that the farm net revenue has increased in 1958 by 20 per cent over 1957, he may say that the Conservatives have done more in two years than the Liberals in 22 years, but he will never bring farmers to believe that they make more money. The best proof is found in official statistics. Despite the speeches of the Minister of Agriculture, the net revenue which the farmers got from the sale of farm products decreased by $181 million as compared with the last ten years of the Liberal government, that is from 1946 to 1956.
In previous debates during last session, we gave figures in this house. As soon as we gave a figure the Minister of Agriculture jumped up to say they were wrong. I challenge him to refute the value of the figures I give today because they come from official statistics.
I see that the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson), a great friend of the exminister of agriculture, Mr. Gardiner, would like to ask a question. I ask him to be good enough to wait until I am through.


That is the reason why the western farmers came to ask the Prime Minister to give them the parity prices he had promised them during the election.
If the western farmers are discontented and demoralized, eastern farmers are not less so. As a matter of fact, our farms are being abandoned. Farmers are leaving their land by the thousands, not to speak of the young people who do not want to stay on the farm any more because they have no hope to earn a living or to be able to found a family or assure their future. They are deserting the land and are swelling the ranks of the unemployed in the cities.
One of the causes of anarchy prevailing in our farm industry today, originates in the farm price stabilization act which was advocated by a Minister of Agriculture who has no experience and no overall concept of our farm economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear. Hear.


An hon. Member:: He does not know what he is talking about.


Samuel Boulanger: It did not take two years for that legislation, enacted on March 3, 1958, to show its worth.
After having fixed the price of certain farm products on the basis of purchase, the minister now changes his mind to adopt the deficiency payment system; a rather strange solution to a problem which the government brought about itself.
The reason for the change of approach confirms the incompetence of a government without foresight. To check hog surplus production, it penalizes those producers whom it had itself urged to produce. The only one responsible for the present situation is the government itself.
On April 1, 1958, without anyone asking for it, the Minister of Agriculture increased the floor price from $23 to $25, thus urging industrial merchants and others to raise hogs.
Something, of course, had to be done to check that surplus production or to compensate for the mistakes made by the minister, but why should the farmers and producers be paying for those mistakes?
The minister expects, with his scientific method, to penalize big producers to the advantage of little ones. He should take care not to stub his toe. He will no doubt solve the surplus problem but such a policy will not solve the case of small and middle breeders.
The Minister of Agriculture stated in a press release that from 90 to 95 per cent of

farmers would be entitled to deficiency payments; theoretically, it is true, but in practice it is quite a different story. I claim it is a mistake to assume that from 90 to 95 per cent of the producers will benefit from deficiency payments.
The breeders are not necessarily those who deliver hogs on the market.
Many of them have specialized in breeding piglets for sale to other breeders who fatten them up to 200 pounds.
On October 21 last, the Minister of Agriculture stated that, as from January 11, 1960, the government would stop buying surplus hogs at fixed price, that it would leave them on a free market, even if it meant direct deficiency payments to producers. This caused concern to breeders who had specialized in piglet breeding. Many of them became discouraged and gave up that type of breeding, after selling their piglets for as low as $5.
Now, the new support price system which was advocated to protect small producers will have helped wipe them off the market.
I should like also to say a few words about the egg price support policy. On August 26, last, the Minister of Agriculture stated that the government formula for buying eggs at 44 cents a dozen would be changed and replaced by the new system of deficiency payments, which means that the government would guarantee the difference between the average national price paid to the farmer and the guaranteed price of 33 cents for grade A large eggs, up to a maximum of 4,000 dozen, to the producers who had registered at a grading station. This legislation was enforced on the first of October of last year, despite many protests from all parts of the country.
With this new system, the minister wanted to slow down production which was constantly accumulating.
However, the responsibility for the surpluses rests with no other than the government.
Indeed, on May 5, 1958, the Minister of Agriculture increased the price of a dozen eggs from 38 to 44 cents, though no chicken breeder group had requested such action.
Can we then blame chicken breeders for organizing, so as to take advantage of those prices? Could we have blamed them for capitalizing, mechanizing and taking better care of their livestock? No.
A year later, that is on May 7, 1959, the short-sighted Minister of Agriculture made another official announcement to the effect that changes were forthcoming in the hog and egg support price system, that deficiency payments would be made on limited production.
The Address-Mr. Boulanger
It was then that protests were raised in the newspapers and in chicken breeders' associations. Nobody wanted those deficiency payments. Instead, the minister was advised to lower the support price, even if it meant amending the act. No attention was paid to the protests and the minister as always, imposed his arbitrary system. It has been in force now for close to four months, but the effects can already be seen.
I have here the prices now being paid to chicken breeders in western and eastern Canada. In a review published in the Montreal Gazette for Wednesday, January 27, 1960, egg prices for Regina were quoted at 12c. to 14c. for grades A and B, and pork prices at $18.20 per hundredweight.
Mr. Speaker, a chicken breeder who keeps
5,000	hens with a production of 50,000 dozens will benefit from the new legislation only to the extent of 4,000 dozens, and will receive only 15 cents on the remaining 46,000 dozens, assuming that the price is then 15 cents a dozen as it is now for western breeders; a farmer will thus be getting an income of less than $7,280 on an annual basis.
I have mentioned a 15 cents price, whereas the actual price is between 12 and 13 cents a dozen.
In Ontario, about 1,700 egg producers have over 5,000 hens, and their total production is half the over-all total for the province.
In Nova Scotia, two producers are supplying 50 per cent of the market.
Western farmers will be the hardest hit by this legislation, in view of the price gap existing with other parts of the country.
Assuming that they sell their eggs at 13 cents a dozen, which is the present price in certain western areas, and that the national average at the end of the year is established at 25 cents, they will receive 8 cents a dozen in deficiency payments, which represents the difference between the 33 cents minimum price.
The price received by a western breeder for his production will therefore be 21 cents a dozen, while an eastern farmer now selling his eggs at 22 cents a dozen, will also receive 8 cents in deficiency payments, making his sale price-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Samuel Boulanger: -30 cents a dozen. This means a difference of 9 cents in the final price received by eastern farmers as compared with western farmers.
(Text):


Mr. C. E. Campeau (Si. James):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the first time in this session, I wish to express my congratulations to you for your serene chairmanship and your enlightened judgment in bringing to fruition the deliberations of this house.

The Address-Mr. Campeau (Translation):
I also wish every success to the new chairman of committees of the house, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), whose many qualities, which all his colleagues already appreciate, will be an important contribution to the maintenance of efficiency in our discussions.
I also wish, Mr. Speaker, to add my own congratulations to those extended by the hon. members who spoke before me, to the hon. members for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The former spoke with ability, and the latter with both ability and charm.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), as well as the new parliamentary secretaries.
May I also welcome our new colleagues, the member for Hastings-Prontenae (Mr. Webb) and the member for Russell (Mr. Tardif ).
May I also be allowed to greet the new Sergeant-at-arms, and lastly, I wish a full measure of health and success to the former secretary of state who has just been called to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that it is almost ten o'clock?
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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


Mr. Pearkes:: We shall continue this debate tomorrow.


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