1960-01-29

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the statement reported to have been made yesterday by him to the Canadian Labour Congress that every country of the commonwealth must be permitted to carry out its own policies internally without interference, whether he believes that this principle applies also to all other members of the United Nations.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the observation I made yesterday had to do with the statement in the brief presented by the C.L.C., which read as follows:
To say the least, we feel extremely uncomfortable in the same company with the government of South Africa, and would favour its exclusion from the councils of the commonwealth of nations.
The observation I made at that time was this; that the commonweath is representative of countries in various stages of democratic advancement, and that I would not support any action to exclude from the councils of the commonwealth of nations the Union of South Africa, regardless of my strong feelings in respect of discrimination.
With regard to the question asked as to the difference between the commonwealth and the United Nations, I think the answer is apparent when some consideration is given to the membership of the United Nations and the membership of the commonwealth. So far as the commonwealth is concerned, it is a voluntary organization joined together by those principles which are generally accepted as the British heritage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. I do not think the Prime Minister dealt with my question as to whether the same principle would have to be applied under the United Nations charter to every member of the United Nations as would have to be applied to members of the commonwealth at the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the application of the principles of the United Nations charter
79951-0-324
was not a matter falling under the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the question as put ranges beyond the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: The Prime Minister has kindly given us clarification of one of the statements he made yesterday on this matter, and I should now like to ask him a question with regard to another statement he made yesterday on the same subject. Does the Prime Minister now wish to reconsider the statement he made yesterday that the apartheid question in South Africa is not one that he would like to see brought up, or see discussed, at the meeting of prime ministers next May? Does the Prime Minister not think that in view of the character of these meetings, their secrecy, this is among the kind of questions that should be and have been discussed among the prime ministers of the commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not the transcript of my remarks before me, and the hon. gentleman is reading from a press statement. What I stated was simply this, that I would not bring before the prime ministers' conference, or indeed support, any action that would exclude the Union of South Africa from the councils of the commonwealth of nations.
I know the hon. gentleman wants to be helpful. If he were in the position of prime minister, with his regard for the commonwealth, I wonder whether he or his leader would support exclusion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No one supports the exclusion of any member of the commonwealth. The question was not exclusion but discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no; there was no reference other than to the matter of exclusion, which is a course I would not accept. I think, from the hon. gentleman's statement, that he joins with me in holding that view.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the clarification which the right hon. gentleman has just given may I ask him, then, whether we are to understand that he would not oppose any discussion of this matter at a prime ministers' conference such as the one he will attend next May?


John George Diefenbaker: There is no agenda in the ordinary sense of the word at prime ministers' conferences. Matters are discussed
Inquiries of the Ministry there; decisions are not made. Those things which affect the various parts of the commonwealth, both internal matters and external relations, are discussed. In my experience-and it is a short one, for I have attended only one conference, though I have read the reports of all previous conferences -there are no vetoes on discussion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to address a question to the Prime Minister based on the belief that it is the responsibility of his position to clarify government policy when doubt and speculation abound in this country. My question is, will the Prime Minister at this time inform the house whether a free vote will be held on the bill for the abolition of capital and corporal punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: If I am not mistaken that question was asked earlier in the session and dealt with. It relates to the proceedings of the house and to the action of the Prime Minister as a party leader, not as Prime Minister; and I doubt if it is a proper question except in so far as it becomes relevant when the matter is before the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did ask that question on the orders of the day, and I think the Prime Minister said the matter had not been decided and would be given consideration. Is it not appropriate to ask, a week or ten days later, what has been the result of that consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: At first blush it seems a highly improper question, to ask any hon. member to allow members to vote freely in this house. It is a principle of our proceedings that hon. members decide themselves how they are to vote. It is a reflection on the house to suggest -that anybody will tell them how to vote.
If hon. members will hear me out without further noise or interruption I will go on to state that in so far as voting is a matter of party restraint or influenced by party decisions, then it is a party matter and not one of the administrative responsibility of a minister of the crown. It seems to me in those circumstances that this is not a proper question to raise on the orders of the day, because it does not relate to administrative responsibility nor to the business of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Your Honour is correct in saying it is a principle, but unfortunately it is not a fact. Therefore may I ask the question in a different way. Will the Prime Minister inform the house as to when a decision will be made as to a free vote, and will it be done-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What I have already said, the hon. member must appreciate, applies equally to what the hon. member is now endeavouring to ask.


Harold Edward Winch: Then I should like to ask this question. When that question was asked some ten days ago it was allowed and an answer was given to the effect that it was under consideration. Why was it allowed then and not now?


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that that was a temporary lapse on the part of the Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
house leader if any special arrangements are being made for a discussion of the question of capital punishment during this session?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to that question. It will naturally require a degree of co-operation between the members of the opposition and the members of the government. The time available for the discussion of a matter as important as this would under ordinary rules be limited to one day. I feel we might have discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the house to the end that the fullest possible discussion could be ensured.


Harold Edward Winch: May I just ask this. In view of the question just asked and the answer given, why was I ruled out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member first read the Hansard report, and if he will come to me I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him and endeavour to explain.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has discussed the possible method of handling the matter in the house I want to say on behalf of the C.C.F. party that we will co-operate with the Prime Minister and the house leader in so arranging the business as to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is allowed to rise at this particular moment only to ask questions. I appreciate his willingness to co-operate, but there is a proper time to express that willingness, and it is not at this moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his suggestion about how we might deal with the question of capital punishment. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that it will be his intention or suggestion to have a debate on Bill No. C-6 to abolish capital punishment, and not include in the general debate other bills which, according to the press, will be submitted in this field which would still retain a measure of capital punishment?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot give such an assurance because he has no authority to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question was, would the Prime Minister suggest? Will the Prime Minister suggest to the other parties that the debate be centred around Bill No. C-6 and not include some other bills in this general field?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the last thing in the world the Prime Minister would do, suggest anything to the opposition. That is one of the things to which they take strong objection.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that the Prime Minister does not support the abolition of capital punishment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is drawing a conclusion, and is drawing it improperly and on a basis on which I cannot permit the Prime Minister to reply.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have raised, the Prime Minister said in his statement that he would be prepared to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition and to other members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite content to hear the hon. member on the point of order, but the point of order was on the observation he made and not on something the Prime Minister said.
Inquiries of the Ministry



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: would like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the recent announcement by the Prime Minister that all legislation and orders in council were to be investigated to see whether or not they were in violation of the fundamentals of human rights, may we assume that -the minister will at this session be presenting to the house a completely revised Immigration Act?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, it would not be fair for me to permit or encourage the hon. member to make any such assumption.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue which is related to a constitutional and administrative conundrum. In view of the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been informed by Hon. Ray Williston, minister of lands and forests of British Columbia, that the corporation may have occupational privileges on Monte Christo mountain for the purpose of erecting a low power relay television transmitter, can the minister inform the house when the corporation intends to proceed with the erection of this long-delayed television transmitter?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: There has been no delay, Mr. Speaker. There are discussions going on between the C.B.C. and the government of British Columbia with respect to the acquisition of property now vested in the crown in the right of the province of British Columbia.



TRANSPORT


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to add something to his observation I will be glad to hear him; otherwise he is out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I ask the Prime Minister again, will he suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the fears of the maritime ports about winter navigation in the St. Lawrence. Can the minister report on recent icebreaking activity in the Montreal area?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Government icebreakers are operating in the Montreal area of the St. Lawrence river solely for the purpose of flood control. Several days ago abnormally high water levels caused by ice jams submerged some wharves and roadways, and flooded the basement floor of at least one elevator. The national harbours board requested the Department of Transport to provide icebreakers to relieve this acute and damaging situation.
The operation of the icebreakers earlier than usual this year is due entirely to the fact that the flood conditions occurred earlier.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of the answer he has just given, in which he has indicated that the icebreakers which are now being used for icebreaking operations into Montreal are being used for the purpose of assisting in the prevention of floods.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: My question is this. In view of the fact that the minister has already stated that winter navigation would be assisted in the various ports of the lower St. Lawrence up as far as Quebec, a statement which he made in Montebello, Que., how does he reconcile the statement which he then made with the answer he has given to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert this morning?


George Harris Hees: That is very simple, as the hon. member knows because he held this portfolio for a number of years. Every year for many years it has been necessary to break a channel to allow the flood waters to get out of the Montreal area so they will not flood the area, part of which is represented by the hon. member, and I know he has professed great interest in having these flood waters released. This has been going on for many years. There is no change, and the hon. member knows all this perfectly well.


Lionel Chevrier: But my question to the minister was this. Why did he say that winter navigation would be provided right up to the port of Quebec?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking at Baie Comeau I said that we were going to try to keep navigation open on the north shore to provide that area, which has no railway service, with an outlet for its goods and an inlet for its supplies during the winter season.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for his clarification, but I wish he would clarify it .a little more. I have his words here. He


said "right up to the port of Quebec". How does he reconcile that with the answer he has given to the member?


George Harris Hees: Where are those words found?


Lionel Chevrier: Here is what the minister said on January 22, 1958:
With this group of ships available it should be possible within the next few years-
That was in 1958 and we are now in 1960. -to meet virtually all requirements on the St. Lawrence and gulf areas including such winter shipping as may wish to proceed into the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence even as far up as Quebec.


George Harris Hees: That is exactly what we are
doing this year.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. That is a complete contradiction.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction at all. What the member is referring to is winter navigation into the port of Quebec. I have never said we could provide winter navigation into the port of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, you said it here.


George Harris Hees: I did not.


Lionel Chevrier: It is all here in black and white.


George Harris Hees: I did not.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the hon. member for Laurier was, I think, trying to convince the house that I had made a statement in this house in 1958 dealing with winter navigation into Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker. I am rising on a question of privilege in order to clear up what was said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true.


George Harris Hees: What the hon. member for
Laurier was quoting was a speech in this house by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), who was quoting a speech by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Tasse), supposedly made in Montreal, who was quoting a speech that I am supposed to have made in 1958. I have no recollection of ever having said those things.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I expected this answer so I went down to my office to get the speech. It is a fact that this speech was delivered by the hon. member for Quebec East.


Mr. Ricard:: Why did you not say so?


George Harris Hees: You never mentioned that.


Lionel Chevrier: In it the hon. member for Quebec East, who should know what he is saying, was quoting the minister, and this is what the hon. member for Quebec East said about the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, yes; I should be allowed to answer what the minister has said. This is what was said.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member thinks it is relevant to the question of privilege to read what the minister said, I shall allow him to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The only portion I am going to read are the words of the minister as quoted by the hon. member for Quebec East. This is what was said by the minister:
With this groups of ships available, it should be possible, within the next few years, to meet virtually all requirements on the St. Lawrence and gulf areas, including such winter shipping as may wish to proceed to the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence, even as far up as Quebec.
That is what the minister said and that is in direct opposition to the minister's answer to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert.


George Harris Hees: The words are "up as far as" but not including.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Hoist on his own petard.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point of privilege has been sufficiently aired.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If the Minister of Finance has anything to say, let him say it here and now.


Mr. Speaker:: That might be a point of order, but perhaps the hon. member will address himself to the chair if he finds anybody in the house misconducting himself.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to the question asked the Minister of Transport about St. Lawrence shipping. Does the minister consider that there is any real antagonism of interests between Nova Scotia ports and the St. Lawrence ports on the length of the shipping season in the St. Lawrence and the gulf?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the ports of Halifax and Saint John, as all hon. members in this house very well know, have long relied to a very large extent on shipping during the winter season when the St. Lawrence ports
Inquiries of the Ministry are frozen up. Quite naturally, if those ports see shipping being diverted to other Canadian ports they feel a very real anxiety, because it means unemployment in their cities and hardship to their people. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I take it there is real antagonism.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will the minister be in a position today to table the compilation of the defence sharing figures from which he quoted yesterday, and which he said could be made available to the house?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: They will be reviewed and be available after today, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he can now give us the figures, which he said he would give us, with regard to the number of unplaced applicants as of the latest date available, and the number of what are called live claimants for unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The latest figure of unplaced applicants, as of January 14, 1960, was 755,387.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) also asked for the figures for live claimants. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) also asked about live claimants. I presume he means live claims, because all our claimants are alive. The figure we gave the hon. member for Essex East as of December 31 was 685,691, and this included 17,976 fishermen. That is the latest figure. This is an operational figure of the unemployment insurance commission, and that was the last available figure because it is compiled on a monthly basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the number of people seeking jobs seems to be on the increase, as the minister's statement has established, will the minister tell the

Inquiries of the Ministry house whether or not the government is prepared, as it suggested when in opposition, to set up a parliamentary committee so that parliament could deal forthwith with this very serious and rapidly rising problem of unemployment?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, those seeking work as of the last D.B.S. release in December were 370,000.



NICOMEKL AND SERPENTINE RIVERS, B.C.- REQUEST FOR ENGINEERING SURVEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a request from the Langley-Surrey drainage board or the British Columbia government for an engineering survey of flooding and drainage problems of the Nicomekl and Serpentine rivers? If so, what action is contemplated?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, I have received such a request, and I have directed the assignment of two engineers who are familiar with drainage problems for two or three months to make a reconnaissance survey to determine for this area what the problems are and what the possible solutions may be.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, having reference to a report in the Globe and Mail of January 29 that the minister of transport in the former Liberal government has stated that Canada is trading away her air traffic rights and getting little or nothing in return. My question is, how many more Canadians will be able to travel this year by air directly from Canada to other countries and return than would have been able to do so under the bilateral air agreements in operation previously?


George Harris Hees: I am very happy to be able to answer that question. Under the bilateral air agreements negotiated by this government we estimate that 40,000 more Canadians will this year be able to travel directly from points within Canada to other countries and return than could have done so under the arrangements worked out by the late lamented Liberal government. I am convinced that the great majority of these Canadians will


travel by Canadian air lines, because they give the best service available anywhere in the world.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask him to adjust his ear-piece so that he may hear my question.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member start again? There was so much noise that I could not hear the question.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Minister of Agriculture to kindly adjust his ear-piece so that he may hear my question. Since the adoption of the act establishing the farm credit board have the new regulations been adopted and if so, when?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would repeat his question again? The minister may have heard it but the interpreter did not do so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member picked a particularly inappropriate time to reprove me for not always having my earphones on. But as I understood his question he wants to know whether the regulations in connection with farm credit have been brought out up to date. The regulations were completed just a short time ago. They have not yet been promulgated, but they will be promulgated shortly.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question. Could the minister tell us when the new board will be in a position to grant its first loans under the new regulations?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: The corporation has been making loans. It has been making loans throughout under the regulations which existed for the farm loan board but under the limits provided by the legislation which was passed in this house last year. The new regulations, particularly those governing the second type of loans-I refer to the package deal for younger farmers-as I say will be promulgated very shortly.

Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
(Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In view of the answer given on Tuesday, January 26, by the Minister of National Defence to a question put to him by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Heliyer) to the effect that the work on the Bomarc missile launching sites would not be suspended, could the Associate Minister of National Defence tell us if work has started on the Bomarc sites in the Mont Laurier district?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite make out the question.


Guy Rouleau: Does the minister want me to ask my question in English?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I did not get the last part of the hon. member's question.


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question.


Mr. Graffiey:: Read it more slowly.


Guy Rouleau: In view of the answer given on Tuesday, January 26, by the Minister of National Defence, to a question put to him by the hon. member for Trinity, to the effect that work on the Bomarc sites would not be suspended, could the Associate Minister of National Defence tell us if the work has begun on the Bomarc missile launching sites in the Mont Laurier district?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the work is under way yet; however, I shall enquire and reply later to the hon. member for Dollard.
(Text):



REPORTED PURCHASE OF U.S. MANNED INTERCEPTOR PLANE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether there is any truth in the report which appeared in the press yesterday to the effect that the government had decided to buy a United States manned interceptor as a substitute for the cancelled Arrow?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.



ALLEGED SABOTAGE OF SHIP ON PACIFIC COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any information on the alleged sabotage of a Royal Canadian Navy ship on the Pacific coast by inserting sand in the machinery while it was being overhauled?


George Randolph Pearkes: The matter is already under investigation by service officials and police.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister be kind enough to say whether he is ready this morning to answer the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade) concerning the acquisition of a site by the C.B.C. for its new headquarters in eastern Montreal?


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to reply to that question in brief form. I was waiting; I was just going to apologize to the hon. member for St. Mary and to the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), to both of whom I promised answers today. The officials of the C.B.C. have not yet returned from Winnipeg, where they have been meeting all week. I was going to ask them to allow me to wait until Monday in order that I might give a more definite answer. However, briefly in reply to the question of the hon. member for St. Mary with respect to the acquisition of property in Montreal, I can say that no property has been acquired at this time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware that another important robbery recently took place between Montreal and St. John, in which not only was the mail stolen but the truck itself?


An hon. Member:: Was the minister in the truck?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Azellus Denis: Will the minister make a report on the matter? I may say that no one knew about it. We did not hear about it over the radio or on television or in the newspapers. I should like the minister to inquire about this recent "unlousy" department business.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: If the hon. member will be good enough to identify this particular robbery I think he will find that it comes under the prohibition to which you referred some time ago, Mr. Speaker. I think it occurred about two months ago.


Azellus Denis: The department itself could not identify it. I do not want to give information. I am seeking information.


William McLean Hamilton: The
point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that in my opinion the hon. member is completely out of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William McLean Hamilton: -in going back over a long period of history and asking about individual cases. If we do this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out earlier when you ruled the hon. member out of order, we can have under this heading an endless series of questions which could much more properly be put on the order paper.



THE SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to say whether, when he has filled the vacancies in the upper house, we might expect a reform of the Senate as he has promised?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that there is a matter of great urgency there, and I am sure it would not be considered as a matter of urgency in the other place.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister inform the house whether she has received a petition from residents of the resort area of Macdiarmid, which is 90 miles east of Fort William, protesting the establishment of


an Indian reservation in the locality; and, if so, has the minister given any consideration to their request.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the petition has actually come to my desk yet. I was informed that one was being prepared, and the whole matter is being carefully considered by the department.



REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE BY HON. MEMBER FOR ROSTHERN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister like to comment on a statement of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) to the effect that the government's deficiency policy for eggs and hogs is the most retrograde step that could be taken?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he allow the minister to take part in the debate, which is to follow. That is the proper place for argument.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has already spoken in this debate. The federation of agriculture have protested about the government's policy with regard to deficiency payments-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture arising out of a statement made by a member of the government party last night when the Minister of Agriculture was not in the house. Surely the house is entitled to know whether the minister can answer a statement made by one of his own supporters, when -the hon. member said that the government's policy on deficiency payments represented a retrograde step.


Mr. Speaker:: I think if the hon. member for Essex East will reflect a little on what he is advocating he will agree with me that it would completely demoralize the question period if members were allowed to iask questions of this kind immediately arising out of controversial -statements made in the debate now proceeding. Every member of the house is free to comment upon arguments made by any member in debate; but to ask the government at question time to express its opinion on every argument produced in debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne would be futile and, in my opinion, foolish.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the house the reason for such unreasonable delay in supplying up to date telephone directories. Is it lack of planning or lack of funds on the part of the government?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter for the [DOT] Secretary of State; it comes under the printing bureau. I appreciate my hon. friend's feeling that perhaps I had something to do with it, but at this stage I have not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State. Can he give the house the reason telephone directories are not being made available to members of parliament?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Slate):: These directories are going to be distributed today, Mr. Speaker.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain the exceedingly long delay in the completion of the inquiry of the royal commission on patents, copyrights, trade-marks and industrial designs, appointed June 10, 1954; and can he now indicate when it is expected that the report on patents and that on trade-marks will be received and made public?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so far as the first portion of the question is concerned, the explanation for the long delay is that the appointment was made in 1954. A series of questions have been asked from to time as to the delay in the report. All I can say is that the report has been made available only within the last few days, or certainly within the last few weeks. It is being translated and made available for printing, and it should be ready for distribution within the next few weeks.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the
Minister of Transport in a position to make a statement on the rather odd news reports
Inquiries of the Ministry from Washington about the public discussions held between his officials and United States officials on great lakes pilotage?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I certainly am, Mr. Speaker. A further meeting to discuss pilotage on the great lakes was held in Washington over the last few days. My officials tell me that they are very encouraged with the progress that is being made, and there is every expectation that a workable arrangement will be achieved. The United States authorities are being most co-operative.
I am informed that draft legislation is in an advanced stage of preparation and should be ready for submission to the United States congress at an early date. When this has been done I shall be able to review the Canadian position and decide what our own course of action should be. It is the opinion of my officials that if the United States legislation is adopted it is unlikely that any new arrangement could be put into effect during the 1960 season of navigation because of the time factors involved and the rather complex nature of some of the problems that have to be dealt with.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Vicioria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a grievance with the parking committee and the R.C.M.P. concerning parking around this parliament building. Up to now we have not been furnished with stickers for our cars for parking positions, but I have on my car a piece of paper with my name on it and the parking station number where the car should be.
I am not speaking for myself alone, because there are half a dozen others to whom the same thing has happened. My car has been driven to these parliament buildings at least twice a day and sometimes three times a day ever since the opening of parliament, until Wednesday night. I was out of town that night, and I left it there. They did not steal it in the day time; they took it out after dark, after nine o'clock at night. When I went to get my car last night I had to hire a taxi because the mounted police told me that my car had been towed away from its proper position, despite the fact that it had my name and number on it.
They told me it had been taken to 428 Rideau street, and that I could find it there. I went in and telephoned, and they told me the Ottawa Towing Company had taken it. The Ottawa Towing Company said "Yes, we have the car here; it has just arrived". So

Inquiries of the Ministry I drove to the Ottawa Towing Company, which is situated five miles out on the Montreal road, a mile down the St. Laurent boulevard, and when I got to that service station they said yes, there was a car there; but it belonged to Dr. Leduc.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Dollard also feels aggrieved. I would be very glad if he and the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) would consult me about this matter.


Some hon. Members:: It is a matter of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection to the house dealing with the question if it wants to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Go ahead.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I think this is a matter which should be dealt with in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is prepared to submit a motion I will certainly entertain it, but in the absence of a motion I will call orders of the day.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: But is my car safe outside this building at the present time with this piece of paper on it when you have no tag to give me? Is it going to be towed away again today?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to propose a motion it is in order to do so, but I think if he brings his problem to me- he has not brought it to my attention as yet-then in consultation with the Sergeant-at-Arms we shall try to find a satisfactory way to deal with it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not proper to discuss in the house a question which affects the rights and privileges of individual members, and is it not a question of privilege when the car of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport was transported away?


Lionel Chevrier: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have already indicated, I have heard the question of privilege and if there is to be a discussion of it that must be based on a motion, because we cannot go on talking in a vacuum indefinitely.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point you have just made, if the hon. member presenting his point of privilege has concluded-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have not concluded.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that would be quite proper, but my understanding was that you were saying he should discuss this with you privately, and that you were interrupting him.


I may be mistaken, but I would think this is a question which affects the privileges of this house.
I have been involved in this kind of thing also. I filed a proper form, but they did not like it being in my own handwriting; they required it to be typewritten, and while it was going back to my office to be typed instead of being in my legible handwriting my car was towed away. I think the hon. member should be allowed to state his question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria has not been stopped. He has stated his point of privilege. This is a question which undoubtedly affects the privileges of members of the house in the same way as their right to enter their offices in the west block, which has also been questioned by the attendants. These are matters which do affect the privileges of members, but we must have some direction rather than an indiscriminate discussion on these matters, and I cannot do more than say that this is a point of privilege and that it is finished here unless the house wishes to take some action in the appropriate way by introducing a motion.


Guy Rouleau: If the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) is ready to make a motion I will gladly second it.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I think that with the pressure of business we have before us this session matters such as this-and this is only one example of many which might arise during the session-might be disposed of in another way by consultation with yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the officials responsible for the direction of affairs in connection with the building and the grounds. If that did not result in satisfaction a motion could be brought before the house, but I think we might now go ahead with the ordinary business before us.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This point of privilege does not affect this house in particular but the mounted police outside and whatever officers gave the order to tow my car away. The young men admitted they knew it was my car, but the orders came from down the street-


An hon. Member:: A senator.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -to draw this car off the hill, and after I had run around looking for it until 12 o'clock I finally found it on Bronson avenue three miles from the parliament buildings, in behind a billboard in a field.


Guy Rouleau: For that you can blame the Minister of Trade and Commerce. You cannot blame the Liberals.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: As far as that is concerned, it did not happen to me it happened to many of the other members of the house while the Liberals were in power.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 28, 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. C. E. Campeau (St. James):: I had the
honour yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to present the usual congratulations which are offered on such an occasion as this, and now I should like to continue my remarks in relation to the speech from the throne.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to represent in this house a constituency whose history is one of the richest as far as national events are concerned. The constituency of St. James, when it was still the heart of the Montreal East division, at the very beginning of confederation, elected to represent it in this house none other than Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, Sir John A. Macdonald's French Canadian partner.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to interrupt him to ask for some attention on the part of the house. There are a great many private conversations going on in too loud a voice, and I hope hon. members will give the hon. member for St. James the courtesy of a good hearing.


Charles-Édouard Campeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Translation):
Cartier had the courage of seeing far afield, as regards the province of Quebec, when he did not hesitate to join his efforts to those of Macdonald to give birth to this great country to which we are all proud of belonging today.
The constituency of St. James, located in the very heart of the metropolis of the province of Quebec and of Canada, has been closely linked in the course of the last century, with the epic of Canadian confederation, and has shared its times of hardship and of greatness.
Designed to achieve the combination of the live forces of both east and west, of Lower and Upper Canada, of Quebec and Ontario and the maritimes, of the French and English races-in order to ensure the glorious expan-
The Address-Mr. Campeau sion of Canada towards the promising west- confederation, in respecting the fundamental rights of both great races, at the birth of our country, and through special arrangements balancing the development opportunities of all partners, great and small, confederation, as I say, managed to produce, in less than a century, a strong and integrated nation, while a thousand years of history could not do better in the case of many European nations.
Since 1867, Canada has known an unheard and undreamt expansion, surpassing the most ambitious dreams of both Cartier and Macdonald. The original four partners are now ten, the newcomers carving a place for themselves out of large areas of the continent, while northward, vast expanses of nearly illimited dimensions are now opening up to the appetite of giant new provinces in process of formation.
This phenomenal expansion did not take place without raising increasing problems of growth and development, which Canadians must now face, because the Liberal administration of the last 20 years preferred to rely on a policy of complacency, rather than demand the necessary sacrifices from the people.
Foremost among those problems, is that of urbanization, as evidenced by the appearance, from coast to coast, of villages, towns and cities which are ruthlessly devouring forests, plains, mountains and, today, even the northern tundra. An increasing population is ceaselessly demanding housing, in increasing number, and multiplying social security problems. Urbanization and expansion call for rapid and extended transport facilities, as well as increasing public works to cope with the complexity of new needs. Because of giant productivity, limited consumption has not always been able to absorb production, giving rise to seasonal unemployment and its ill-effects. All those problems call for increasing capital investments to support the physical and economic structure of the country, and to allow the nation to meet the increasing obligations it has to assume in the international sphere.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we must now reconsider the Canadian confederation, and I must express admiration for the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has indicated his intention of starting by repatriating the constitution. There is today, as there was in 1867, the same urgent need to combine the live forces of east and west, of the two original races and of the many others who have been added to them since, the first partners and the new giants of the far west, and there is also need

The Address-Mr. Campeau for new special arrangements to balance the chances of development of the ten partners, large and small, so as to favour another great and glorious rush to the beckoning north, but more particularly a bold and deep rush into the very core of our economic structure, providing an adequate solution for those new needs that emerged during the last century, like urbanization, social security, external trade, international relations and, last, but not least, industrialization.
The greatest need of Canadian confederation at the start of this decade which will mark its centenary, is for a policy of national development, designed to provide a bridge between economic interests, just as in earlier days rapid communications bridged geographical distances.
It is to that end that the Prime Minister, who has made national unity his life goal, has always put forward measures to promote a national development program designed to stimulate private industry and enable it to co-operate with the government in the enrichment of our national heritage.
Mr. Speaker, the constituency of St. James and the province of Quebec will not hesitate to do their share in the implementation of that program, and thus to take their rightful place in the Canadian confederation, in the same spirit as Quebec displayed in 1867, when it responded so generously to Sir Georges Etienne Cartier's call for national unity, for one Canada and one Canadian nation.
The province of Quebec has recognized that same spirit in this statement from the present Prime Minister:
We are for confederation because of the varied elements which make up the Canadian nation, because of the rights and liberties they enjoy under the constitution, because of the equal respect for our two great cultures, and because of the powers which Cartier and Macdonald sought to preserve for each Canadian province.
No Liberal leader, Mr. Speaker, has ever had the courage to come out with such a clear-cut and definite statement.
As the keeper of the most sacred traditions of the Canadian nation, the province of Quebec insists on respect for confederation, without which Canada would not exist today. The citizens of Quebec, being aware of the obligations arising out of confederation, would be unhappy if development lagged behind in some parts of the national territory or in sections of Canada's economy, and as in the past, they will not hesitate to

accept the sacrifices needed to insure the progress and full development of the country as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, since the end of world war II, Canada has experienced unprecedented development. That development has mainly reflected itself in a year by year rise in capital investment, and has therefore resulted in a rapid expansion of our production facilities. Unfortunately, through some unexplainable and inexcusable lack of foresight and economic planning on the part of the Liberal administration, that expansion was not always in line with the trends in our external trade and with our domestic consumption. The gap between production and consumption resulted in seasonal unemployment for which the Liberal government can hardly deny its responsibility.
No doubt we could not pay ourselves for manufacturing goods that we cannot use or sell. Nor could we pay ourselves for any length of time at least, for producing nothing. Unemployment insurance is not and cannot be a substitute for work.
During the postwar period, the Liberal administration resorted to taxation calculated to produce substantial "surpluses", under the pretence of thus warding off inflation. The facts have shown that a monetary policy alone cannot check the inflationary increase of wages, of production costs and of consumer prices or check rising economic trends.
A large volume of foreign capital, many requests for increases in wages and profits, changes affecting foreign trade, the rate of new capital investments and the general taxation structure, are all factors which were added to the problems of money volume and interest rates, and affected the trends of the Canadian economy, unnoticed by the Liberal administration in suspended animation, and led to the recession out of which we emerged victoriously as a result of the firm and drastic efforts of this Conservative government.
Due to the rapid post-war expansion, the economy of the country could meet, without the Liberal government having anything to do with it, the needs resulting from the war, the necessities of conversion, a considerable increase in immigration and a great number of drastic changes in our way of living.
It should be noted however that the uncontrolled rate of expansion has created employment in fields of activity which we could not maintain and which prevented other and more stable activities to increase employment.

Such a situation no doubt did not contribute to stable employment. The Liberal government, making no real effort to correct the situation, was gradually leading us towards inflation and to the bankruptcy of individuals who could no longer adjust their revenues to the increasing costs and to major changes in industries unable to compete at home and abroad.
The Liberal administration did not seem and does not seem as yet to have understood that the choice was not between total employment and stable prices, but should have consisted in a national development policy which would have produced a real economic growth, giving work to labourers, increasing production and consumption, while maintaining them in balance, and finally thus improving our living standard without draining our natural resources.
Even if today we have to pay the price for that development, which went on uncontrolled during the 22 years of Liberal rule, Canada in 1960 remains a prosperous country in spite of everything. The prophets of doom sitting on the other side of the house do not seem to get over the fact that Canada, in 1960, after three years of Conservative rule, is enjoying a more flourishing economy than it has ever known.
What was lacking in Canada until now, because the Liberal system never thought of giving it to this country or perhaps did not have the courage to do so, is a positive economic policy, tending to the rapid development of our manufacturing industry, so as to depend less on foreign countries and offer more employment to our people, while trying to increase our population, which would lower our production costs by adequately developing our domestic market.
There have been two main failings: first of all a too slow progress in our manufacturing industry, which partly explains the persistence of unemployment and the increasing dependence of our economy on the fluctuations of our foreign trade.
The importance of the manufacturing industry, as a dynamic force in Canadian economy does not rest solely upon the fact that it gives direct employment to 26 per cent of Canadian workers and is the industry most productive of wealth for seven provinces out of ten, but more particularly upon the fact that it is capable of bringing about the high level of economic activity which is the basis of national prosperity.
The Address-Mr. Campeau
The prospects of greater industrialization are more encouraging than ever, especially in those industries that are able to produce locally at a competitive price what we would otherwise import and be unable to export.
The role of the federal government is to shape its general policies, and particularly its economic policy, in such a way as to ensure the prosperity of the nation as a whole and of every province at the same time.
There are several ways in which the government can do this. It can be either by way of the tax structure, or through tariffs arising out of international agreements, through credit facilities or again through research. In the performance of this task, the federal government must not substitute itself for the provinces or for the municipalities.
In the international sphere, the Liberal administration has not always had a clear perception of Canada's interests, and all too often, it discharged Canada's international obligations without taking account of the country's national needs.
Even on the national scene, the Liberal administration never had the wisdom to draw up a general plan based on Canada's resources, productive capacity and local needs.
The Liberal administration, for purely political reasons, too hastily and too extensively converted the wonderful development of the country into a betterment of the material standard of living, and into expenditures for consumer goods, while other things much more urgent and much more important called for the drastic action of the federal authorities.
Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to have definite economic goals, to have concrete plans for the expansion and guidance of our economy. We should, as soon as possible, set up some kind of control and industrial promotion organization so that the development of the country follows a comprehensive plan, maintaining a fair balance in the development of our natural resources and in the distribution of our foreign trade, through the use of our physical and human resources in areas and industries where productivity is greater, consolidating and expanding foreign trade and making it possible for the powers of private enterprise to support the growing trend through a stable currency and investment of public funds where they can use the expansion of national production for the stabilization of economic conditions.
At this point I want to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) for his leadership in setting up an

The Address-Mr. Campeau advisory committee of experts to study the problems of foreign and internal trade and of industrial development. Concerning the latter, the committee will seek to determine the fields of activity where new industries could take advantage of new opportunities made available on the local market by the increase of population and of imports, and efficiently compete at home as well as abroad. This is certainly a huge step in the right direction.
However, I feel that this initiative must be followed immediately by a complementary one in the field of action. It is urgent, indeed, to set up in Canada an organization for industry just as the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was established at a time when the country was going through a housing crisis.
The need for industrialization is as pressing now, Mr. Speaker, and an appropriate machinery is needed to insure orderly development.
The main purpose of such an organization, which could be called the Canadian industrial development corporation, would be to guarantee and make loans for the establishment of new industries and for the protection and development of existing industries. It could absorb or be integrated with the industrial development bank set up in 1944, whose main purpose was to correct an anomaly of our financial system which offers no facilities for meeting the needs of risk capital in the field of industrial development. Its activity was limited to small loans and to certain categories of industries established by legislation.
The operations of the proposed corporation would be self-sustaining in the long run. The amount of research required to establish a plan of action could be made through existing departments, which would proportionately reduce launching costs.
The new organization would base its operations on a national development program aiming at the development of our natural resources, the proper distribution of our industrial potential, as well as of our population and its needs, the adequate distribution of manufactured products, and taking into account our domestic and external trade, transport facilities, our northern territories and other similar factors.
It would have to undertake a complete survey of the present situation and analyse the means of conserving and enlarging existing industries and of creating new ones, so as to ensure the orderly development of our national economy. The result would be an

integrated program of economic and industrial expansion in definite stages. Each individual loan would be made in the light of those general basic factors, according to a procedure similar to that now applied by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the case of housing.
That program is linked with various other national problems. It would, first of all, be an extraordinary help in the field of technical and professional education, by giving our specialized students facilities for training and possibilities of employment. We could thus keep our scientists in Canada and avoid their going to the United States, as was the case under the Liberal rule, when, from 1951 to 1956, about 3,000 engineers and 800 scientists left us in this way. The considerable sums of money we are spending on scientific education should certainly not benefit the United States more than Canada.
That program would facilitate the establishment of a sound immigration policy. The new immigrants would be absorbed by the new industries and would thus create an adequate market for increased local production.
The program would also have the effect of speeding up the development of territories in the far north, which is being intensively pursued by the present Conservative government.
The program, in conjunction with a wise tariff policy, would also result in balancing our trade with foreign countries. We could reduce imports by developing local industries to meet local needs, with corresponding benefits in the form of greater employment opportunities, higher local tax revenues, more purchases of local materials and equipment, and greater profits and dividends leading up to new formation of Canadian capital.
New products could be manufactured and consumed locally or exported at a profit. The necessary research would have considerable influence on the training and employment of Canadian technicians and on the use of our local material resources.
Advanced technology, based on research, is a dominant force in a highly industrialized community. Technological research can create new employment opportunities by opening up new markets. That, probably, is the most important single factor for Canada's future industrial development.
Finally, the program would have considerable effect on cyclical unemployment, which a scientifically based industrial production and expansion plan could reduce to a strict minimum.

A program such as this would enable Canada to effectively resist the European economic blocs, particularly the communist bloc, and the impact of increasing industrialization in underdeveloped countries.
The activities of such a body would be concerned with our industrial potential and the requirements of consumption. The first approach is linked with labour and employment problems, with production capacity and available markets. The second approach concerns expenditures of revenues, available goods and services and utilization of resources.
The consumption requirements of the Canadian people, would be surveyed, as they occur in various possible conditions and, as they develop-according to a given national income geographically distributed-and at a determined frequency.
An outline of industrial potential would be of interest to all those affected by industry. The combination of both surveys would permit a more efficient utilization of our human and material resources, while maintaining the economic equilibrium of our	national
prosperity.
The information thus gathered would be useful in several fields. In planning new industries or in enlarging existing ones, businessmen usually have at their disposal excellent information about immediate technical and economical problems. However, this is an extremely difficult process for them, because they do not have the facilities nor the required means of ascertaining the complex general conditions in which their industry has to be integrated. Inaccurate estimates of consumer demand and of the existing industrial potential too often result in unfavourable economic losses to individual producers and to the community as a whole.
It is on the basis of such fundamental research that it would be possible to establish a program of economic balance which would permit an orderly and continuous growth for the whole of Canada.
The success of the plan I have just described, Mr. Speaker, will depend to a great extent on the co-ordination of efforts, on the intensity and depth of research and on soundly based economic forecasts.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is again experiencing growing pains. The present situation calls for magnitude, breadth of view, magnitude of intention and magnitude of efforts. It is up to us Canadians to take up the challenge.
The Address-Mr. Campeau
Canada, facing the fast rate of economic and technological developments, and the rapid rise of living standards, must change its traditional stand and adapt itself to an economy of abundance affected by the repeated impact of excessively rapid and successive changes.
We must realize that we have all joined into a common venture whose basic purpose is to insure orderly national development and thus achieve the maximum stability of economic growth. The success of such an undertaking is vitally and almost solely dependent on the close co-operation of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister is the man to obtain such vital co-operation within Canadian unity. The national development program which he has put into implementation tends to ensure the progress of our country's economy, according to a gradual and wise course, while remaining deeply rooted in Canadian traditions, but traditions enriched by the requirements of the present. Relying on the philosophy of the common man, he ignores Liberal and C.C.F.'s doctrinaire theories and considers, first of all, human values the most important of all. Hence, its middle-of-the-road approach, sparing Canadians both leftist and rightist radical excesses, in which the opposition groups too readily indulge.
The Conservative government, Mr. Speaker, has acquired, still has and will keep the confidence of the man in the street, on account of its respect for fundamental values, such as individual initiative, freedom of private enterprise, limited governmental control and, above all, national unity in equality of races, languages, religions and opportunities.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I recall words of the Hon. Paul Sauve, the late premier of the province of Quebec, to whom the constituency of St. James wishes to pay tribute as it does to his predecessor-both of whom died on the job-while at the same time wishing health and success to their successor, the Hon. Paul Sauve delivered the following message on the occasion of New Year's day:
Judging from the great promises of the future, it seems that conditions have never been better for united action and for progress and co-operation. Let us keep closely united, so that our hopes of today may become the achievements of tomorrow.
(Text):


Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I feel rather at a loss this morning, because I have listened to so many members

The Address-Mr. Houck all persons in all walks of life. In like manner they, as citizens of this wonderful country of ours, must have salaries which will enable them to buy these essentials of life without having to resort either to having their wives work in order to keep the table supplied or having to carry on "moonlighting" which is, I believe, the term applied to those who have a spare time occupation.
This is an old saying; many hon. members have heard it stated:
For many years it has been generally accepted that two main principles should guide the determination of salaries in the service. First the salaries must be enough to do the job, that is to attract the right kind of men and women into the service and keep them in it; second, they must be fair as between civil servants and people outside the service, the taxpayers if you will, which means that the salaries we pay for any class of work should be comparable with those paid by private employers for similar classes of work, taking into account the other terms of employment that are necessary to make a fair comparison. I think these principles should continue to guide us.
I know civil servants would be satisfied if they could have these three things:
1.	A number of representatives of staff meet with an equal number of responsible representatives of government who are empowered to make decisions.
2.	The meeting to be chaired by a civil service commissioner who shall have no voting power but shall offer advice to the negotiators.
3.	Matters upon which agreement cannot be reached shall be submitted to arbitration, with the decision of the arbitrator binding to both sides.
In many meetings they have had with the civil service-and I refer to the government *-I feel that the main issue for these people is that they are anxious to obtain bargaining rights with arbitration, such as are enjoyed by civil servants in many other countries, so that in the future they will not have to resort to the cup in hand approach and be subject to the whims of political expedience of the government in power. I certainly would not like to see this government, or any government, glued to a policy which would identify it as a cheap employer, which would scare away from government service persons who are highly educated, with various skills and with very high standards of character. Fair pay in the civil service is certainly the only principle by which Canada can maintain a high calibre of civil servant. Cheap employees in the civil service would to me be the same as a mediocre ball player trying to play in the big league.
I would be remiss at this time if I did not pay my respects to the customs and immigration officers in my riding who are performing such a wonderful job. They are called upon, especially in summertime, to interview

thousands and thousands of people crossing the border, and naturally in the tourist months they face a very strenuous season. But I have heard nothing but praise for these officers. Many tourists enter Canada for the first time and their first impression is their lasting impression, and if they get a good first impression they carry it throughout their trip in Canada.
I would also like to pay my respects to the many R.C.M.P. we have at the border, and to the agriculture employees-indeed all the civil servants-especially those of the post office, who performed such a miraculous job not only in my riding but I presume in all ridings of hon. members in this house during the Christmas rush.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring before this house a very pertinent point, and in doing this I would appreciate it if the hon. members of this house would realize that I am bringing forth this argument not on behalf of the Liberal party, or any other association, but I am bringing it before the house because of my long standing in politics. I make this statement-naturally I assume responsibility for it as a member of this house-and make it as the thought of Bill Houck and Bill Houck alone. I make this statement, indeed, with some boldness; that I think the time has arrived when we in this house should give some consideration to compulsory voting. I am going to ask the Prime Minister, through his good offices, along with the cabinet council, seriously to consider setting up a small committee of this house, indeed a non-partisan committee, to study this question from all angles. If it achieves no other purpose than to make the people more vote conscious I believe we would have made a great stride forward toward bringing up the percentage of those who vote at election time at any of the three levels of government.
When the hon. members of this house or the members of any provincial legislature or municipal council consider how much money it cost them to try and get the vote out on election day, and then only a small percentage of voters turn out, it is indeed most discouraging. When we realize-and I know other hon. members have the same trouble as I-the vast amount of money we have to spend on election day, not only for people making telephone calls but for hiring of cars, etc., I think it is a shame in this day of democracy that we have to almost get down on bended knee to beg the people to go out and exercise their franchise.
Another point which almost drives me crazy on election day is the fact that as members we get many calls from people left off the voting lists. We are not to blame;

it is the voter himself. It is absolutely im-posssible for the candidate to see that everybody is on the voting list. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if some of these people who fail to exercise their sacred right of the franchise lived behind the iron curtain and had to vote, or perhaps better said, were told how to vote, they would realize the privileges which exist in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, I state very frankly, and I truly mean this, that I would far rather be defeated with a 95 per cent vote cast on election day than be elected with only a 30 per cent or 40 per cent vote cast. I would then feel that the people had spoken and I was either wanted or not wanted.
I think most of the people of our dominion do not realize how the candidates running for election give up not only their time but their money to see to it that a good vote is cast. I would like to pay my respects at this time to the various organizations, especially the junior chambers of commerce, throughout the Dominion of Canada who always run a campaign to get the voters out on election day. I often ask people when they come to see me in my office whether they had taken the trouble to vote. I always say to them, "I do not want to know how you voted, so please do not tell me". But I do say, "Did you take the trouble to go out on election day?" I have kept track of the answers, and I find that over 60 per cent of the people who come to see me to complain about the government or to ask for jobs or to ask for favours of some sort, have said to me, "No, I did not take the trouble to go out to vote".
I think if a non-partisan committee was set up, as I have suggested, it would make the people more vote conscious and get them thinking that they should exercise their right to the franchise. If such a committee were set up it could call before it the chief electoral officer of each province and hear some of their recommendations. They could also call some of the clerks of the municipalities, especially the large municipalities, and any other organizations in this regard. I think if they appeared before this committee they could tell the committee, either pro or con, what they think about compulsory voting. After a complete study of this question I realize that some leniency would have to be granted, especially at the advance polls.
I challenge businessmen, Mr. Speaker, to devote the same long and careful consideration and study to the election of their elected representatives that they employ in the employment of company officials; for certainly their public servants, in what they do in government service or in an elected office, have as much to do with shaping their
The Address-Mr. Houck future and that of their businesses as the president or other officers in their own great organizations.
It has always been a puzzle to me why rural districts have a larger percentage of voters turn out than urban or suburban areas. I think it is the urban group who really do not get out to vote, but then after election they will storm the municipal council hall, or even the elected member's house, with criticism in some form or another. This, to me, shows that they are interested in themselves only, because they do not vote for who they think should represent them. Perhaps they did not like the personnel of the council or ballot, and did not choose to go out and exercise their right of the franchise; but to me they have neglected their responsibility, which is the birthright of every voter.
I quite well recall that in a municipal election last December a few miles from Niagara Falls-I admit I am ashamed of this-the people had to go less than a mile to vote, and only an 18 per cent vote was cast on election day. Naturally there is generally greater interest in a federal election, but the percentage is not enough to express the will of the people. In the 1945 federal election 76 per cent of the people turned out to vote; in 1949, the figure was 74 per cent; in 1953, 67 per cent; in 1957, 74 per cent; and in 1958, 79 per cent.
I think this committee could study from all angles the commonwealth electoral act, 1918-1934, of Australia, where they have compulsory voting. There are many clauses in this act. I have not read them all, but a penalty is provided for not voting, albeit a small one. Perhaps I might read section 12 (a) of that act, which says:
-fails to vote at an election without a valid and sufficient reason for such failure; or, (b) on receipt of a notice in accordance with subsection (4) of this section, fails to fill up, sign, and post within the time allowed under subsection (5) of this section the form (duly witnessed) which is attached to the notice.
The form mentioned there is the one they have to fill out to explain why they did not vote. If they did not vote, then according to the act they are fined not less than ten shillings and not more than two pounds. I think extensive study of this question of voting, whether it was made compulsory or not, would increase the total percentage of votes cast on election day. I talked to one of the men in the Australian embassy, and he told me that since they had introduced compulsory voting in that country in 1915-and this does not imply attendance at the polls, because they are very lenient, especially with regard to mailing in votes at advance polls-they had found the system had produced an average

The Address-Mr. Houck poll of more than 90 per cent of the registered voters, as compared with 50 per cent when voting was optional. They had also discovered, as we, of course, would discover, that under compulsory voting there were many more spoiled ballots.
I am very serious in raising this matter of compulsory voting, and I repeat that I hope hon. members will be fair enough with me- and I know they will-to realize that this is my personal feeling with regard to this vastly important subject. I think our citizens should interest themselves in government because, when we consider the question, we are all stockholders in the government and, indeed, in the Dominion of Canada, and we receive our dividends through the services that are afforded.
I repeat that in my view a committee should be set up so that a thorough study might be made of the Australian commonwealth election act. Representations from all interested parties, whether they were for or against compulsory voting, would at least bring about a bigger percentage of votes cast at election time and would certainly make citizens more vote conscious. It stands to reason that a voter who fails to exercise his franchise eventually penalizes himself, and I think those individuals who fail to exercise the franchise and then sit back and criticize the incumbents of office who fail to do what he considers they should do, should lose the right to criticize.
We realize, of course, that it is impossible to bludgeon an individual into exercising his franchise, but it should be forcibly brought home to such people that the right to vote in a democratic country is a great responsibility which was acquired in ages past by great sacrifice on the part of our forefathers, who in some instances fought and died for this privilege.
Persons elected to public office have, of necessity, a difficult job to do if public affairs are to be properly and sincerely administered. There is, of course, a very great danger that should there be a continuance of this complete apathy on the part of the electors there could eventually arise a form of dictatorship, or some communist form of government. In my home city, with regard to municipal elections, this same condition of apathy exists and is clearly evident, since within the past ten years the percentage of votes cast at municipal elections, has ranged from a low of 28.2 per cent to a high of 55.3 per cent. The high point was reached when there were a couple of money questions before the people and they were asked to vote for a mayor.
Various suggestions have been made as to what could be done to prevent this condition


and bring about an improvement in the percentage of votes cast. I repeat that I believe this could best be done through a committee which would receive publicity and make the people more vote conscious. Correction will only come about when there is concerted action throughout the dominion to convey to the elector that he has a stake in his community, his province and his dominion, and that he must protect his stake by exercising his franchise and thus attempt to obtain the services of men of the highest calibre. Concerted action is also needed to bring home to individual electors that they need to keep fully informed on current affairs so that in the event that they themselves are elected to office they may carry out their duties in the most efficient and desirable manner.
I think it should be the ultimate goal of every member of this house who is interested in this subject to see that the electors should take interest in this God-given privilege and act upon it; and I sincerely hope, in closing, that the Prime Minister will see fit to appoint a small, non-partisan committee at least to study this great question.
In closing I should be remiss indeed if I did not pass on to hon. members warm personal regards and a friendly hello from my colleague the hon. member of Welland (Mr. McMillan), who has been ill and who will not be able to return to the house until possibly some time in April. On his behalf I wish to convey greetings to all hon. members of the house.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure this week and since the start of this throne speech debate to listen to the constructive ideas advanced from many quarters of this house dealing with matters that are of vital interest to the house and to the people of Canada.
At this time I should like to join in the tributes paid by hon. members from all sides to the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address. May I say that the manner in which the hon. gentleman and the charming lady acquitted themselves was a credit to this chamber and to our best traditions.
May I also extend to you, sir, my congratulations upon your appointment to the

high office you now hold. From all the evidence it is apparent that you will fill that position in the best tradition.
With your permission and that of hon. members of this house I should like to deal for a few moments with the riding I have had the honour to represent since 1952. It is only on rare occasions that a minister of the crown has an opportunity to say something about the riding which he represents. With your indulgence I wish to say that the conditions in Ontario riding, both in the agricultural and industrial sectors, give me cause for pride because there is an unprecedented buoyancy in the economy of my riding.
The people in my riding are earning more, spending more and saving more. Business generally is very good. Our population is increasing, particularly in our industrial areas of Oshawa, Whitby and Ajax. These are the main urban centres of my riding. The population of the city of Oshawa has more than doubled in the past ten years. One thing of which we are especially proud in the city of Oshawa is that home ownership in that community where I have lived for 39 years is approximately 85 per cent. That is indeed an enviable record and something that we rejoice in.
Because of the location of General Motors of Canada in Oshawa-which is known as the motor city of Canada-people from all over the dominion flock to the area in order to secure jobs. The automobile industry in the past number of years has experienced its best years of productivity. More people are employed now by the automobile industry than ever before and this, I feel, reflects on the whole economy throughout Canada.
We have excellent harbour facilities in Oshawa and Whitby and this augurs well for the industrial expansion of this area particularly in relation to the St. Lawrence seaway. Hon. members will have noticed that in the speech from the throne mention was made of the fact that a bill will be presented to this house to establish a harbour commission in the city of Oshawa. This is a forward step which will help to enlarge facilities and provide for the future development of the harbour area of the city of Oshawa.
Industry is inquiring continually for locations in this area and many are locating there. As a result, the population is growing. But all this stems in the main from good municipal government. I am proud to say that in my own riding-in all our municipal councils-good judgment has been shown in the management of municipal affairs. They are aware that it is necessary to plan for the future. Their enthusiasm is of the highest
The Address-Mr. Starr order. The people in my riding work with an eye to the future and with a sense of confidence in what they are doing.
I now turn to matters that are of pressing concern to all Canadians. Yesterday the Canadian Labour Congress presented a brief to the government. In view of certain allegations which have been made and certan fears that have been expressed-I refer particularly to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and also by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)-I should like to make some comments in this regard. I regret that the hon. member for Essex East is not here today. I realize he had to keep an appointment to which he was previously committed.
We have not had in this session to the same extent we had in the last the spectacle of the hon. member for Essex East rising in his place with his prophecies of doom and despair. However, he has made references on orders of the day. He has implied here in the house and to the people of Canada that the situation is somewhat less favourable than it has been reported to be by those who are concerned with questions of business and economics. In spite of the hopeful situation that is revealed in the light of the facts the hon. gentleman has continued to convey an impression of doom and despair.
If the hon. member has shown perhaps a lessened tendency towards doom and despair this session I think his change of heart is understandable in view of the evidence that the recession has been overcome and that the measures taken by this government have been effective. Nevertheless in recent utterances he has still managed, as I mentioned a moment ago, to create the impression that defeatism and pessimism are his stock in trade and the stock in trade of his particular group. The hon. gentleman interprets the role of his group as harbingers of gloom and that, I think, is becoming commonly known.
I would refer the hon. member for Essex East to the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress which was presented to the government yesterday. In their brief they underscore that attitude of defeatism and pessimism as a danger to our economy and our national welfare. The authors of this brief are clear-thinking people and I feel they have their finger on the public pulse. I refer the hon. gentleman to other matters of interest in that very able presentation and quote from a reference on page 14 of the Canadian Labour Congress brief which reads as follows:
Your government has taken certain measures which helped to lift us out of the recession. For example, you ran a large deficit partly for that purpose. We urge you to finish the job.
512	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Starr
I refer particularly to the last sentence of that quotation. That is exactly what this government proposes to do. We propose to finish the job.
We heard much about unemployment in the last session of parliament. We heard about the hungry days of the thirties and were told that worse was yet to come. Let us examine exactly what has happened. It seems to me that everyone in this country is aware that the recession is over except members opposite.
May I refer again to the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress. This reference will be found at page 12:
The economic situation is better than when we met you a year ago. Production is up, unemployment is down.
They go on to point out certain factors in the economy which cause them some anxiety, and I am sure that if the hon. member for Essex East were here he would note this and make the most of these passages. In any case, Mr. Speaker, wherever you look, to labour, management, the economists, the picture is the same, namely one of economic growth and expansion throughout our country.
The other night the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) quoted extensively from the presidents of the chartered banks, those impartial witnesses whom the hon. member for Essex East called upon so exhaustively last session but upon whom he has not called this session. They agree that the recession is over.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He has not spoken.


Michael Starr: He has not spoken but I am sure if he does speak he will not refer to what they say about our economy this year. They all agree the recession is over.
Let us turn to another testimony, that of Mr. Raymond Daniell, writing in the Economic and Business Review of the New York Times. Looking over the Canadian scene, Mr. Daniell found as follows:
Canada has just completed a prosperous year and embarked on what appears to be another bright economic period.
He finds that production and employment were at record levels in 1959. He finds that recovery has continued relatively free of inflation, just as the Canadian Labour Congress finds that the inflation threat has been greatly exaggerated. Mr. Daniell goes on and adds this:
Economists and bankers generally agree that if costs and prices can continue to be maintained in the increasingly competitive world of international trade, the outlook is indeed rosy.
Let us take a look at the situation from the point of view of the municipalities. When the municipalities came to see the Prime Minister in November last, they had this to say:


The nation was never more prosperous than it is today. Nor is it because our cities and towns are impoverished. To the contrary, the productive wealth of the nation is highly concentrated in urban communities and is rising rapidly.
As one who has contributed his own share to deficit budgeting on the part of this government, let me say this: our municipal incentive program in the eyes of the opposition was contributory to deficit budgeting. This is the program which provided 40,000 jobs last winter and, as of now, the figure is in the neighbourhood of 34,000 for this winter. Since the program got started considerably earlier this year and this has been in answer to the requests of the various municipalities across Canada and the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities-the present figure is considerably above what it was at this time last year. The municipalities seem to like this program because they were back with a request for more of the same. This is what hon. members in the opposition call deficit budgeting. As a result of this deficit budgeting-and again I would refer hon. members to the Canadian Labour Congress brief-181,000 more Canadians are at work this winter than was the case last year. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what they think of deficit budgeting. I know what the Canadian Labour Congress thinks of it. They think it is all right.
Let us talk a little more of deficit budgeting; $750 million for homes; more than 280,000 homes built in 1958 and 1959. This is more deficit budgeting: in unemployment insurance more than $400 million paid out at the height of the recession. This I maintain, Mr. Speaker, placed purchasing power in the hands of Canadians who otherwise might have been destitute, who otherwise would have suffered. Does the hon. member for Essex East, or anyone in the opposition, think for one minute that he is the only person concerned with unemployment in this country? May I say this, Mr. Speaker. He only discovered unemployment in 1958 when he was in the opposition. Where was he in 1955 when unemployment was 6.8 per cent of the labour force, higher than it is today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: What figure is the minister taking when he mentions 6.8 per cent?


Michael Starr: Dominion bureau of statistics. He was then known as silent Paul. He sat in his seat on the treasury benches saying nothing. Now he is Paul the pessimist. In 1955, when the jobless figure was 6.8 per cent of the labour force, how did they recognize unemployment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the minister permit a question? Is this 6.8 per cent figure that the

minister is talking about for 1955 as the official figure the figure that the government takes now for unemployment in this country?


Michael Starr: That is correct; 6.8 per cent of the labour force, according to the D.B.S. official figures.
In the throne speech of that year this is how they recognized unemployment. They spoke of it in this way, and I quote:
Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature.
Then they postponed the unemployment debate for two weeks. That is how important that was. The then minister of labour said that unemployment must be considered "in a calm and dispassionate manner".
The minister of trade and commerce of that day said the N.E.S. figure did not represent true unemployment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is what you say now.


Michael Starr: What did the then minister of national health and welfare, now the hon. member for Essex East, say? Nothing. Unemployment is not new in this country. It has been growing steadily in cyclical movements since the end of the war. The cycle which started in 1946 was in full swing when we took office. Last winter was the high point of the trend. They did nothing about it. I say this: we have reversed that trend. They knew what the trend was all about in all of those years; they had their reports but they did nothing about the warnings they had. We took measures and reversed that trend. Instead of going up this winter, as they expected, the figure has settled back, so that our last D.B.S. figure was 70,000 below last winter.
Let us take a look at that picture. The D.B.S. figure is the official figure. I know the hon. member for Essex East will not take my word for it, but perhaps he will take the word of his former colleagues, the then minister of labour and the then minister of trade and commerce. When the then minister of trade and commerce told the Canadian people in this house at the height of unemployment in 1955 that the N.E.S. did not represent true unemployment I wonder whether he was kidding the Canadian people? If he was, why did the then minister of national health and welfare not rise in his place and let the Canadian people in on the secret? At every opportunity Mr. Howe, the then minister of trade and commerce, emphasized that the D.B.S. figure was the only measure of unemployment. Now, let us see what he said about the N.E.S. figure, that is, the national employment service registration figure, in February, 1954, and I quote from Hansard of that date at page 2103:
It is true that since about the middle of January this figure has exceeded half a million. However, 79951-0-33
The Address-Mr. Starr it should be made absolutely clear that this figure does not constitute the number of unemployed. As my colleague the Minister of Labour has pointed out to this house, this is simply a figure which becomes available through the operation of the employment service in carrying out its task of helping to place people in jobs. As such, the figure includes people who after registration find jobs on their own while failing to notify the employment office, and also people who-are working parttime but can qualify for benefits under the unemployment insurance regulations.
In June, 1954, Mr. Howe said this, as found on page 6123 of Hansard:
We have a situation where people register for jobs while they are employed. We also have a situation where a man will retire from the railroad on a pension and then put himself down as seeking a job. Would you list him as unemployed? The bureau of statistics would refer to him as a man outside the labour force. He had retired. Nevertheless, the labour department would include his name as an applicant for a job.
Talking about the bureau of statistics figure in 1955, Mr. Howe said this, as found on page 1629 of Hansard:
The labour force survey, which is the one set of statistics available giving a comprehensive and detailed description of Canada's labour force, sets the number of persons without jobs and seeking work at 362,000 this January, compared with 280,000 at the same date last year-
Now, let us hear from the former minister of labour, my predecessor. These words are found on page 1610 of Hansard for 1955:
-the 570,000 that my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago is not a static figure. It does not represent the same people from day to day, week to week or month to month. It is an ever-recurring figure of the number of workers who are often on short time unemployment.
Hansard does not record any objections at all by the hon. member for Essex East to these definitions-


Lester Bowles Pearson: It records a lot of definitions from your side though.


Michael Starr: -by his respected colleagues. There has been a lot of talk about inflation, Mr. Speaker, and I ask your indulgence when I say that the inflation I have been most conscious of has been in the manner in which the hon. member for Essex East has mishandled these figures. What has been the picture in the last 12 months? Compared with the same figures for 1958, the D.B.S. figure has been consistently below last year's figures month by month since last February. Here are the figures, Mr. Speaker. In January of 1959 there was an increase of 11,000 over 1958. In February there was a decrease of 26,000 from the previous year. All these figures I am going to recite are comparable with 1958. In March, 1959, the figure was down 72,000, in April down 77,000, in May down 36,000, in June down 90,000, in July down 63,000, in August down 42,000, in



S14 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Starr September down 58,000, in October down 76,000, in November down 65,000 and in December down 70,000, which is the last figure available from the bureau of statistics.
Mr. Hardie:: There are still thousands of unemployed.


Michael Starr: What about the voices of doom and the prophecies of disaster? We halted the rising trend that had been manifest since the war. This was the year of the roll-back in the rising trend in unemployment, a trend that the opposition knew about, said nothing about and did nothing about.
Let us take a look at this trend. It began in 1946. There were peaks and valleys but the trend was always upward. In 1954,
6.1	per cent of the labour force was unemployed and in 1955, 7.4 per cent. In 1955 the then minister of trade and commerce pointed out the difficulties and said, as found on page 1630 of Hansard:
This levelling off in productive activity was the result of certain new influences which began to affect the market situation in the latter part of 1953 and early 1954. Hon. members are no doubt aware of most of the difficulties encountered-a general business let-down in the United States: a consequent decline during 1954 in Canadian exports to that market; reduced incomes of grain producers, and the effects of this on sales of farm equipment and other manufactured goods-a tendency during 1954 for businesses to meet orders from inventories rather than new production; and, finally, intensification of international competition in manufactured goods which presented new difficulties-
All these factors were present in intensified form when we took office 18 months later. They had done nothing about them. What did we do about the situation? Anyone who wants to know what we did about declining exports to the United States had better take a good look at last year's figures. What did we do about lessened markets for grain producers? From August to December last year overseas wheat sales were up 10.3 per cent. They said it could not be done but we did it. They even went out west and told the farmers it could not be done but the farmers did not believe them and the farmers were right.
These same farmers I am talking about bought 25 per cent more farm equipment and farm machinery this year than last year. Last week when we brought in a bill to assist these same farmers what did they do? They said they liked the idea but they did not approve of the way it was being done. It is the same old story. The old policy was "do nothing", and the new policy is "stop everything".
Last week the hon. member for Essex East discovered, through information which I had given him, that some 722,834 persons were registered with the unemployment

insurance commission. What does that figure represent? In the first place it represents more than 166,000 women.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Michael Starr: I am coming to the point, if the hon. member will give me the opportunity. The house will recall that we relaxed the restrictions on married women imposed by the previous government. We did that in the year 1957. We followed no double standard in our legislation. We placed working wives and mothers on the same basis as married men.
This figure of 722,834 also represented 110,000 unskilled construction workers, the very nature of whose work is seasonal. It represents more than 8,000 construction machine operators, whose work is seasonal. It represents more than 18,000 loggers and bushworkers, whose work is seasonal. I may say that 3,000 more men are employed in the bush this year than last year. The figure represents more than 40,000 persons registered as carpenters across Canada, whose work is subject to seasonal falling off.
This seasonality in the construction and building industries is one of the things my department has been fighting with our intensified winter work campaign which in the last two years has brought startling changes in the construction industry in Canada. The figure, as Mr. Howe pointed out in 1954, represents a large number of persons with pensions. It includes a number of persons with jobs registering for other jobs. It includes nearly 10,000 workers in the tobacco industry, whose work is subject to seasonal factors. It includes 7,200 bricklayers. It includes 12,000 persons registered as painters. All of these are seasonal workers. It also includes stevedores on the great lakes and St. Lawrence river and longshoremen on the great lakes and St. Lawrence river who, we all know, are seasonal workers.
When you get into the skilled worker groups you find that the number of registrations is much smaller. The reason is that our economy is producing a greater and greater demand for skilled workers. In cooperation with the provinces we are moving to increase the level of skills by setting up standards for apprentices across Canada and by encouraging the fullest use of the vocational training program. We co-operate with the provinces on a 50-50 basis. We are urging them at all times-and I personally wrote to the provinces-to make the fullest use of this plan. I may say that training is being provided at an increased rate for unemployed persons in courses approved by the unemployment insurance commission. Those approved courses number well over 500. We

are now moving to include more and more of those courses so that these people while in training are able to draw unemployment insurance providing they have the necessary contributions.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the minister allow a question?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the minister's estimate of the actual number of unemployed under the I.L.O.?


Michael Starr: The D.B.S. figure is recognized by the I.L.O. The standard has been set by the I.L.O. and has also been followed by the United States labour department. We are carrying on with the same figure. The figure that was recognized by the former government. I refer of course to the D.B.S. figure. The last D.B.S. release was for mid-December and it showed 370,000.


Harold Edward Winch: Combined?


Michael Starr: Combined; that is right; that includes men and women.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister permit another question in order to clarify the situation?


Michael Starr: I have only 40 minutes at my disposal. If hon. members would wait to ask their questions until I am finished I shall be glad to answer any questions I am able to answer.
I have said that training is being taken at an increased rate by unemployed persons in courses approved by the unemployment insurance commission. We hope to bring in more of these courses. We have recently expanded the number of approved courses also so that the number of unemployed persons to receive such training in the coming year should be considerably greater than was this year's figure of 5,000. I am not satisfied. Five thousand is not enough. I think we should be retraining as many as require retraining and that is our goal.
We are also conducting surveys on the effects of automation, so that measures can be evolved to minimize the dislocation caused by the advance of technology.
The house will also recall that I have repeatedly stressed the importance of job placements in the unemployment insurance operation. That was one of the first things that I tried to do. The placements in the month of December just past were 74,801, the highest since 1944. I quote from a report of the unemployment insurance commission. This is what it says:
While higher placements were to be expected in 1959 as compared with 1957 and 1958 because of improving economic conditions, much of the 79951-0-33J
The Address-Mr. Starr
1959 achievement results from improved employment service operations under the stimulus of the re-emphasis program.
I am very happy to report that.
I have spoken about the rising unemployment cycle under the previous administration and I have cited the testimony of the former minister of trade and commerce with regard to the situation in 1955. I would ask the house to examine with me the unemployment figures during the years when the present opposition were in office and when this cycle was developing. We find that in 1946 the figure for unemployment was 4.7 of the labour force.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Is that a D.B.S. figure?


Michael Starr: I am quoting only D.B.S. figures.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I was just asking.


Michael Starr: These are all D.B.S. figures. In 1947 the figure was 3 per cent; in 1948,
3.2	per cent; in 1949, 4 per cent; in 1950, 6.1 per cent. That was the first cycle. Korea got them off the hook. In 1951 the figure was back down to 3.3 per cent. In 1952 the figure went back up to 4 per cent. In 1953 it was 3.4 per cent. In 1954 it was 6 per cent in February and 7 per cent in March. The second cycle was in full swing again. In 1955 it was 7.4 per cent in March. Hon. members opposite still had not discovered unemployment. There is no evidence that they recognized this trend and did anything about it. In 1956 they had taken no action and unemployment went down to 5.5 per cent and up to 5.6 per cent in 1957. Once again there was that rise moving into the next cycle as their economists predicted it would. In 1958 it was 9.4 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Tory times, hard times.


Michael Starr: I am giving you figures during your time too. Therefore you can see what the trend had been since 1946. In early 1959 it levelled off to 8.8 per cent. The figure in December, 1959 is 5.9 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I have given the whole trend. I have taken it step by step since 1946. You can see what happened up to 1951. Korea got them off the hook. The situation reversed in 1956. The measures we took when we saw the situation reversed that trend and we have the evidence now. This was recognized in the brief submitted yesterday by the Canadian Labour Congress. The former government had the figures. They had the reports showing the trend. They had those confidential reports that showed these trends but they never let the people in on the secret. They sat it out; and one of the greatest sitter-outers was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). You never heard a peep out of him about unemployment in 1955.

The Address-Mr. Starr
In 1958 he discovered unemployment and that discovery was accompanied by a great display of drama here in this house. Like the famous general, he went galloping off in all directions, scattering warnings of doom and depression. Last session one speech during the throne speech debate was not enough for the hon. member for Essex East. He had to make another appearance. The first appearance he made was on January 22 and like the prophet of old, he was back again on January 30. The disaster warnings grew thick and fast during both of these appearances.
In his second appearance he warned the government that its policies were not meeting the approval of the bank presidents and big corporation directors of this country. He showed the same solicitude in the industrial relations committee last year when we had the unemployment insurance amendments before that committee and when he demanded that the unemployment insurance fund be replenished from general tax revenues. What does that mean? This would have had the effect of relieving the corporations from paying increased contributions. He did that with the unemployment insurance amendments that he piloted through this house. On that occasion, he was acting on behalf of the then minister of labour. Where were the increases? Were the increases in the employer contributions? No, Mr. Speaker; the record shows clearly and plainly-and I set it out here last session-that during the committee stage on the bill the hon. member for Essex East levied all the increases on contributions from the employees.
If we had followed his suggestion in supplying these increased contributions from general tax revenues, replenishing the fund from general tax revenues it would have meant higher taxes for ordinary Canadians. Now, what is the employment situation today? The D.B.S. figure-the figure that the former government said was the only true figure for unemployment-was 370,000 in December. It was only 8,000 more than in January 1955, when there was not one peep from the hon. member for Essex East. The December figure represents 5.9 per cent of the labour forces; at the same time last year the figure was 7.2 per cent of the labour forces.
When the Prime Minister spoke in the early part of the throne speech debate he quoted some remarks made by the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce as follows:
In September, less than 3 per cent of the labour iorce was unemployed, which, allowing for temporary unemployment and the unemployable, is considered to be full employment.

If 3 per cent in September, was full employment, 5.9 per cent in December, allowing for seasonal factors, is not too bad. The figure in the United States for December is 5.2 per cent, and in the United States they are getting the full benefit of the back to work movement resulting from the steel strike settlement, which we do not get in this country until a full month later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, this is an important discussion, and on behalf of all hon. members I ask that the minister be allowed to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that the minister be allowed to finish his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not agree with the minister's statement, but I agree that he should continue.


Michael Starr: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members for allowing me to carry on. I might say to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that he has the right to disagree with me, but I want to point out to him that the figures I am quoting here are correct and these are the facts.


Harold Edward Winch: All I am saying is that the minister continues. We want to hear what he has to say about labour.


Michael Starr: A lot has been said about tight money, and I want to deal with that briefly because my department deals with jobs, not money. The Leader of the Opposition in his opening speech criticised the Prime Minister for making a plea on behalf of the small borrower. They did not know in 1955 that the small borrower existed. When you look at the bank statements, the Prime Minister's words were not without effect. They had been made aware of his concern for these people.
In the statement of the president of a national Canadian bank the following appears:
In their allocation of their available resources between the various categories of customers, the chartered banks gave special consideration to the small borrower, as witnessed by the following figures issued by the Canadian banker's association-
Then Mr. Roberge goes on to give the figures. Mr. Muir, president of the Royal



I960

[Stage Direction]
Bank, after paying tribute to the wisdom and courage of those in charge of fiscal policy, goes on to say:
The savings of the general public who bought the bonds were channelled into new loans to businessmen, farmers and consumers. There was no creation of new money, only the channelling of savings into loans through the mobilization by the banks of the existing money supply. Idle capacity and idle men were thus put to work and production was thereby maintained or increased with no undue build up of inflationary pressures.
The banks were thus very conscious of the small borrower, in great contrast to 1955 when they left the small borrower right out of the picture.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the situation in 1955 was very different. As Mr. Howe pointed out, there was a declining economy: trade was down; inventories were up. It was just at this time that they brought in tight money. They brought it in as a matter of deliberate, positive government policy and, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the other night, they controlled the banks.
Now; under the circumstances, it was the worst possible move they could have made. Never has there been a more striking example of blundering and confusion in government policy. As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, the situation in the last year was entirely different. The economy was on the rise. In the words of the Canadian Labour Congress, employment was up, unemployment was down. A terrific expansion was in effect. The demand for credit simply outstripped the available supply. In 1955 you had the banks rebelling against government policy which was strangling their operations. This year you have commendation for fiscal policy.
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the dispensation we granted the hon. minister was, I thought, on the understanding that we were going to hear government policy. Is that going to occur?


Michael Starr: I am sorry; I did not hear the question.


Harold Edward Winch: When the time limit was reached the minister said, as I understood it, he was going to give us the labour policy, not make a government speech.


Michael Starr: As Minister of Labour I feel I should enlighten the house and particularly those who are in a state of confusion, and put before them the correct situation with regard to unemployment and the economy instead of putting forward various figures for political purposes.
What about the recession? Everybody knows that the recession is over. Everybody, that is, except those hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Essex East
The Address-Mr. Starr and his group. I think they should form a doomsters union. Wherever you look the picture is the same. Department store sales are 6.1 per cent ahead of last year. Chain stores are up 6.2 per cent. Let us look at the automobile industry, and I have mentioned what is happening in the city of Oshawa, in the riding I represent. Production in the automobile industry in Canada is up 26.4 per cent over last year. Production at January 16 this year was up 24.4 per cent over last month. Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that recession?
Industrial production in general is up by 11 per cent. Newsprint is up 8 per cent. Mineral production is up 19 per cent. Labour income is up 9.3 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Taxes are up, too.


Michael Starr: The hon. member talks about taxes. Taxes are lower now than they were before June 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: I can well understand the frustration of hon. members opposite. They do not like this picture which shows that there is buoyancy in our economy and that we are out of the recession that they knew something about but did nothing about. That is quite understandable.
As I say, labour income is up 9.3 per cent. The evidence is overwhelming wherever you look.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How is the birth rate doing?


George Harris Hees: Babies like being born under a Conservative government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must ask hon. members to allow the minister to continue his remarks.


Michael Starr: Now, what does this prove? It proves that the measures taken by this government have played an important part in stemming the tide of recession and restoring the forward movement of the economy, and this is acknowledged by the Canadian Labour Congress in the brief they presented yesterday. As we move into 1960 there is confidence and optimism in the minds of most people in this country. With one exception. In the front benches opposite, doom and depression continue their dreary reign. We leave them to their doom and gloom, Mr. Speaker. It is said that prophets have no honour in their own country. In this country the prophets of doom and despair have been proven abundantly wrong, and if there is no honour it is a situation of their own making.
As Minister of Labour I want to say this in conclusion: that ever since I assumed this office I have endeavoured to do all I can to better the lives and conditions of Canadians.

The Address-Mr. Tardif I will continue to do so. The wishes and the desires of working men and women in this country will always receive my consideration and my personal attention.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: May I ask the minister a question? Will the minister confirm that almost 100 per cent of the claimants for unemployment insurance benefits who are registered at unemployment insurance offices are actually out of work, and that benefits would not be paid to them unless they were recognized as unemployed.


Michael Starr: I spent a considerable amount of time quoting figures with respect to those people who were registered in the categories which the hon. member mentions, and I leave him to judge the extent of unemployment with regard to the nature of the work and the seasonal aspect of the undertakings.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Another question: would unemployment insurance benefits be paid to them if they were not unemployed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister was given unanimous consent to continue his remarks, but if there is to be a period of questioning I think further consent of the house is necessary-


An hon. Member:: The minister has agreed to answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To answer some questions, but I think we are starting on a series of questions.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no closure, may I remind the hon. member for Gloucester. I do not think that word should be used.


Harold Edward Winch: It was I who moved that the minister should be given time to continue his speech, but what I expected was not a review of the past but an explanation of how he, in his policy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We gave unanimous consent that the minister should continue his remarks, but not to say what the hon. member for Vancouver East expected him to say or wanted him to say.


Harold Edward Winch: We still have not had the answers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have recognized the hon. member for Russell, (Mr. Tardif).
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, even with my short experience, I can see that it is traditional to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It affords

me great pleasure therefore to congratulate the hon. members for Rimouski and Gren-ville-Dundas (Mr. Morissette and Mrs.. Cas-selman) who performed their task like professionals. The hon. member for Gren-ville-Dundas (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Cas-which is the envy of all members of the house.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the warm welcome you extended to me when I was introduced to this house.
In fact, it was with a certain feeling of humility that I took my place in this house. With assistance from my colleagues, I intend to do my utmost to provide the citizens of beautiful Russell county and Canadians as a whole with the kind of government they deserve.
I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Flynn), who, I am sure, will discharge his responsibilities with his well known dignity and fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not tender my best wishes to the parliamentary secretaries who have just been appointed for the period of one year.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Russell, which I have the honour to represent within the Liberal party, has considerably changed in the past few years, as have indeed various other parts of Canada. The constituency was known as a rural riding with very limited urban development. Today, it is mainly urban, though preserving its rural character. Its ever-increasing population comprises all Canadian elements. This part of the country has a great many farmers, businessmen, professional men, quite a few craftsmen and an impressive number of government employees.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to mention the warm welcome which I had from both sides of the house when I officially made my entry here. I already felt accepted by those who take an interest in the administration of this country.
I had then decided to postpone my maiden speech to the house, in order to have time to learn the procedure and watch the government at work. I now realize that it will not be necessary, and that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not take the floor now.
In fact, one of the election promises-and there were not many of them-which I made to the electors of the constituency of Russell, was that I would not be a silent representative, especially when their interests, or those of Canadians as a whole, would be at stake.
(Text):
I know you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to express my reaction to the speech from the throne as it was presented to this house a

few days ago. I am referring to the official one, not the unofficial one by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on January 15. That, I feel, was made for political propaganda purposes. My reaction to the speech from the throne was twofold. Speaking for myself and adopting a selfish attitude, I could say what I told the electors of Russell during my campaign-that the speech from the throne would be famous not for what it contained but for what it omitted. I told the voters at that time that it would be evident that none of the problems which affect Canada at this time would be reflected in the speech from the throne and that no solution to any of our pressing problems would be offered.
I am afraid-and this is the opinion of other Canadians after reading the speech from the throne-that there is an evident lack of policy and a definite lack of solutions to many of the present problems which affect every one of those in my constituency.
Today, with the exception of the speech to which I just listened made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr)-and I must accuse myself of lack of experience because I found it most confusing-no reference was made to the present tight money policy or any proposed action by the government to alleviate the painful results of such policy or lack of policy.
I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would probably hasten to say that no such policy exists. I am now referring to a tight money policy. I know they would maintain the attitude of saying nothing about it as has been the practice. I know that the Minister of Finance would probably state as he did in Toronto in the speech he made to the board of trade that the effects can be countered only by hard work, privation and a general lowering of the standard of living. That is certainly the effect it has on the ordinary citizen on the street. I am particularly worried about the effects of tight money on the segment of the population in my riding and on all Canadians.
I cannot resist the temptation of reading a statement made by the Minister of Finance on January 27, 1958, as reported at page 3852 of Hansard of that date:
The municipalities, particularly, have been hampered and restrained by high costs and difficulties of borrowing in recent years, and on them has fallen much of the burden of the tight money policy which has been prevailing in the past several years.
The minister at that time was referring to the Liberal government. He continued:
That tight money policy has now been eased in line with the policies of this government-
The Address-Mr. Tardif
The hon. gentleman went on to explain that he and his government intended to do something about it. The effects of what he intended to do are not evident as far as I am personally concerned. Mr. Robert Duffy, a famous columnist in the Globe and Mail, in an article on August 27, 1959 observed:
Meanwhile we have the government's efforts to explain when and how the tight money policy is not a tight money policy.
The short answer for the time being seems to be: When a Conservative government is in power.
Mr. Blair Fraser who is a recognized authority on financial questions and a famous writer in an article dated September 26, 1958, stated:
Seldom have reporters been baffled as they were when Prime Minister Diefenbaker, back from the west, undertook to explain about tight money.
What he said was clear: "There is no tight money policy. There was one three years ago. but there isn't now." Just what did he mean? What exactly did we have three years ago we haven't got now?
There have been so many utterances made by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that could be quoted. However, I am going to reserve some of my ammunition for the future in the event there is a general election in the near future.
I am personally thinking of the extra cost that tight money will bring to the farming community the members of which have to buy or replace machinery and equipment at terms bearing a high rate of interest. I am thinking of the small rural school board that will have to secure facilities for a growing child population and will be saddled by exorbitant interest payments on debentures they will have a great deal of difficulty to market and will continue to be penalized for 20 or 25 years with a high rate of interest that will be set when they do the borrowing. This will become our children's inherited mortgage as it was described by President Eisenhower in his state of the union message. This applies to small business and small industries and eventually will reflect on the standard of living of the artisans, many of them being seasonal workers.
No reference was made in the speech from the throne to a policy concerning national defence. While every Canadian is desirous of maintaining permanent peace he is also aware of the importance of being properly prepared for defending his country. The man on the street is worried at not having heard any program of defence in the speech from the throne and at the lack of such policies.
No reference was made in the throne speech to unemployment. A few days ago the Minister of Labour stated to the house that as of December 31 last there were approximately 700,000 Canadians unemployed. At the risk

The Address-Mr. Tardif of exposing myself to accusations of being repetitious I must say this brings to mind the declaration made by the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: It should be brought to mind.


Paul Tardif: 

23, 19S0

[Stage Direction]
of fear in the minds of civil servants. The lack of action on the part of the government to take any step to rectify the present condition is a very bad example to all other employers in Canada.
Much can be said of the lack of a program to improve the lot of small farmers, of milk producers and of cheese makers. Nothing was said with regard to what should have been a promise on the part of the government to submit a program to this house that would allow the small farmer to expect and receive a scale of income that would be commensurate with the income paid to trained workers. The eastern farmers have no objection to, as a matter of fact they support most heartily, the action taken by this house to help the western farmer in the calamity that has befallen him. However, they had hoped that the government would have introduced legislation to look after the needs of the eastern farmers who may find themselves in trouble should a similar situation occur in the eastern part of Canada. However, a lot of these things can be taken up when the estimates are before the house.
We have not had a word from the government in connection with the national capital, not a word to assure the people of the Canadian capital that more will be done by the government to accelerate the development of our wonderful national capital. With the exception of the declaration by the Prime Minister on January 25 when he said that the liaison established between the N.C.C. and the Prime Minister of Canada was now to be transferred to the Department of Public Works-which I suspect was done for political reasons-there was not a word referring to the injustices in the purchase of land in the green belt area where the price paid by the federal government for expropriated land is much below the price paid by private enterprise for land abutting the designated green belt area.
There was no mention by the government of its intention of retaining in the city of Ottawa and in the surrounding areas the public buildings that are necessary for the administration of this country. There was not a word in the speech from the throne of the government's intentions of making known to the province of Quebec and the city of Ottawa the percentage that it is ready and willing to contribute to the much needed interprovincial bridge between the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull. However, Mr. Barrette, the new premier of the province of Quebec, stated, and I quote from he Droit of January 20, 1960:
Prime Minister Antonio Barrette stated on Tuesday to a delegation of the chamber of commerce of the province that the government of Quebec
The Address-Mr. Tardif was well disposed and ready to do its part for the construction of a bridge between Hull and Ottawa, but that the initiative must come from the federal authorities.
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: There is an election coming in Quebec.


Paul Tardif: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me I should like to draw to the attention of the house some of my experiences in the Russell by-election. I feel quite sure that you will find them interesting. In the first place, may I quote from the Citizen of October 3, 1959. I refer to an editorial entitled:
The Issues in Russell.
I am not going to read the whole editorial but only a few parts of it. I shall save the rest of it until the ministers are all in their places.
After only two years in office, the Conservatives have revealed a singular bankruptcy of ideas- perhaps because, in the first instance, they had no real ideas, but only a program based on political opportunism. In any event, they have nothing to oiler Russell voters except an appeal to climb on the bandwagon.
A little farther down we find this:
The bandwagon is already overloaded with members from more than 200 constituencies, most of whom have little more voice in the nation's affairs than the voters they represent.
I think this is an excellent editorial, Mr. Speaker. I will forego the pleasure of reading it all and save it for another occasion.
I know you will find it in order for me to give a few details concerning the Russell by-election. Remarks were made at one time or another, as is always the case, during the campaign that preceded the election of October 5 in the riding of Russell. I have to accuse myself of being guilty at that time of an excessive amount of pride. I noted the activities on the part of the government to add one more seat to the government, one more backbenchers' backbencher. I am referring to that number of bold, silent men who sit in the back rows on the government side. All this I thought was done because of the government's fear of my personal power.
This sin was soon regretted and it was atoned for when it was evident that the whole Russell election strategy was for the purpose of adding another rose to the Prime Minister's already overcrowded crown, a crown that he probably finds difficult to carry at times. The campaign was the brain child of the chief organizer of the Conservative party who is a genius of organization according to his own estimation. The program evidently was to make Russell riding by-election a miniature general election. This was done, Mr. Speaker, complete with slogans similar to those used to sell soap.

The Address-Mr. Tardif
I was surprised and flattered by the great number of ministers of the crown and their charming wives who took a very active part in the Russell by-election. I understand there were enough ministers in Russell at that time to have a cabinet meeting and I expect that a cabinet meeting was probably held. We did not hear about it because it oftens happens that cabinet meetings are held, nothing comes from them and nothing is accomplished.
This was not all. The election campaign in Russell was not a defence in depth but an all-out offensive, with the ordinary workers making up the army, the ordinary Union Nationale-trained Conservative members from Quebec being the officer corps and the members of the federal cabinet being the big guns, eight in all.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Paul Tardif: If time permits I will be very glad to name them. The Prime Minister, according to tradition, did not mix in the Russell by-election in a manner that was evident but he did make a junket around the riding for the purpose of shaking hands and in the adjoining municipalities and, indeed, the municipalities of the province of Quebec. He ended all this with a television broadcast to the nation four days before the election, giving the election a flavour of a three-ringed circus.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, they came, bully boys and all, and spare voters too. The chief Tory organizer had given the word. There was to be no mention of policy during the campaign. The theme was, give Dief a vote of confidence, make him feel happy. The interpretation given to all this by the Liberal candidate was, give Dief an additional backbencher who, like a great number of the members supporting the government, will never be heard.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell)?


Paul Tardif: The hon. member for Carleton was also there but I had no objection to that and was not offended. The reasons I have enumerated are the reasons for my changing my original decision to wait until later to be heard in the house because it was one of my election promises that I would not be a backbencher from the point of view of action. I promised the people of Russell that I would make my voice heard and I have had the permission of all the Liberals in the house to do so on every occasion.
All this came to pass, Mr. Speaker. The people of Russell have again proven that those who see the present administration in action or in lack of action must of necessity vote against it, and they bravely did so in

an overwhelming manner. It is my intention and it will be my pleasant duty to contribute all the time I can to constructive, fearless opposition according to the policies set by my party for the greatest good of the people of Russell and the people of Canada generally.
If I have a few moments left at my disposal I should like to thank the members of the Conservative party who were so helpful in making my election campaign in Russell a success. They include the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fair-clough), the former secretary of state, the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley), the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer), the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton). Incidentally, I also want to thank their wives for their contribution.
It would not be fair, Mr. Speaker, if I did not include the names of the private members who also made a contribution such as the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais), the hon. member for Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Frechette), the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Parizeau), the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade), the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Monteith), the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Dubois), the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lafreniere), the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Rompre), the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn), the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Richard), the hon. member for Chateauguay-Hunting-don-Laprairie (Mr. Barrington), the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages), the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Grenier), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Latour), the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Bruchesi), the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Fortin), the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. LaRue), the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Deschambault), the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English), the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Letour-neau), the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) and finally, as I learned today and must not forget, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau).


An hon. Member:: The whole Union
Nationale.


Paul Tardif: I forgot to put him on the list but not because of any lack of importance. (Translation):


Mr. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been listening to the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) who said in his first remarks that he entered this house with a certain sense of humility; however, after hearing his speech, it is obvious that his humility has changed into cocksureness.
However, my dear fellow member, having been in this house longer than you, let me tell you that if you keep making such statements in the house, you may have a surprise in your constituency at the next election.


An hon. Member:: Are you jealous? Are you jealous?


Azellus Denis: He will double his majority.


Martial Asselin: Did I get that right?


Azellus Denis: He will double his majority.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your appointment as chairman of committees. The Prime Minister could not have made a better choice. I have known your great qualities for a long time, and I am sure your sound judgment will be an important factor in ensuring respect for our parliamentary institutions.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) for the confidence which the Prime Minister has shown them by taking them into the cabinet. I am sure their ability and sense of duty will adequately serve the interests of the nation.
I would be remiss in failing to mention the speeches of the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Casselman). The member for Rimouski, in his usual way, made a responsible and well balanced speech. He even took the economic experts of the opposition by surprise.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), with all her charm and dignity, spoke very ably of the problems of her constituency and also gave us her views on some international problems of great importance.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, newspapers in the province of Quebec made quite a fuss about the Quebec members silence on the moot question of winter navigation. Among other things, Conservative members were 79951-0-34J
The Address-Mr. Asselin taken to task for not bringing the appropriate pressure to bear upon this government so that the icebreakers could regularly convoy ships sailing up the St. Lawrence river to Quebec in the wintertime. The papers brought up the fancied idea of competition between Quebec harbour and the maritime provinces, indicating that our icebreakers are assigned to minor jobs.
I feel that those newspapers did not place the problem in its proper context and did not consider the economic and climatic conditions of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence.
I should like to make it clear that the ideas I am going to put to this house are not in any way binding on members of this government; they are merely the result of the experience of the member for the county of Charlevoix where year-round navigation has been practised for the last 30 years.
In 1957, Mr. Speaker, a large Quebec city organization convinced businessmen and shipping firms that winter navigation was feasible up to Quebec during the winter. The Federal Commercial Navigation Company offered its services for the tests by making available to Quebec harbour the D'Vora which was to carry goods from Quebec to the north shore.
Exceptional weather and ice conditions gave acceptable results during this first experiment, but it must be said that the crew ran into risks and perils which, on several occasions, endangered the passengers' lives.
In 1957, like today, the D'Vora was, from Pointe au Pic on, unable to sail up the river without the help of icebreakers. On several occasions, I saw the D'Vora come alongside the wharf at Pointe au Pic, and wait there several days for an icebreaker which was making its usual round on the river, and which would escort it up to Quebec.
After that first encouraging test, other ships were mustered in 1958 and 1959 to send goods from Quebec to the north shore-all this while still facing the same difficulties.
In 1959, some trans-Atlantic shipping companies, who had reinforced ships, equipped to resist the ice, were invited to sail up to Quebec; and I do not think that, when this second experiment was started, the government had given any assurance of making a scheduled icebreaker service available to vessels sailing up the river to Quebec during the winter.

The Address-Mr. Asselin
I may perhaps be accused of being opposed to winter navigation to Quebec. I shall immediately answer that I favour winter navigation, but I am also thinking of the economic factors on which such project should be based. I am also not siding with the maritimes against Quebec, but I say that winter navigation up to Quebec has unfairly competed with the winter harbour at Pointe au Pic, and it is my duty to protect that economic sector in my riding.
Everybody knows that for the last 30 years there has been year round navigation at Pointe au Pic. There is at that spot an atmospheric occurrence which, because of water currents and the direction of the winds, frees the river and the harbour of Pointe au Pic from ice so that ships may enter the harbour and depart again with their cargo without the help of icebreakers. During the last war, navy vessels were moored there on various occasions during their winter manoeuvres and, there again, they had no need of icebreakers.
To give only a few figures, the Clarke Steamship Company Limited carried during the winter of 1956-1957, up to 1,500 tons of goods from Pointe au Pic to the north shore. Such activity in the harbour of Pointe au Pic gave work to about a hundred longshoremen, and our heads of families could thus benefit from a substantial income, since the Clarke Steamship Limited paid, in a single winter season, from $45,000 to $50,000 in wages.
This year, winter navigation up to Quebec has practically brought economic activity to a standstill at Pointe au Pic. This year, as at January 6, 1960, about $1,200 had been paid in wages, and only one shipment of 60 tons was loaded, while at one time Pointe au Pic and Rimouski were considered the only winter harbours in eastern Quebec. Today, those two winter harbours are used only as second-rate harbours, and in case of extreme necessity. The one at Pointe au Pic is now used only as a shelter for ships in difficulty or threatened by ice on the St. Lawrence.
Thus, competition is being met in an economic sector of the same province. This year at Pointe au Pic the Department of Public Works built a wharf extension, as well as a vast and highly modern shed, at the cost of nearly $750,000, to help steamship companies that operate in the wintertime; but now those improvements are useless, because,

to all appearances, Quebec is becoming the sole harbour for wintertime shipping.
Last year, the Canadian National Railway authorities granted the Charlevoix area a preferential rate on the rail transport of goods to Pointe au Pic, so as to help those companies enjoy reasonable rates of transport on the goods they ship to Pointe au Pic. Immediately there were loud protests from the city of Quebec about the Canadian National decision.
I wonder whether this attitude looks anything like true and loyal competition.
At present the harbour of Quebec is competing with the Canadian National Railways which operates between Quebec and La Malbaie. That public service has been operating at a loss for years, and it could reduce its deficit when rail shipments from Quebec to Pointe au Pic were normal. Freight trains which had been routed to Pointe au Pic have been stopped at Quebec because shippers were given to understand that the harbour at Quebec was the only one able to handle goods for shipment on the north shore. This action of course has meant the loss of thousands of dollars to people in my constituency, because the harbour at Pointe au Pic remained almost idle ever since Quebec officials managed to convince shipping companies that winter navigation was normal between Quebec and the north shore.
However, I happen to know that loaded ships have remained moored for weeks on end in Quebec harbour, unable as they were because of weather and ice conditions to risk sailing down the St. Lawrence. This necessarily entailed considerable delay in the delivery of goods to north shore people, and high storage costs. It was, too, unfair to Pointe au Pic harbour which is always ice-free and, for that reason allows ships to take on cargo with no delays due to any physical or atmospheric factor.
These last few days, Mr. Speaker, the matter of winter shipping has aroused interest not only in Quebec city but in other centres like Three Rivers and Montreal. I am informed that the chamber of commerce of Three Rivers has made representations to get regular icebreaker services so that the harbour of Three Rivers can benefit from winter navigation. Last week, the Ottawa Citizen and Le Devoir of Montreal put forward the idea that winter navigation would be possible up to Montreal provided of course that the



I960

[Stage Direction]
federal government would make additional icebreakers available to the Montreal harbour authorities. To support those claims, it is argued that if winter navigation is possible up to Quebec, there is no reason why it should not be so up to Three Rivers and even to Montreal. Now we are faced with a problem more complicated than was at first expected.
In order to make an objective study of the situation, I believe that we should first focus the discussion on the physical, atmospheric and economic aspects.
It has been established-as I said at the beginning of my speech-that winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river above Pointe au Pic, seems dangerous and almost impracticable because of the considerable amount of ice across this narrow neck of the St. Lawrence river, unless ships are well enough protected and equipped to withstand ice pressure. It is only when the weather is perfect and exceptionally good that ships can sail that distance up to Quebec, but not without facing imminent risks, unless they can depend on the scheduled aid of icebreakers; and even then, there are still certain risks and dangers.
My impression is that the experience already made on winter navigation up to Quebec should have started first, with a complete study of all factors and obstacles related to that question.
I would even add that such a study could not be made on a unilateral basis but had to be done in co-operation with the Department of Transport, because of the need to know in advance what help the department might provide for such an undertaking.
The Quebec port authorities launched this project without making a thorough study of the question. And now that difficulties have come up, the government is blamed for failing to provide assistance for the project, as desired by its promoters.
The member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), who never misses an opportunity to make political hay, has just joined in the debate with regard to this matter of winter navigation. Yet God knows that in the 18 years he has been sitting on the Liberal side as a private member and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works, he had many opportunities to act on this project. But no, Mr. Speaker, in all that time, he never said a word. Now
The Address-Mr. Asselin he attempts to take credit away from the member for Quebec East (Mr. Tasse) who is the promoter of this project. Last Tuesday, January 26, 1960, he attempted-quite skillfully I admit-to show a contradiction between the statements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) and those of the member for Quebec East concerning icebreaker services which were to be provided on the St. Lawrence river. He tried to raise a doubt, but without committing himself. He was afraid to take a clear-cut position. He prefers to wait and see which way the wind blows, and find out what side would be more profitable from an election point of view. If he is so brave and he speaks for the Liberal party in the matter of winter navigation to Quebec, let him come out and tell us whether he is for or against such a thing.
The hon. member for Laurier and former minister of transport (Mr. Chevrier), who never gave a thought to this matter when he was in office, questioned the present Minister of Transport the other day in the house on the provision of regular icebreaker services in wintertime for ships sailing up the St. Lawrence to Quebec. The Minister of Transport replied that his department was giving maximum assistance at the present time. In saying he was giving maximum aid, I presume the Minister of Transport meant he was concerned with the problem and that his department so far had been giving maximum help, consistent with winter shipping regulations, to ships in need of icebreaker services.
I know quite well that last Christmas eve, the Swedish ship Elga Dan, sailing towards Quebec, had trouble on the river because of ice conditions. The icebreaker d'Iberville was called, and helped the ship break free and resume its course.
And the Liberal party will have the people of the province of Quebec believe that the winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river is of no concern to the Department of Transport.
I remember that on January 19, 1960, in this house, the hon. member for Levis pointed out to the Minister of Transport that if there were not enough icebreakers, there were shipyards in Lauzon, implying that the Department of Transport could have some built there.
I think this is the crux of the whole matter.
Did anyone figure the cost of operating an icebreaker, the cost of building additional
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Asselin icebreakers and the number required to ensure ocean shipping in wintertime up to Quebec city?
Have the supporters of winter navigation up to Quebec city asked themselves the following questions?
How many icebreakers would be needed to ensure navigation for all ships that wish to sail up to Quebec? And then, when reaching Quebec how many icebreakers more would be needed to go to Three Rivers and to Montreal? How could the expense in capital and operation costs be compared with the profits this would bring to the harbours of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal, taking into account the losses which will be sustained by the St. Lawrence harbours operating all the year round at a small cost, as well as the loss of revenue for the harbours of Pointe au Pic, of Rimouski, of the Saguenay, *

not forgetting those of the Canadian National Railways? Is it possible to claim now, on the grounds of persecution, that the government should incur considerable expense in building additional icebreakers without first insuring that the undertaking will be at least self-supporting, when specialists in this field have already maintained that winter navigation pays its way in the harbours of Rimouski and Pointe au Pic?
All those considerations lead me to suggest that the government should seriously consider the winter navigation situation on the St. Lawrence and take positive action, in keeping with the conclusions of that survey.
I commend the government for its wise policy in solving that problem.
Elementary logic demands that the government should not commit itself to exorbitant expenses to ensure regular escort, in winter time, for ships wishing to sail up the St. Lawrence as far as Quebec, or farther, unless it has satisfactory evidence that such an undertaking is economically self-supporting.
In my opinion, it would be more efficient for fervent supporters of winter navigation to consider the problem from that angle in the first place before having people believe that the government is unconcerned, when in fact it has been giving the matter continuous and serious consideration in relation to economic difficulties which the Department of Transport must face.
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Would the hon. member for Charlevoix allow me a question?


Martial Asselin: With pleasure.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Has the hon. member asserted, from what I heard when he discussed the

matter, that there was no flagrant contradiction between the statement of the Minister of Transport and the statement of the hon. member for Quebec East in the matter of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river?


Martial Asselin: I say there is no flagrant contradiction, because when the Minister of Transport made that statement on winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, he never promised to provide a regular escort to ships deciding to sail up the St. Lawrence to Quebec. He said he would do his very best to provide escorts for ships deciding to sail up to Quebec. I suggest that the hon. member go over the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Transport.
(Text):


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate today, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Cassel-man) on her very able presentation in seconding the motion in reply to the speech from the throne. I do this for a reason other than those previously mentioned. I am sure many of us are concerned by the fact that when we enter politics we give up many things for which we have the right to hope and one of these is an effective type of security for our wives if they should become widows. As we look around the country we find more and more politicians dying at an early age and leaving widows who have to fend for themselves. I am very pleased not only that the electors of her constituency saw fit to elect the hon. lady but that she is as capable as she is in making her presentation to the house. I hope that if my wife has to enter politics at any time because I have left her no future, she will receive as favourable a response as the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas has received in this house.
Like a number of other hon. members I am very concerned this year about the operations of the House of Commons itself. You will probably remember, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of last session I received many compliments for exercising the right to call it ten o'clock, but no doubt you would agree that the load of work which falls on the shoulders of a private member is considerably increased if the hours of sitting of the house are extended. I think that again we are facing exactly the same position as we were last year. If hon. members will look at the order paper they will see what has been put down on the order paper at the present time. They will find under government orders three or four fairly insignificant bills. One of them provides for the retirement of judges at the

age of 75. I am not disagreeing with the proposals in any of these bills. All I am saying is that they are insignificant. We are also to discuss an extension of grants that are made under the railway grade crossing fund for another three years. This arises because municipalities have been unable to take advantage of this particular provision, with the result that it is to be extended for another three years, the money provided in the past not having been spent.
Provision is being made to split up the Department of the Minister of Justice and give him two deputy ministers. That is all very good, perhaps, but it is not very important to the people of Canada. The last item on the order paper is a more important one; we are to add $500 million to the fund provided under the National Housing Act, bringing the total up from $1,000 million to $1,500 million.
Some of these measures may be important but it should be remembered that the speech from the throne mentioned a number of important matters that would be discussed, and I do not see any of these things on the order paper. What I am suggesting is that if they are important, and if we are running this place as a business as we should, the government should be prepared to bring in this type of legislation at the beginning of the session so that we may get on with it.
I have no objection to our finishing in three months, in four months or ten months. I have no objection how this is done. But I do suggest that a member of the house is dishonest if he sits here and lets the type of legislation to which I have referred be introduced and then, at the end of the session, brings in such things as crop insurance, a subject which was introduced in the dying days of the last session before the problem had been fully discussed in any of the provinces. In fact, by the end of the year most of the provinces had not even considered taking advantage of that legislation, or of implementing it. I am suggesting that debates on topics such as this should be undertaken early in the session and that parliament should be given a chance to do something about them. Otherwise, we would be less than honest if we did not recognize that someone was holding up the operations of this house.
I was very pleased that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) mentioned some of these problems affecting our procedure. He made reference to some changes that he would like to see in operation; with some of his points, I agreed, though with others I did not. I do think, however, that he was drawing attention to a problem which
The Address-Mr. Peters should be seriously considered by all members of parliament. Yesterday, certainly we received what I might even call a lecture in which the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) outlined what he thought the House of Commons should be doing and the many improvements that could be introduced. Looking around the house yesterday and noting the silence which attended his remarks I thought that many hon. members held the same view as I do, namely that we should give a great deal more consideration to this very important topic.
There are so many of us here who are new to parliament and who have no experience of the tradition of parliament. We have to read the records in order to find out about that tradition. I think it is a disgrace the way in which some of the old-timers here play about with what they consider to be the tradition. We should make the House of Commons a more effective body and a more effective sounding board for public opinion. Backbenchers on all sides of the house are capable of making a far more effective contribution than is possible at present, but this contribution can only be made if the treasury benches enable it to be provided. In any case, if important pieces of legislation are held up until the end of the session when they cannot be properly discussed I think the people across Canada are right if they say we are not doing the job we were sent here to do.
I wish, now, to say a word about what is known as the private members' hour and to give notice that I may avail myself of the divorce procedure which we carry on here in order to bring this matter to the attention of the people across the country. Almost 400 of these divorce bills have been introduced already and if I were to ask for them to be handled separately in this house, without asking for a vote or any other consideration-simply that they be introduced separately, go into committee separately, and so on-as much time would probably be spent in this way as would be spent on all government legislation. Maybe we shall have to do this in order to focus attention on this particular matter. If this should be the case, I am quite willing to do it no matter who says it is wasting the time of the house, or whatever else people may want to say about it. Frankly, I do not care what most of the people say. I am interested in seeing that the operation of parliament is as effective as we could possibly make it, because we are now competing with other systems-other ideol-other things, Conservative members were ress, and if we cannot show that we can

The Address-Mr. Peters make the same kind of progress under democratic procedure, then, I suggest, people are going to give consideration to other ways of doing things.
There are, on the order paper, a number of important private members' bills. These bills are of great interest to the people who have introduced them as well as to large segments of the Canadian population and economy. Last year we found the government increasingly adopting the method of talking out bills sponsored by private members; talking them out without providing any leadership at all or indicating whether they agreed with the measure or whether they disagreed with it. I found it not unsatisfactory when-as happened in the case of one bill which I myself had the honour of introducing-the government states plainly that they cannot go along with it. In that case a vote was allowed and the bill was voted down. That was the right of the government and its supporters. But I am particularly concerned about those private bills which supporters of the government flogged to death. I would much prefer that the government opposed these bills and had the gumption to say: we shall call a vote. We do not believe in it. We do not think the time is right for this implementation, and we are willing to say so. If that happened, we could then get on with something else.
I suggest that it is clearly time private members' bills were given greater consideration by the government. Otherwise, someone like myself will say: very well, we will eliminate the whole process and discuss divorce for five or six months during the private members' hour. This would also eliminate some public bills which might be of concern to some parts of the country.
I am also concerned with regard to the question period. Many of the questions that are asked are sensible questions, but I am inclined to believe that many others which have been asked, particularly in the last day or two, are manipulations between certain people on both sides of this house. Simple questions are asked that require simple, direct answers. Occasionally an irrelevant statement that is out of order will be attached to the question. A minister of the crown will rise and respond to the irrelevancy and a lengthy discussion will ensue that is without meaning or value. I am suggesting that this is an affront to the Speaker and lessens the dignity of parliament without accomplishing anything. We can surely expect better conduct on the part of members of the house of long standing who should be willing to provide leadership to those of us who are new and are eager to learn about the effective operation of parliament.

I have no more respect for the way the Liberal administration operated than I have for the operation of the present administration but at least under the Liberals ministers would take under advisement the question that was advanced and reply in due course. It should not be considered that a member is automatically out of order in bringing forward a question. If he is sincere in wanting an answer he should not be ridiculed.
The hon. member for Port Arthur dealt with committee work in his address. I am not as well read as he is and I do not know what committees of parliament are supposed to do. Over the years, however, I have sat on many trade union committees and learned something about the way they operate. They are established for a specific purpose and when they have accomplished it they make a report through the body that appointed them. That body considers the report and either rejects or accepts the report or any portion thereof.
I did not agree entirely with the report brought in by the defence committee a year or two ago and would not have wanted some of its recommendations implemented. Nevertheless, that committee conducted a thorough investigation of the subject and made a splendid report. Nothing that has transpired since indicates to me that the government, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) or the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. O'Hurley) gave any consideration to the recommendations of that committee. If the work of committees is to be ignored I see no reason for not abolishing them.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has great parliamentary experience and professes himself to be interested in the rights of parliament. I think it is disgraceful that he should consider the setting up of another committee when apparently he has no desire at all to implement the recommendations contained in the reports of any of the existing committees established under the rules of this house.
Committee work is important. It gives the little fellow a chance to have his say and make a valuable contribution. He is free to speak without thought of party consideration as a representative of his riding on a subject about which he may know a great deal. If committee reports are to be ignored parliament is cheating itself of these valuable contributions. It may be said that it has not been the policy over the years to implement committee recommendations and that may be true but there are approximately 200 of us who have not been here over the years. In the main, we are young and we want to see a good job done. If the older members do not provide leadership to us

and if John Diefenbaker who claims to defend the rights of parliament does not show some initiative in this regard, there will be many of us who simply will not run again because we can spend our time more effectively in other places.


Mr. McCleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has referred to another hon. member of this house by name and that is forbidden under the practice of this house.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Prince Albert will not be offended at my having used his name. I notice that this is not a Conservative government any longer as much as it is a Diefenbaker government, so I do not think that is a real point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Chown):: Order. Dealing with the point of order made by the hon. member for Halifax, he is quite correct in what he says. I would ask the hon. member who is now speaking to henceforth refer to the hon. gentleman in question as the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, which is the proper way, or as the hon. member for Prince Albert.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Consideration should be given to these matters at the beginning of the session and probably the throne speech debate is the time to do it. We have not considered what is to be the length of the session. I have heard it said in the corridors that we may wind up in June although others say it will be late in September. Is it not unfitting that we should have speculation as to the length of the session? Is it not the prerogative of the cabinet to consider the legislative program and the time allotted for its proper passage? I suggest the government could and should consider this question and announce the length of the session as each session begins.
I am not in agreement with those who say that being a member of parliament is a part-time job. I have found few hon. members who are able to augment their income from the job or profession they normally follow. This is also true of members of the legal profession some of whom over the years were able to conduct their law practice from the House of Commons. As a member of parliament I am prepared to work here nine or ten months out of the year and have recesses at regular times and operate on a full-time basis. I am sure many other hon. members are prepared to do that.
I offer no apology for the course followed by members of this group at the end of last session when we insisted on observing the rules of the house at a time when the
The Address-Mr. Peters government was attempting to rush through legislation that should not have been rushed through. I believe this is the time during the course of the session when we should resolve to order our business in such a way as to expedite our sittings.
The normal role of a backbencher like myself is to speak about matters concerning his constituency. In travelling around the country I have learned that the problems in my own constituency are those of Canadians in general, and so without listing the towns in my riding and their respective problems, I feel I can discuss these questions in broader terms.
One problem affecting Canadians greatly is agriculture. I was surprised that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) should have spoken for 40 minutes without getting around to saying the things I am sure he intended to say. I was also surprised that the Minister of Defence Production should have had to finish making his statement for him. No doubt this was an oversight. I agree that he should thank the Minister of Defence Production for speaking about the matter of deficiency payments for eggs and pork, because it is a matter that should have been brought to the attention of the house by the minister himself.
This problem has grown during the past days. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane) mentioned this matter, as it concerned his riding. It was again brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden), both of whom represent farm ridings and understand that the problem as outlined by the minister is not a true picture at all. I am inclined to believe that the Financial Post of October 17 had a much better picture of what was going to happen to the egg situation when they headed an article, "Ottawa Quits the Egg Business". I would suggest that is exactly what they have done. Many farmers across the country will agree that Ottawa has quit the egg business and it is time they got back in with at least a limited support for eggs.
The Financial Post points out that the support program produced an unmanageable surplus of eggs, and they go on to say that therefore the government had to get out. Yesterday the hon. member for Rosthern pointed out that it was not the purpose of the deficiency payments to eliminate surpluses. This was part of the problem, and the problem had to be handled separately.
Some of the things that have been happening in the egg picture have been brought to the attention of the house. One of the decisions that the minister made was a sensible one. Over the period of the last two

The Address-Mr. Peters or three years the minister and all the members of the house have been much concerned with vertical integration. Vertical integration has produced a surplus of eggs and it has produced surpluses of many agricultural commodities. In the matter of putting a ceiling on the number of eggs that could be given assistance the minister was travelling along the right direction. He chose as a basis for deficiency payments the amount of 4,000 dozen eggs. This number appears to be the production from a flock of about 500 hens. This, I would suggest, is a small flock by Canadian standards, and therefore the flock should be raised by a considerable number. The ceiling should be there and should be maintained, however, because it will be one of the ways of eliminating the surplus created by vertical integration.
A number of articles have appeared in the papers which give rise to other problems concerning this matter of egg production. One of them is the problem that has been brought to the attention of the house on other occasions, namely that of chickens next year. The hatcheries made presentations stating that if the egg production continues to drop because there is no price for eggs, then we are going to be faced with a very serious shortage of hatchery eggs and that this in turn will raise the price of eggs to both the consumers and hatcheries in a year or possibly a year and a half.
Another problem that has been pointed out is that this does not seem to have had any effect on the wholesaler. It is pointed out in an article in the Regina Leader-Post of January 22 that grade A large eggs are giving the farmer a return of 14 cents; that the retailer is making 15 cents on them and the consumer is paying 33 cents to 34 cents. They also point out that it is worse in the field of medium eggs where there is no deficiency payment. The farmer is getting 12 cents and the retailer is getting 14 cents. It does not seem to make any difference how much the eggs are selling for, the retailer and wholesaler are getting their share out of handling this commodity, and the one who takes the cut is the farmer. I would suggest also that this matter was never discussed with members in a caucus of the Conservative party or, if it was, the minister again disregarded the advice of some of the backbenchers who are familiar with this problem. This is quite evident in the remarks that have been made concerning this problem in the debate so far.
We have another problem with regard to deficiency payments, and that is in the field of hogs. Pork is meeting the same problems that are evident in the case of eggs, and there are also other problems. In


my area over the years we sold to the local packer. The local packer used to come around and offer whatever he wished to the farmer, and if he did not sell to the packer, then he kept the pig and took whatever loss there was. In other words, he sold for whatever was offered to him because there was no other market.
Many of the farmers have banded together now and have established community sales. These community sales have been able to increase the price of pigs and other livestock. But because of the manner in which deficiency payments are made it has eliminated farmers from getting any kind of deficiency payments on pigs that are sold through community sales. It has meant that with respect to many of our people who want to protect themselves on deficiency payments they have had to go back to selling to the local packer and have taken a loss beyond what they might have had to take if they stayed with the community sales. The agriculture committee could quite easily devise some methods that would allow the farmer to continue to sell through the community sales and at the same time receive any benefits of federal legislation which would have accrued to him if he had sold in the normal way to the packing house.
In the last few days we have continually heard about money. I was interested to note that it is a matter that not only we on this side of the house discuss but the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), in his extended time, also went on to talk about money. I agree that he is one man who should talk about money because in the labour field we continually hear that the whole problem of increased resistance to sales on foreign markets and our losses in trade and other considerations have all been brought about by the fact that labour is getting increases in wages and pricing us out of our external markets. I think some of the members who have parroted this charge of many of the manufacturing concerns would do well to consider the things that the minister said this afternoon and relate them directly to the labour problem.
We have been very interested in this problem on this side of the house because we are aware of a number of things that have not been given much consideration. For one thing, there are two types of money in this country. It has been said there is tight money and, at the same time, it has been said that there is lots of money available. I believe that both of these statements are true. There is lots of money for certain investment and there is a very tight money policy for us who happen to borrow through

the banks or through the institutions which are controlled directly by the government through the Bank of Canada. We have heard of restrictions in this field where there is buying resistance or where extended credit is not allowed and at the same time fortunes are coming into this country, attracted by the extended potentialities that we have, which do not enter at all into the matters which are under the control of the Bank of Canada or, for that matter, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). This is of importance to quite a number of people. Wilfrid C. Krug, in an address to a joint meeting of the junior and senior boards of trade in Toronto on October 26 last, said:
Today money is tight and costly.
He went on to say:
If continued, it will result in a breakdown and an end to our system of private enterprise.
I think this matter should concern hon. members. Mr. Krug went on to say:
The premium encourages Canadians to spend money abroad and discourages foreigners from spending money in Canada.
1 represent a mining community where the people are very interested in this matter of money, particularly money coming into the country for the development of our natural resources and its relationship to the premium on the dollar. As hon. members know, when our mines sell their gold they sell it at $35 United States and the higher the Canadian dollar goes the less money the mines get for their gold and the less opportunity there is for these mining communities to continue their existence.
The Minister of Finance spoke in Toronto on Monday, January 11 and dealt with five suggestions having to do with reducing the premium on the dollar. I am particularly interested in the fifth one. I think the others are pretty much the same and can be dealt with in the same way. The minister said that he did not see any reason to increase the price of gold in Canada because this would immediately mean that we would have to pay more for gold coming from other sources. The minister had this to say:
To limit the payment of the increased price to Canadian-produced gold it would, of course, be necessary to prohibit the import of gold from outside Canada.
There is an implication here, that we are importing gold from outside Canada. If we are, I should like to ask the minister why we are and what is the purpose of our buying such gold. The minister said that if we adopted any one of the five suggestions we would immediately make the problem more difficult and increase the premium on the dollar instead of decreasing it or that if we
The Address-Mr. Peters went to the extreme and prohibited the importation of money from the United States and other countries then we would eliminate the entry of capital from the United States.
I am inclined to believe that in some cases this would not be a bad idea. A great deal of money is coming into Canada from the United States for investment in the development of natural resources and it is coming into this country for the very simple reason that these people can make a large capital gain and there is no tax on that gain. There is a capital gains tax of 25 per cent in the United States and I suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he would impose such a tax in Canada a great deal of this money would no longer continue to come into this country. If we are going to develop our natural resources by assisting people in another country to make 25 per cent more profit, then I think we should give consideration to the suggestion I have made and take a close look at the matter.
I should like to speak briefly about the uranium industry and the problems that have been created by the government in that industry. A brief was presented to the first Canadian conference on uranium and atomic energy by Larry Sefton, director of district 6, united steelworkers of America, on January 13 of this year and among other things he said:
In conclusion, let me suggest that the present crisis in uranium should teach us two lessons. In future, when some new area of natural resource exploitation opens up, let us have consultation between government, management and labour, not merely between government and investors, in advance-The uranium crisis should show us clearly that the interests of the people are just as important as the interests of capital and that, unless we plan to protect these interests in advance, the public may end up losing more out of exploitation of natural resources than they are worth.
I suggest that this sometimes happens in the development of our resources, and if we impose a capital gains tax we will eliminate the flow of money now being used to develop resources in instances where, as has proved to be the case in the uranium industry at Elliot Lake, it might be better if we had proceeded slowly and reached a concrete understanding of the problem before allowing development to proceed.
I should like to deal with the position of the civil service. It would seem to me that we have given very little consideration to our civil servants. I am not going to mention all the ways that we have tried to protect our civil servants without allowing them to have unions. A commission was appointed by government and it laid down a set of ground rules under which the civil service is supposed to operate, but I wish to suggest that we want to maintain the highest level of efficiency we can with the least number of
532	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Peters civil servants. I suggest that the government is going to have to give consideration to the manner in which civil service associations are set up, the relationship that the government has with such associations and also the question of whether we are getting the most we can out of our civil service.
I think we can afford to pay a sizeable increase to civil servants. I also suggest that we dispense with a number of civil servants and I think consideration should be given to that point. I am of the opinion that civil servants differ in no way from any other kind of employee. I think the only difference is that civil servants bargain with the government and therefore under our labour legislation machinery should be set up under which they can bargain. I suggest there is nothing wrong with civil servants having available to them the full process of collective bargaining and I have no objection to them taking strike action if that seems to be necessary.
Some people will say that this is not what we want for our civil servants but I would suggest there is only one alternative and that is for civil servants to get into politics and decide who the government is going to be. We are having enough trouble with some of the senior civil servants now interfering in government but I suggest that civil servants should not have to try to change the government just because they want to get a wage increase.
I think what happened in Russell riding is a good example of civil servants becoming interested in politics and making their voice heard. I think it would be wise to consider what happened there before it grows to the point where it affects all civil servants, and I think we should give them the bargaining rights which they deserve.
I want to use one example. I have received a great number of letters from postal employees in my area. They are civil servants and they have an association. They are connected with other similar associations across Canada and are organized in a national organization and belong to the Canadian Labour Congress. There are three particular organizations to which they belong and in point of fact they are unions. These men are also civil servants and they receive no consideration because the same problem affects the whole civil service and because of the fact that we have not separate methods of negotiation for wage increases from the government.
The machinery is there. The government has the opportunity of putting it into effect and giving these people a voice. This does not mean that every time civil service matters are discussed they must be thrown in with the R.C.M.P., the army, navy, air force and all the other organizations that come under


the government. They should be treated as civil servants and where wages are concerned every consideration should be given to them that is given to people who are not civil servants.
In closing I should like to mention the case of one postal employee who has to deliver to 700 homes. When he has a piece of literature from a soap company to deliver he has to call at each of these 700 homes and yet he is only paid $240 a month.
I might suggest to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) that he might solve a great many of the problems if they were paid more money in that service and he would not have to answer questions such as those he has been asked in the last few days.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my first words may I direct to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I was sorry to interrupt him in his speech but he showed such zeal for the rights and privileges of parliament that I thought he would appreciate it if I pointed out that he was offending against one of the oldest rules of practice that we have.
May I express through you, Mr. Speaker, to your new deputy my most fervent congratulations on his acclamation to that position, an honour which I am sure he will reflect on behalf of the whole house. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I must say a few words for the hon. member who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I had the pleasure of accompanying the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) on a trip to Paris in the fall of 1958 when we attended the UNESCO conference. I must praise the wonderfull job he did in the administrative committee.
Furthermore, I know that his speech was excellent because since then I heard strong protests on the part of Quebec Liberal members.
(Text):
May I also congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) who so ably seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have heard, on the hon. lady's authority, that these were all her own ideas although, when we were listening to them, I thought some of them seemed to be the ideas of some political philosophers of the past. For example, she laid upon the word "work" and the idea of work as an emphasis that has not been heard in very recent times. I imagine that part of her understanding and her background could have been owing to her father who also sits in this house, and I am sure that she had a proper upbringing.

The Address-Mr. McCleave
I have some kind words for the new ministers, and the parliamentary secretaries who are already ascending those Olympic heights to even greater glory, and I wish a welcome to the new members at this session.
May I also say something about the marathon speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson)-a discourse of some two hours and forty seven minutes, according to my timing-which would make one marvel at first blush at the ability of anybody to carry on for so long. But I have finally decided just why he was able to do so at such length. It is extremely easy to see the goal in sight if you are running around in a very narrow circle.
The Leader of the Opposition has a facility for the gifted phrase; and as he threw some gratuitously at our party I think it would be proper if somebody replied in kind. Here is a program for liberalism which I offer freely to the party or, as it is now designated, the group: labour for laissez faire; ideas for inventions; backbone for boloney; energy for excitement; realism for rancour; ability for arrogance; and liberal for lackadaisical.
Lest anybody quarrel with the depth or lack of depth of feeling behind those words, I will be the first to admit that it is perhaps a very small formula and to offer to the Leader of the Opposition another phrase, as he is very fond of phrases: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't".
As I look around the Leader of the Opposition at the four horsemen of the Apocalypse I notice one who is concerned now with turning his party into a group. I believe this is simply an unconscious wish on his part that he in time may take over the leadership of a group a little further to his left, politically speaking.
May I now turn to more serious matters and consider first the problem of radioactive fallout in our time. This matter has been dealt with at the United Nations and perhaps, subsequently in the debate on external affairs I shall have an opportunity to speak about the decisions that were reached by that body last fall. As most hon. members, if not all, are aware, owing to Canadian initiative-for which we must give due thanks to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) and his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) - Canada was able to initiate a resolution which won world-wide approval at the United Nations. This success entailed a considerable amount of work. For one thing, the suspicions of the soviets and their followers had to be cleared aside. For another thing, when you try to get 82 countries or 83 countries to agree, you will find each one throwing its
own particular ideas into the pot. But after some 36 drafts of a resolution one was finally adopted which will provide for joint studies to stimulate the flow of information and data on fallout and radiation levels and for encouraging genetic biological and other studies on the effects of radiation exposure on the health of human beings everywhere. No country is immune to radioactive fallout.
I do not intend to pursue the course followed by Canada at the United Nations, but I have some thoughts about the status of this rather serious problem in our own country. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in his remarks to the United Nations pointed out that even with an end to nuclear testing the problem of ionizing radiation will still exist. He went on to say this:
There will continue for several years to be fallout of radioactive particles already in the atmosphere. There will also be long term effects from the movement of radioactive isotopes through food chains. Even more important, there will continue to be for a long time genetic and biological effects from radiation, both man-made and natural, on the health of human populations.
In short, the gist of the problem is that even with a cessation of nuclear testing the amount of these invisible particles which bombard us every moment of our lives will increase in intensity over the next few years before a decrease begins. One scientist I know estimates that the amount of radiation will increase until the year 1966 and then decrease so that by the year 2,000 we shall have reached the position in which we are at present.
One can also see that if nuclear testing should be resumed by the large powers one would reach perhaps the danger line about which I will say a word in a few moments' time. It was therefore gratifying to me personally-and I am sure to every Canadian- to know of the strong stand taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of this country in the United Nations and at other international conferences to prevent nuclear testing and to show that Canada as a whole is united against the resumption of such tests.
I mentioned a possible danger point. The language of the scientists who deal with this subject is filled with such jargon as "maximum permissible concentration", known vulgarly in that trade as "mpc". It is true that in Canada, according to the figures, all parts of the country are well below the maximum permissible concentration recently established as a safety factor by the international commission on radiological protection, and much further below the previous figure recommended by that same commission somewhat earlier. There is, however, one city in Canada that is just under the

The Address-Mr. McCleave latest limit proposed by the international commission on radiological protection as the maximum permissible concentration. The amounts, of course, of radiation tend to vary quite rapidly, so that while that particular locality in Canada was close to the limit in one month, a few months later the figure would decrease very substantially below the limit.
Of course, one should realize that the mpc, the formula I have mentioned, is rather like a safety limit which says that you should not drive at 100 miles an hour forever, for if you do drive at 100 miles an hour forever, somewhere along the way you are most likely to be killed. In short, one can go through the mpc for a short period of time, but one cannot live forever in an area or city where the amount of radiation has surpassed the maximum permissible concentration and then has remained above that safety limit.
My purpose in mentioning this at some length is to bring this suggestion to the government. During the past year there has been a considerable interest among the science professors in universities on this problem of the hazards of radioactivity, and from time to time different universities have sent forward petitions or documents to the government against the resumption of nuclear testing. There is no need, of course, to petition the government on that; the government is firmly committed against nuclear testing.
I thought that the universities might be able to play a more useful role, because these men in their ivory towers hovering over their test tubes, counters and meters are not politically minded, but rather can be said to have a dispassionate regard for the welfare of mankind. It would seem to me that the Department of National Health and Welfare should be able to summon together the talents of these university professors and have some sort of full scale conference so that a proper document or some proper information can be compiled to enlighten the public. I think it is fair to say from reading about it that the amount of radiation in Canada is not a threat to mankind, but we do from time to time have statements from professors who are not fully conversant with that particular field of study but who are probably regarded by Canadians as some kind of authority. So I make that suggestion. I also welcome the establishment last year at H.M.C.S. Shearwater in my riding of a new station by the Department of National Health and Welfare which will monitor the amount of radioactivity in air and rainfall. This is one of 24 such stations across Canada.
A few days ago in this house, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), who reports to us on behalf of the Canadian

Broadcasting Corporation, announced the appointment of W. E. S. Briggs of Halifax as vice president and general manager of the C.B.C. The throne speech contains the information that the radio committee of the House of Commons will be in action again this year. I hope that Captain Briggs will be given a suitable amount of time to settle down in his new job in central Canada before being called before the committee.
I would venture the suggestion that his first and most important job is to restore the morale of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It seems to me that the lack of morale, for whatever reason, was clearly shown last year from certain events, not only before our committee but outside; for example, the strike in French Canada, and when certain talks producers followed certain talks producers in Toronto like a group of lemmings over an apparent cliff and out of their jobs. However they managed to scramble back up the cliff and to the safety of their pay cheques before anything serious happened to them. But it seemed to me, from watching events in the radio committee of the commons last year, that on any occasion where difficult points arose you could see the C.B.C. shaking like a mould of very poorly constructed jelly. In short, there was nothing in the way of a fibre of morale which seemed to hold the organization together.
I do not think that condition came about in just one year. I think the disease, or the cause of it, came about a long time back. For example, we were presented with one statistic which to me was very revealing, namely that in some 15 years only one employee of the C.B.C. had ever been fired for inefficiency. If you average it out at 7,000 employees for that 15-year period, and only one of these men is given the bounce for inefficiency, then we find that the workingman-year-odds that he cannot be fired from the C.B.C. are something like 104,999 to one. No other industry in Canada could ever possibly do that sort of thing.
I suggest that the corporation's whole morale would be brightened considerably and perked up if some of the inefficient people were shown through a one way door to the street, and then the efficient people could see that the C.B.C. was, after all, something in which they could take a great deal more pride. I know that Captain Briggs can give his attention to a subject such as that because of his outstanding record with the navy over some 30 years. It would always have been his objective there, I know, to see that he had what is called "a good ship". I know that now the C.B.C. is in his hands it will turn out to be a good radio and television broadcasting enterprise.

Suggestions have been made about changes in the rules of the house, and I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) that the Clerk of the house conduct a school so that members would learn what questions to ask and how to conduct themselves at all times. I presume that the first people that would be sent to the school would be those along the front benches immediately to my right. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we hope that we can be spared. You have shown a deftness in keeping certain members away from the area of robberies in post offices. If you had not done that I would have despaired because I could see some day a trend developing where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) would be asked about robberies in banks.


Mr. Habel:: It should have happened years ago. Today, in fact, from listening to you.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The four horsemen of the Apocalypse have been joined by a fifth riding on his donkey.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to a matter which gave some concern to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) when he spoke about the large numbers of divorce cases which are handled in the House of Commons and the other place. It so happens that today's votes and proceedings are considerably fattened by the addition of some 324 names of petitioners for bills of divorce before this house.
It is not my intention now to speak about the need for divorce reform in matters of substance, that is, broadening the grounds from adultery to include homosexuality and other sexual perversions, though it does seem to me that there is a need for parliament to recognize the wisdom of taking this course at some time. I should like to make some comments about the particular rules of the house itself so that we may deal with divorce more efficiently.
Last year, in the dying days of the session, I presented a report on behalf of the miscellaneous private bills committee in which we asked to be given at this session certain rules which would help set forth some procedure. These will be very similar to the rules that are drawn up by judges- rules of the court-and I hope that at some time during this session the government will respond to the wishes of that particular committee and, perhaps, direct that the committee on standing orders be seized with this chore of drawing up rules of assistance in handling these divorce cases. I know that I myself and the law counsel to the house besides a goodly number of members-I would name them all but they are ten or 15 in number and all of them have
The Address-Mr. McCleave ideas-could appear before the committee on standing orders and present a few interesting suggestions for changes.
One obvious need, for example, is to set a time limit for the right to appeal. When the other place has passed a divorce, when it comes before us and when it has been contested in the other place, the respondent party should have either a week or two weeks or ten days in which to notify the House of Commons of the intention to appeal. That seems obvious, yet we lack that power. As a matter of fact, we do not have any rules at all.
The second matter is probably the establishment of the principle of res judicata. I notice that this year a case has come before parliament for the third year in a row. The first year it came into the House of Commons and on the very last day of the session, or on the day previous to that, thanks to the democratic spirit of those in the group of eight, it was talked out, so that a man who had come before parliament asking for justice was, in effect, deprived of justice. They could have said yes to him, or no to him, by voting. Instead, that man was cast aside on the personal whim of a few people. I do not want to rake over the past, but that was perhaps the most sickening travesty of justice that I have seen in my few years in parliament. This man came before parliament again last year. On that occasion he was not successful in going through the Senate. Now he is trying again this year. Whatever my feelings about the merit of this man's case and the shabby treatment that he received thanks to the members of the C.C.F. in the House of Commons, I still do not think it is proper that a man whose case has been disposed of in a particular year should bring that case forward again. The first year did not count, because there was no effective disposition one way or the other in the House of Commons, but last year there was an effective disposition in the Senate, so the principle of res judicata is one that must be considered.
The third matter will be dealt with in the other house, I am informed by the chairman of the committee there, but it is one to which we should put our minds. It frequently happens that a wife will defend a divorce because under the rules it is required that the husband should give her money so that she may hire a lawyer to attack his case. Once that money has been duly passed over, by order of parliament, it often happens that the wife will pocket it and disappear. This is a somewhat elegant form of female Robin Hoodery-perhaps making the last touch upon her husband's purse. Nevertheless, we should combat anything like that. The hon.

The Address-Mr. McCleave senator in charge of the proceedings in the other house has taken the initiative to cure this practice but it is something that we in turn should consider curing here.
May I turn, now, to some purely local matters. Yesterday, the Canadian Labour Congress appeared before the government and presented its views in a brief which I am sure is known to most hon. members. I should like to mention one of these submissions. It concerns the dockyard in Halifax where for some time a goodly number of prevailing rate employees-at least 4,000-have been anxious to establish some form of check-off on their dues. This has been denied in the past and, when I say the past I mean the past going back a great number of years. So the Canadian Labour Congress has made a request of the government that these people's wish that they belong to organizations other than the association and the national joint council of the public service of Canada be respected. I think it would be a very simple matter to determine these people's wishes. The president of the Halifax dockyard labour council assured me that they would set up the machinery for a vote at any time and see that it was properly carried out, and I hope the government will go for a change in this policy which I think discriminates against groups and makes labour unhappy and which could be cured simply.
One of the outstanding achievements of the government to my mind has been something which has passed almost unnoticed; it slipped by in the dying days of the last session of parliament. That was the decision by the government to establish an institute of oceanography on the Bedford basin in Halifax county. This decision was announced in the house by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois) on July 17 of last year and I hope he will be sufficiently thanked by the people of Canada as a whole for his imagination in establishing this institute which will deal with oceanography and also stimulate geology. Its purpose will be to help develop resources and also to find out useful information for continental defence. This institute is working in collaboration with Dalhousie University-one of our great universities-which is establishing a department that will fit in with the institute.
May I mention that another university, the oldest English-speaking university in Canada, King's College, is anxious to get into the field of a Latin-American institute. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) will be equally as imaginative as the Minister of Mines and


Technical Surveys when they come forth with their request.
There are other matters, including the need for some form of permanent building for the reserve navy in Halifax. It may seem odd that one should make such a request here considering the very large resources that the regular navy have there but apparently all hands are agreed, both regulars and reservists, that the reservists should have buildings separate and apart from naval establishments and in fact the duty that is incumbent on the reserve navy to provide so many trained men at an instant's notice should there be an outbreak of hostilities makes the need very apparent.
Finally, a bit of philosophy on the over-all approach, as I see it, of the maritimes to the rest of Canada and its development. I do not think that any of us from the maritimes, whether Conservative or Liberal in our thinking or outlook, are "aginners" or against the march of progress that has taken place in the rest of Canada. I do not think any one of us would want to say to the rest of Canada, "Stay back until we have caught up with you". But from the maritime members I have heard speak I believe the approach is, "Help us to progress, keep on going yourselves, and eventually we will catch up with you."
(Translation):


Charles-Édouard Campeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) mentioned the member for St. James among those who took part in the Russell by-election. I think it is my privilege to ask him to complete this list by adding the names of the hon. members for St. Ann (Mr. Loiselle), for Papineau (Mr. Meunier), for St. Henri (Mr. Lessard), for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard), Algoma (Mr. Pearson), etc.
(Text):


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: There is no question of
privilege in that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member simply wants to make a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not sure when the matter to which the hon. member referred arose. Was it in the speech of the hon. member for Halifax?


Charles-Édouard Campeau: No, that of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif).
(Translation):


Some hon. Members:: Order. Order.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for St. James rose on a question of privilege concerning the Russell by-election. He has just mentioned that the member for St. Ann was there. You can be sure that I was there.

The Address-Mr. Loiselle
When we were asked to take part in the election campaign in Russell, it was because all the Conservative forces were already there, about thirty members headed by seven ministers.
What happened then is that a handful of Liberals came to the help of the Liberal candidate. Besides, I know that the member for St. James (Mr. Campeau) brought along seven or eight of his friends. We had to face a Conservative army, as well as another one, that of the Union Nationale from the province of Quebec.
You know the results, Mr. Speaker: the majority jumped from 2,000 to 7,000 votes.
Instead of raising the question of privilege, the hon. member for St. James should have moved a motion of congratulations to us.
Mr. Speaker, I should like, at the beginning of my remarks, to congratulate both the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Casselman).
I realize they were obligated to defend their party, so that their speeches could be nothing else but paeans of praise to a government which, in my opinion, deserves none.
The mover, the hon. member for Rimouski, tried to make us believe that everything is going well, that the financial situation in Canada is good, and that this government has been the most prosperous one for a long time.
I would not like him to believe, Mr. Speaker, that he has fooled all members, because only the indifferent and those who do not want to face facts can claim he is right.
With regard to the charming representative of Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman), who seconded the motion, she spoke glowingly of her constituency of Grenville-Dundas and said how happy she is to represent that part of our country.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see you again, at the beginning of this session, fulfilling the functions which were entrusted to you after the 1958 election.
I must also congratulate the representative of the constituency of Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) for earning the confidence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has appointed him Associate Minister of National Defence.
As everyone knows, the speech from the throne is prepared by the cabinet, and the Governor General is asked to read it officially, in order that Canadian citizens may be informed of the government's intentions and projects to be submitted to the house.
This year, contrary to tradition and parliamentary practice, there has not been only one speech but two, one by the Governor General and the other by the Prime Minister.
As to the speech read by the Governor General, it could have contained many things of vital importance to the Canadian population rather than a report on the international situation during the last months, and the mere mention of a few bills.
There is the announcement that the Prime Minister will make a trip next May, in order to meet other government heads of the commonwealth. The Prime Minister might have saved himself the trouble of announcing his trip in the speech from the throne, as we are now used to seeing him travel quite frequently from one country to another. In the same paragraph of the speech, we are given the news, which we read in the papers sometime ago, that Nigeria would become an independent member.
In the two following paragraphs, we are told about a meeting of the leaders of the four nations with a view to establishing durable peace in the world, of disarming and abolishing nuclear tests. And so it goes on, Mr. Speaker, for in the whole first part of the speech from the throne, we are only told about international problems.
In the second part, some of our own issues are mentioned, and also what has been accomplished-that is to say the things that should be done in certain fields; there is a mention of some bills which the house will be asked to pass in the near future.
But, as far as the deplorable problem of unemployment is concerned, there is just one little sentence turned in such a way that one could be led to think that everything is well, or nearly so, in the employment field.
Now this is what our executive has to say about prevailing conditions. I shall actually quote the speech from the throne:
The recurrent problem of seasonal unemployment remains, however, but apart from this, expansion in production and employment has been general across the nation.
That is all the government has to say on unemployment. That is all the comfort and encouragement being given to the 685,000 people who were out of jobs in December. Now, according to the figures supplied this afternoon by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), the unemployment figure had reached 755,387 on January 14. This means that unemployment increased by 70,000 from December 31 to January 14, and according to present trends, it would come as no surprise if, by the end of December, the figure rose above
538	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Loiselle 800,000. Yet in his speech this afternoon, the Minister of Labour made no reference to any government action aimed at checking unemployment.
He quoted figures for 1954, 1955 and 1956, and even quoted United States figures. I hardly know, Mr. Speaker, how the 100,000 unemployed people in Montreal would react if they could hear the same speech be made this afternoon in the heart of Montreal; with an audience of 100,000 unemployed, I am sure the reaction would be quite violent.
The Prime Minister, in making his own speech from the throne and in announcing three important measures which are nothing but political propaganda, certainly showed little consideration for the queen's representative in Canada, and showed how little he cares for the rights and prerogatives of parliament despite the way he used to champion them when sitting as a solitary member of the opposition.
In his speech, which rambled on for over three hours, the Prime Minister vainly attempted, by means of a long series of quotations, to show contradictions in various statements on national defence made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). However, he forgot to deal with his government's policy in this field which is of such important concern to every Canadian.
Near the end of his speech he touched upon the economic picture but made no reference to the grave difficulties we now face both in the fields of trade and agriculture and in matters of money and finance.
Here again, he gave us a whole string of quotations from Canadian bankers, but at no time did he refer to the disturbing number of people suffering from unemployment in Canada. Yet it is this same man who travelled throughout Canada in the last elections, telling voters that no one would suffer from unemployment while he was Prime Minister. Now that the leader of the Conservative party has succeeded in fooling the voters with irresponsible promises, he has completely forgotten Canada's unemployed people. Yet their numbers keep growing day by day.
During 1959, an average of over 6 per cent of our workers were in search of employment, according to the federal bureau of statistics. Apart from 1958, this is the highest rate ever experienced since the famous depression.
The province of Quebec has the dubious honour of having the greatest number of unemployed in Canada. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, on December


12, 1959, there were 370,000 unemployed in Canada, 136,000 of them in Quebec, and only
98.000	in Ontario where the population is even greater than in Quebec. That goes to show that in December 1959, almost 37 per cent of unemployed in Canada lived in the province of Quebec.
But that is not all, because the statistics published by the Department of Labour are even more disturbing and also most likely closer to the truth. On December 31, 1959, there were 685,000 unemployed in Canada in comparison with 715,000 in December 1958, which is a decrease of 25,000 only.
As I was saying a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, since those figures were published in the bulletin of the dominion bureau of statistics, the Minister of Labour has informed us that on January 14, the number of unemployed stood at 685,000, whereas it stands today at 755,397, that is an increase of 70,000 within 14 days.
Here again, Quebec leads all the provinces with 221,000 unemployed in December 1959 in comparison with 231,000 in 1958, a decrease of 10,000 only. And yet, the government would like the people to believe that, in comparison with the 1958 recession, we are now experiencing a record prosperity.
I am sure that the Quebec Conservative members of parliament who in the course of this debate have praised the government for our so-called state of prosperity would not dare repeat the same praises in the presence of their own people in their respective constituencies, and certainly not before the
100.000	unemployed of the city of Montreal.
Indeed, Montreal is the city where unemployment is heaviest at the present time. On November 30, 1959 there were, according to the Department of Labour, 53,855 unemployed in Montreal and 38,730 only in Toronto. Those are the latest figures available, but I am sure that at the present time, on the basis of statistics issued by the Department of Labour, the number of unemployed, as I said a moment ago, is well over 100,000 in the city of Montreal alone.
Consequently we have every reason to say that the unemployment problem is no doubt a serious one for our country and particularly in the province of Quebec and in the city of Montreal. What does the government intend to do to meet that problem and find work for the unemployed? Absolutely nothing; because the winter works program of the Department of Labour is nothing but a farce, particularly in the province of Quebec.

The minister indeed proved to us in his remarks this afternoon, that the winter projects program will give jobs to only 36,000 people in Canada, whereas we have 755,000 unemployed.
Not only has the government done nothing to solve the problem, but it seems to be doing its best to aggravate it. Indeed, because of tight money conditions and high interest rates, for which the government is fully responsible, home building has decreased in 1959 in comparison to 1958, and a further decline is foreseen in 1960. Moreover the government which, according to a statement made by the Prime Minister on July 22 last, was to maintain the availability of funds to builders until December 31, 1959, announced, on October 30, 1959, through the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) that these loans would be suspended, without further notice, as from the day of his statement, that is two months before the date mentioned by the Prime Minister himself.
This is a further instance of the contradictions and irresponsibility, which are so characteristic of this government. But the real victims of the government's contradictions and financial difficulties, are the unemployed who, following the decline in the building industry caused by the government's policies, have lost their jobs and today live in misery.
Thus, it can be seen that far from finding a solution to the unemployment problem, the government through its disastrous policy tends to make it worse. It could even be said that the government goes as far as ignoring the existence of this tragedy. In his speech the Prime Minister made no mention about it and to my knowledge not one Conservative member from Quebec raised the problem, either to deplore it or to ask the government to take drastic action at once to solve it.
It seems to me that this problem has taken such proportions that it should not give rise to partisanship in this house. Before defending the Conservative party, government members must defend the legitimate interests of their constituents. That is why it is their duty to join us in this debate in asking the government that made so many promises before the election, to fulfill some of them and above all to assist those who suffer from unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, it is so true that the government or the crown corporations are not concerned about unemployment, that last week end, when I was in my riding, some employees of the Pointe St. Charles plants of the C.N.R., assured me that from 300 to
The Address-Mr. Loiselle 400 employees were to be laid off in the very near future. I was moreover informed that 700 or 1000 employees working in all C.N.R. plants were to be given notice.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is the same government which, with much publicity and many advertisements saying "Do it now" asks private builders and contractors to give work to our unemployed, but does not act itself in the matter. I think that the government should practise what it preaches. If private enterprise is asked to employ the jobless, the government should make its own contribution by giving an illustration of how to "Do it now".
Mr. Speaker, I said a few moments ago that this government has not given any evidence of good will nor submitted any projects to put a stop to prevailing unemployment conditions.
I would urge the government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) to introduce a resolution to the house, in order that members may be given the opportunity of discussing this situation which is deteriorating from day to day. Mr. Speaker, if I insist on that matter, it is because I represent a constituency essentially made up of workers.
I could outline to you the awful and difficult situation which now prevails in my constituency, as it affects unemployed people, some of them having been in that situation for a long time. Those people are now getting no unemployment insurance benefits; I would ask the government to show some good will and take the necessary steps to help those poor workers and heads of families.
Mr. Speaker, to prove my statements concerning unemployment

and the figures I have quoted, should not be taken only as a matter of criticism on the part of a member of the opposition-allow me to quote a few paragraphs of an article published in La Presse of January 20, 1960, that is, only about nine days ago. Dealing with the general unemployment situation, here is what it says:
Only a few weeks ago, in their end-of-the-year reviews or new-year messages, federal and provincial ministers promised prosperity to everyone, with an optimism which each one of us only asks to share. But, unfortunately, the latest statistics about unemployment, published yesterday, put such optimism to a cruel test. And those are only for the beginning of winter, since they only cover the period from mid-November to mid-December. And the gloomier part of the picture is in connection with the province of Quebec.
To put it briefly, the number of unemployed has increased by 90,000 during that period, to reach 370,000 in the country as a whole, and 136,000 in our province only. We therefore have the dubious honour of having over a third of Canada's unemployed.
540	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Loiselle
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me most is that in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, so far no Conservative members from the province of Quebec have mentioned the word unemployment, or the fact that there are unemployed people in their respective constituencies. Surely, the
136,000	unemployed people living in Quebec are not restricted to Liberal constituencies, and a good many of them must live in the 50 constituencies represented by Conservative members. Mr. Speaker, I charge Conservative members who have remaind silent about unemployment conditions with neglecting to protect the interests of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the article to which I referred a moment ago goes on to say this:
We get strange statements from official sources.
Mention is made there of statements of ministers. I would urge you to listen very attentively because they are not my words but those of the author of the article:
Thus, according to the article published yesterday, the seasonal decrease in employment was counterbalanced (in Ontario not in Quebec, it is pointed out) "by a speeding up in plants previously affected by a lack of steel". Well, is it not a fact that federal ministers kept on telling us, all through the steel strike in the United States, that steel reserves were sufficient in Canada and that production stoppage among our neighbours had not affected our industry and our labour in this country? When should we accept official statements? When they say that a strike in the United States does not affect us or when they say that the end of such a strike results in a recovery in this country?
And the article concludes:
The truth is that there were close to 400,000 workers completely unemployed, and almost as many partly unemployed in mid-December. That makes over 750,000 Canadians working part time or totally unemployed. That was the situation prevailing at the very beginning of the winter. And the trend had a long way to go before reaching its peak.
With all this, what has happened to the famous winter works program so often mentioned by the federal Minister of Labour? It gave little relief last year.
And now, nothing more is said about it. There was not a slightest mention of it in the speech from the throne in which, on the other hand, there was only passing reference to unemployment just as if it did not exist.

When will the government wake up to reality?
Mr. Speaker, I read a few excerpts from this article in order to show the real situation as far as unemployment is concerned in our country and more particularly in the province of Quebec, since the Conservative members from that province will take no heed of it.
Several members of the Liberal party have mentioned it, and I am happy to associate myself with their remarks in that connection. For my part, I can assure you that I know the workers of the constituency of St. Ann, and that I shall defend their interests here as long as I shall be able to do so.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Dumas:: May I ask the house leader if he will be good enough to tell us what the business will be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will continue with this debate on Monday and Tuesday when it will be terminated. Wednesday is a government day and on Wednesday we will take the resolutions which appear on today's order paper, No. 5 in the name of the Prime Minister referring to the tenure of office of judges; No. 6 in the name of the Minister of Transport, being an amendment to the Railway Act; No. 7 in the name of the Minister of Justice, being a resolution with reference to amending the Department of Justice Act, and No. 8 in the name of the Minister of Public Works which has reference to the National Housing Act.
If these are completed we will take the three second readings which are on the order paper, the first one with reference to the Indian Act, the second with reference to the Canada Elections Act and the third having to do with the Export and Permits Act. If there is any change in the order of these items I will announce it on Tuesday night. For the balance of the week, Thursday is private members' day and on Friday we will consider supplementary estimates.


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

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

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What capital expenditures by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have been (a) made; (b) incurred to establish a satellite TV station at Kenora, Ontario?
2.	What is the estimated annual maintenance costs for this station, excepting rentals for communication circuits?
3.	What extra rentals for communication circuits attributable to the establishment of this station will be paid and to whom?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises as follows:
1.	(a) $90,002; (b) $92,800 including (a) above.
2.	$9,700 per annum.
3.	The communication or network circuits for stations of this type are contracted for at competitive tariff rates obtained by tender.


AGRICULTURE STABILIZATION BOARD LOSSES
Mr. Boulanger: What has been the total loss incurred by the agriculture stabilization board for the fiscal years 1956-57, 1957-53, 1958-59, as a result of its operations for each commodity covered by the act?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):
Agricultural prices Agricultural stabilization board
support board 1956-57
Creamery butter	$4,777,602.42
Cheddar cheese	 -
Shell eggs	 54,928.60
Hogs	 -
Lamb	 -
Wool	 -
Dry skimmed milk	 -
Fowl	 -
Tomatoes	 -
Raspberries	 -
Potatoes	 4,830.77
Apples	 181,738.21
Asparagus	 -
Totals	$5,019,100.00
1957-58	1958-59
$2,676,663.61	$ 342,447.00
-	723,826.00
1,483,199.98	3,425,748.00
-	135,411.00
-	281,176.00
-	1,541,294.00
1,094,364.31	6,956,943.00
154,081.00	423,367.00
-	51,641.00
-	429.00
480,234.45	367,382.00
-	768,415.00
-	106,021.00
$5,888,543.35	$15,124,100.00


OLD AGE PENSIONERS FEDERATION REPRESENTATIONS
Mr. Marlin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from the national old age pensioners federation requesting consideration of increased old age pensions, an extension of provisions for disabled person's allowances, and various other benefits affecting persons over 60 years of age?
2.	If so, what reply has the government made to these representations?
2. The representations submitted by the national old age pensioners federation, together with those submitted by other organizations, are currently receiving study and consideration.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS
Mr. Benidickson: How many loans were made, what was the average amount of loan, and what was the total amount loaned by the banks to farmers under the
Answer by: Hon. J. W.	Monteith (Minister of	provisions of the Farm in 1957, 1958, and 1959?	Improvement Loans ActNational Health and	Welfare):	Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister	1. Yes.	of Finance):	No. of	Average	Total amountloans	amount of loan	loaned1957 (Calendar yr.)	57,988	1,196.75	69,427,873.941958 (Calendar yr.)	70,278	1,288.30	90,539,743.981959 (To Nov. 30 inc.) .68,916	1,383.80	95,396,376.50
Questions


LONG LINER VESSEL CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE
Mr. Robichaud: 1. What is the total amount paid in each year from 1946 to date, in each of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, under the assistance for the
construction of vessels of the dragger or long liner type?
2. What is the amount paid in Gloucester county. New Brunswick for the same period?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):
1.	New Brunswick
1947-48 			 40,504.20
1948-49 			 49,392.80
1949-50 			 44,175.45
1950-51 			 19,354.50
1951-52 			 14,236.20
1952-53 			 25,256.55
1953-54 			 34,458.60
1954-55 			 57,268.20
1955-56 			 33,966.90
1956-57 			 112,567.95
1957-58 			 15,869.70
1958-59 			 53,064.00
1959-Dec. 30 			 48,990.15 549,105.20
Nova	Scotia
1947-48 		
1948-49 		
1949-50 		
1950-51 			 13,263.00
1951-52 			 60,552.90
1952-53 			 101,264.10
1953-54 			 65,500.05
1954-55 			 40,045.50
1955-56 			 124,693.80
1956-57 			 203,106.75
1957-58 			 274,154.10
1958-59 			 174,919.80
1959-Dec. 30			 116,636.85 1,174,136.85
Prince Edward Island	
1947-48 		
1948-49 		
1949-50 		
1950-51 		
1951-52 			 29,756.10
1952-53 			 14,246.10
1953-54 		
1954-55 			 16,514.85
1955-56 		
1956-57 		
1957-58 		
1958-59 			 11,403.15
1959-Dec. 30 			 28,937.70 150,164.85
1.	Quebec
1947-	48 	
1948-	49 	
1949-	50 	
1950-	51 	1951-	52 	
1952-	53 	6,486.15 8,626.20 25,170.75 41,779.65 63,810.45 16,148.55 109,111.201953-54 	1954-55 	1955-56 	1956-57 	1957-58 	1958-59 	1959-Dec. 30 	122,758.35393,891.30Newfoundland	1947-	48 	
1948-	49 	1949-50 	1950-51 	1951-52 	1952-53 	1953-54 	6,827.70 82,049.55 41,646.00 10,352.10 25,825.80 1,135.20 29,632.351954-55 	1955-56 	1956-57 	1957-58 	1958-59 	1959-Dec. 30 	197,468.35Totals by Years	1947-48 	40,504.20 49,392.80 44,175.45 32,617.50 104,545.201948-49 	1949-50 	1950-51 	1951-52 	1952-53 	147,252.901953-54 	148,095.751954-55 	221,048.851955-56 	258,710.101956-57 	389,837.251957-58 	331,998.151958-59 	349,633.351959-Dec. 30	346,955.402,464,766.90	
2. $432,994.20.

Monday, February 1, 1960