1960-01-26

COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced the Canadian delegation to the forthcoming international conference to negotiate a possible treaty with the United States on the power development of the Columbia river. I should like to ask him whether the position of the deputy minister of lands and forests of British Columbia on the Canadian delegation is the same as that of the other Canadian delegates in so far as responsibilities and instructions are concerned.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Perhaps I should
answer that question. Yes, Mr. Speaker; the deputy minister of lands and forests of British Columbia is included as a regular member of the delegation. The Leader of the Opposition will realize that if the Columbia river is to be developed in Canada it will require cooperation between the two governments. For this reason a studied attempt has been made by the federal government throughout to keep the British Columbia government in a position where it can co-operate.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a radio report from Washington this morning by James M. Minifie. Will the minister comment on the report that in the next 30 days the United States will examine and decide whether or not to proceed with the installation of Bomarc missiles, and inform the house whether or not Canada is re-examining its policy with reference to Bomarc installations?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I heard the report over the radio this morning, and I understand
there is a re-examination or reappraisal of the situation going on. The military situation is always being reviewed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will Canada's policy in this regard automatically follow whatever decision is made in the United States as a result of this re-examination?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, it will not automatically follow. Canada arrives at her own decisions in these matters. Naturally, as we are in a defensive agreement with the United States known as NORAD, we shall discuss with the United States authorities the implications of any changes which may be made.


Hazen Robert Argue: It would not be possible or practical though, would it, for Canada to proceed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -with Bomarc installations if the United States dropped its policy in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is really engaging in argument on the subject rather than asking for information.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I put my question in another way. Is it possible for Canada to have an independent policy so far as Bomarc missiles are concerned if the United States decides to drop the Bomarc?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member's question is very like the second one he asked.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think it is an important question. If your interpretation of the minister's answer is correct, then I am prepared to drop my question. My question is this. Is it possible for Canada to have an independent policy if the United States should drop the Bomarc missile?


George Randolph Pearkes: It is certainly a hypothetical question. Of course it is possible to do anything, but I doubt whether it would be practical.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I have an immediately relevant supplementary question I should like to pose to the minister. Does the government plan to suspend work on the Bomarc sites during this period of one month?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: From the information I have received from the secretary of defence for the United States there would be no justification for suspending work on the Canadian Bomarc sites.


Mr. Fisher:: Is there any possible alternate use for the sites other than for Bomarcs?


Mr. Speaker:: I think we are getting into the realm of the hypothetical again.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. From information received from my constituency I am informed that a private conversation between Fort William and the Hudson bay store at Pagwa, Ontario, was interrupted by the United States air force at Pagwa. My question is, has the United States military authority control over communications between Nakina and Pagwa? Has this control over our private telephone conversations been approved by the Canadian government, and if so why were the residents of the area not informed?


George Randolph Pearkes: There is, between Nakina and Pagwa, a commercial as well as a military line. The military authorities have no control whatever over the commercial line. They do have control over the military line.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct this question to the Prime Minister. In the light of representations made to the Prime Minister on Friday last by the air industries and transport association concerning the government's policy in the field of non-scheduled commercial air lines, what does the government intend to do to stop the small carriers from going into bankruptcy or out of business, as stated in these representations?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: As a former minister the hon. gentleman will realize that this is a matter of government policy to be announced in due course.
tMr. Hellyer.]
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform this house whether, in the light of representations made to them last October, negotiations between the federal government authorities on the provincial and municipal levels have been started with regard to the construction of the bridge for eastern Montreal?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). I must say that, last October I suggested to some groups in the city of Montreal like the chamber of commerce of Montreal, and the board of trade, to draw up a plan for the construction of a bridge in eastern Montreal.
I suggested to them to organize and approach the federal, provincial and municipal government authorities.
I know from hearsay that the chamber of commerce is studying the project, but I do not think that so far any approach has been made in another direction.


Lionel Chevrier: I
would like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence a question. Would he be willing to try and convince his colleague the Minister of Transport who does not seem to favour the minister's idea.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: In answer to the hon.
member for Laurier, I must say that he is mistaken in saying that the Minister of Transport does not favour the proposal. The Minister of Transport is a progressive man, and I am convinced that he will consider the matter.
(Text):



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is Mr. Booth of the minister's department in Washington this week for discussions with Vice Admiral Richmond at the joint convention of the Lake Carriers Association and the Dominion Marine Association? If so, is the problem the creation of a permanent joint commission on pilotage?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Booth and several other officials of my department are leaving, I believe it is late today, for meetings tomorrow and several other days this week in Washington. While they are there they will discuss many matters relating to the question of pilotage and navigation on the great lakes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a supplementary question on pilotage. In the event that negotiations are successful, is the government giving consideration to bringing in again this session the Canada Shipping Act, which it withdrew last session?


George Harris Hees: As I informed the hon. member when I answered the question about a week ago, the timing all depends upon the action that will be taken in the United States, and the speed of that action.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier asked me about certain experiments reported as taking place at lake Simcoe regarding the development of a bubbler system to free harbours from ice.
Our officials have been keeping abreast of developments in the use of the bubbler system to prevent ice formation. When this particular experiment now under way at lake Simcoe came to our attention we sent a senior supervisory official, who will report to headquarters as soon as possible.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: In reply to the inquiry made yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) regarding medical requirements for employment on the Canadian National Railways, I am advised by the management that the answer to both his questions is yes.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I di-
[DOT]ect a question to the Minister of Labour, 79951-0-21i
Inquiries of the Ministry and ask him whether the report of the arbitrator in connection with the dispute concerning the C.B.C. producers and the C.B.C. has been tabled, and whether the minister has any comment to make on it.


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: The report has not reached my desk as yet.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF VICE PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, could I have the leave of the house for a moment to revert to motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would like to advise members of the House of Commons that this morning Captain Briggs, the regional director of the C.B.C. at Halifax, Atlantic area, has been appointed vice president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. He may take this question as notice and answer it tomorrow. Can the minister advise the house as to what progress has been made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in extending its English and French television network to the northeastern counties of New Brunswick, and also when the area concerned may expect to receive the benefit of such service.


George Clyde Nowlan: I will refer to the C.B.C. the relevant portion of the question the hon. member has asked. As he knows, this matter in so far as certain private radio stations, at any rate, are concerned was the subject matter of a hearing which took place in Winnipeg last week or the week before last. The board I think moved on to Vancouver to carry on other hearings, and I understand that they will be coming back to Ottawa immediately if they have not done so already. They are deciding the issues which have been submitted to them by various applicants, and I am sure a decision will be given within the next two or three days.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is in a position now to answer the question I asked on January 18 with regard to the purchase by Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited of uranium contracts of private companies.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: When I answered that question on January 18 I had just returned after being absent for a week overseas, and I stated then that I would inquire with regard to the present situation concerning uranium. I have done so. At that particular time Eldorado was not submitting any bids with regard to other contracts. Negotiations are being considered for the very simple reason that Eldorado- and this applies to the other large uranium producers-is entitled to have a portion of the stretch-out which has been arranged following 1962. Let us not forget that Uranium City is just as dependent upon the uranium industry as are other cities in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether he thinks it wise for a government corporation to compete with private corporations in this field in view of the diminishing business?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let me make it clear that there is no cut-throat competition with private industry going on on the part of the government-owned agency.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether he would give consideration to the establishment of the proposed nuclear research station in the Elliot lake-Blind river area rather than in Manitoba, in view of the new situation confronting the industry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: That was the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition the other day, and people have drawn it to my attention. The suggestion has some merit, but plans are very far advanced for the establishment of. the nuclear research establishment in Manitoba; and if your are going to base your


decision as to where the second nuclear research establishment shall be placed upon that consideration you might also consider other areas in which uranium is being produced.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware that the Canadian immigration centre at Montreal will close effective April 1, 1960, and that a meeting was arranged with the staff last January 20 at which they were told to try and find jobs elsewhere?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the centre will be closed. The premises are quite undesirable, and it has been a matter of some contention for a considerable length of time. With reference to the staff, I am not aware of the circumstances in connection with negotiations with them, but I will inquire into it.
[Later:}


Mr. L. D. Cresiohl (Cariier):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for St. Denis. Is the undesirability of the premises in Montreal the only reason for shifting the detention quarters to Quebec, with the result that more than 30 people will be thrown out of work?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is scarcely the position. In each of these centres people in detention are handled in different ways. Some of them are housed in hotels, in cases where there is no detention hall. It just happens that there is a detention hall in Quebec. Montreal is the only other place where there was one of that type, and it was wholly unsuitable so it was closed.
(Translation):
[Later:}


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State? He has no doubt heard
that 33 employees of immigration offices will be laid off as from April 1 next. Since most if not all of them come under the civil service commission and are permanent, would the Acting Secretary of State see that they

are assured a job in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, even if they have to stop working at a certain place?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, since I am a member of what is probably the most humanitarian government since confederation, I can assure the hon. member for St. Denis that we shall deal with that matter.
(Text):



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister give the house any up-to-date information concerning the possibility of locating the CF-100 which crashed near Comox last week?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further information regarding that matter. The search is still continuing.


George Randolph Pearkes: Since replying to the hon. member for Trinity I have received word that wreckage of the plane he was referring to has been located, and that salvage operations will start immediately.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bruce asked me the following question, as reported on page 263 of Hansard:
Can the minister inform the house if there is any move on foot to combat the lamprey in lake Huron this year?
I would like to say that the great lakes fishery commission, in its 1960-61 program, is already planning to treat a small number of streams in the lake Huron area with the specific lampreycide to which I referred yesterday. The success to be obtained, of course, will depend on weather and water conditions, and other factors.


Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma Wesl):: May I ask
the Minister of Fisheries a supplementary question. Will that program be extended to lake Superior again this year?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH AND WELFARE



SUGGESTED ENCOURAGEMENT OF FATALITY-FREE CAMPAIGNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the city of Medicine Hat yesterday recorded its 1900th motor vehicle fatality-free day, extending over a period of five years, and in view of the approach of national health week, will the minister give consideration to encouraging authorities in all urban centres across Canada to create their own fatality-free campaigns and thus substantially reduce the current appalling loss of life due to motor vehicle accidents, which loss has so effectively been countered in my own city of Medicine Hat?


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question, and I would like to congratulate the city of Medicine Hat on the success of its project. I know several other cities across Canada have similar projects, and I think national health week would be a very good time to start such a campaign.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of today being the tenth birthday anniversary of India as a republic, and since all of us, I am sure, are anxious to see the great democratic experiment in that country succeed, would the government of Canada give consideration to providing 50 million bushels of Canadian wheat to India over and above Colombo plan contributions, or to some other appropriate gesture as an indication of our good will and support? The wheat would be used, of course, to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in that country.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the laudable desire is concerned to indicate to India not only congratulations on the attainment of her tenth anniversary but also on the exceptional progress which has been made in that country, all would be in agreement.
As to the suggestion in the question that Canada should give 50 million bushels of wheat to India, may I say that I think the amount which is being made available this
326	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry year is $25 million. Much is said, and it is advocated on humanitarian grounds, that assistance of the kind suggested by the hon. member might be given, but I was in India last year and I did not find any desire on the part of that country for that type of assistance.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the Prime Minister give consideration to the setting aside of 50 million bushels of Canadian wheat as an inventory to be used under a Canada food for peace program, available to India when she could make use of it?


John George Diefenbaker: Much along that line has already been done, and I might point out that the suggestion that there should be a food bank, in which Canada played an important part, has not met with the general support of other nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Did I understand the Prime Minister correctly to say that $25 million worth of wheat is being given to India this year under the Colombo plan?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I can clear this up. A few days ago I outlined the way in which Colombo plan aid would be distributed during this year, and I think if the Leader of the Opposition would look up Hansard he would find that of the $50 million some $25 million was going to India, a portion of which was in wheat; I think it was about $7 million.
(Translation):



REPORTED LATE RECEIPT OF TRANSLATION OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State.
On December 22, 1959, I received a copy of the French translation of the minutes and evidence relating to the sitting of May 21, 1959, of the special committee on broadcasting, that is after more than six months' delay. Does the Acting Secretary of State think he is going to occupy that function long enough to see to it that the French translation of committee sittings may be sent to us a little earlier than at present?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I will immediately check on the statements of the hon. member for St. Denis and shall take the necessary action.


(Text):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can ask the Prime Minister if the government is contemplating filling the vacant office of parliamentary librarian at an early date.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Yes, Mr. Speaker.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yesterday the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) asked the Prime Minister a question concerning Stoney Creek national historic park. The question was:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house if the government is contemplating any immediate action to preserve Battlefield park in Stoney Creek as a national historic site?
This has already been done, Mr. Speaker. Representations have been made to me in the last two and a half years by various members of the house concerning property near by this historic park. The minister from Hamilton and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) among others, both approached me. The question concerns the property adjacent to this national historic park which, I understand from reading the press, the municipality was trying to buy to keep a commercial enterprise or subdivision from coming too close to this very valuable historic park.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Emilien Morissette for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Bell):: Mr. Speaker, last evening when I had the privilege of adjourning this debate I had the privilege to relate to the house the unrest and uncertainty that existed in the minds of my constituents who are composed of workers, farmers and small business people. Of this I gave some evidence, and said it was the responsibility of the present government, and further

that the principles applied in Canada today by the present Conservative government resemble very much the principles applied by the administration of Mr. Bennett some 25 years ago.
May I this morning, Mr. Speaker, add further evidence to support my contention. We have heard-and it was with some surprise that many members of this house heard it a couple of days ago-about some form of amalgamation of our railway systems in Canada. As a young boy I recall that in the days of Mr. Bennett that was a problem that was discussed very much in this country. However, today it might be slightly changed. This government might possibly be introducing what they may call a gradual amalgamation of the railways. We were informed a couple of days ago that the telegraph offices of our two railway systems were being amalgamated at this time. This, no doubt, is of great importance to many workers in this country, and I feel that this government has a responsibility to study this major problem if it does exist, and to properly inform this house.
I had something to say as to the situation of the farmers in Canada and the price-cost squeeze of which we have heard so much. Yesterday I was much surprised when a member of parliament showed me statistics which, unfortunately, I had not the occasion to see previously. They were taken from the reports of the Department of Agriculture two days ago. The situation with regard to eggs in this country is most surprising. We are informed by these statistics that in the Ottawa area the farmers, the producers of Canada, are getting 24 cents a dozen for eggs and that, furthermore, in Edmonton 9 cents a dozen is being offered to farmers in that region for small eggs. If these problems continue I feel that possibly we shall see our own domestic products, our farm products, displayed in our stores and appearing as loss leaders. Undoubtedly this is a problem that this government should attend to immediately.
Then, of course, if we speak about workers and labour-management relations, we had the example a very few months ago of the handling of the civil servants' problem. How was that treated? I have in my own area some 500 civil service employees. They approached the management, which is no one but the government of this country. What was the reply; what was the policy expressed to the civil servants who were in a sense bargaining with their employer, the government? In that case there was no content; there was not even the usual package. We were informed that the main reason given was that an increase in civil servants' salaries might
The Address-Mr. Godin upset the budget of this government. That in no way can be a reply to the demands and the problem of the civil servants.
I do not know the details; I have not seen the report. The report was not made public. I feel that the government knows what is in the report. It is on the basis of the value of the arguments in the report that the decision of the government of this country should have been made, and not on the budget. When we are discussing the problems and the demands of the civil service the employer is the entire country, and no faction in the country should have to meet the deficit in the budget of the present Minister of Finance.
That was the argument, if you study it; that this might upset the budget. In other words the government is asking one section of the citizens of Canada to pay for the deficit which it has to meet.
We appreciated the comment made a few days ago by the Prime Minister to the effect that the prime minister of Japan had indicated that his country was willing to study the possibility of providing financial support for the establishment of industries in our country. However, we in the opposition feel that the government should take the lead in such efforts and indicate some willingness to develop our own industries rather than leaving it to strangers. It would be fatal if it should appear that the expansion of industry in our country was not being directed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce but by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house one fact in this regard. On February 8 nickel publicity week will commence. As I come from the nickel industry area I should like to bring this matter to the attention of members of the house so that within their own ridings they may do whatever they can to promote the use of this mineral. We are happy that we have this wealth, but we feel that before the Japanese are allowed to assist us in developing our industries the government has the first duty to assist in the expansion of industries in our country.
Nickel week will be a country-wide promotion, and will necessarily be well received by the workers in the industry which provides their livelihood. We can only expand if we find more markets and greater use for our production, and we should see to that ourselves. Consumers will benefit because we know that nickel is used as an alloy in many products such as steelwares; and monel metal, in the production of which nickel is also used, has brought much more comfort and convenience in our homes. When

The Address-Mr. Godin I obtain literature respecting the nickel industry I will be pleased to distribute it to hon. members, or give them any other information that may be used in their own ridings for publicity purposes.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the beginning of my remarks I congratulated the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette), for moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Frenchspeaking people of northern Ontario, may I join him in extending to the people of his province our condolences on the occasion of the two great losses recently suffered by the province of Quebec. Though I have not met her, I should also like to offer condolences to Mrs. Paul Sauve, as many others did before me, on the occasion of the great bereavement of this young family.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that, during this session of parliament, the Conservative members from the province of Quebec will have a significant part to play. I think it is time, in settling the problems raised by Canada's unity and autonomy, that there was less talk and more action.
Though there was no mention of the matter in the speech from the throne, I understand the Prime Minister to have said that a meeting will be held between the federal and provincial authorities to make the Canadian constitution more autonomous. We fully support such a move which, because this has always been the objective pursued by the Liberal party by means of annual conferences with the provinces and through positive action whose results have been recorded in the statute books over the last half-century. Step by step, the Liberal party has always endeavoured to make this country, and therefore our constitution, more autonomous.
It is all well and good for the Prime Minister of this country to announce that there will be negotiations, conferences and meetings, but these are only words. I much prefer the position taken in this respect by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). In fact, this is the suggestion put forward in an article appearing in Le Droit of January 23, which quotes Mr. Pearson's statement and says that it takes more than one thing to achieve complete autonomy. I quote:
In his view (Mr. Pearson's), there are still two things to be done before Canada "can really claim to have reached nationhood".
The first is to adopt "a distinctive national flag which could not be confused with any other national emblem and which would be immediately accepted by every Canadian".
Here is a truly wise proposal, and I am sure hon. members from the province of

Quebec, and there are quite a few of them on the treasury benches-will be able to find a solution to this problem this year.
I hope that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) will not adopt the same attitude they have in the past or still less the stand taken by the Minister of Public Works-now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green)- refuse a Liberal member the permission to withdraw his bill on bilingual cheques in order to allow the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) to present a similar bill here.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the hon. member for Nickel Belt?


Osias.-J. Godin: Please do.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What does he think of Mr. Smallwood's statement about the Canadian flag?


An hon. Member:: This has nothing to do with this debate.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, our Conservative friends hold to the principle that "It's never too late to learn", and that is why they put off-


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker-


Osias.-J. Godin: My dear friends talk about the national flag-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Tell us about Mr. Smallwood's thoughts on the matter.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is anticipating a debate which will come about in the ordinary course of events, because the question of a national flag is on the order paper. While I did not object to him making reference to it I think he should not attempt to debate the matter now but should leave it until it comes before the house as a specific debate.


Lionel Chevrier: He was answering a question, sir.
(Translation):


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Canadian autonomy, our constitution, and federal-provincial relations.
Therefore, I think I can talk about the plight of our universities, since the speech from the throne refers to meetings that are to take place between the provincial and federal governments to deal with the problem of grants to universities.
Since I represent here, Mr. Speaker, the district where the university-


Maurice Allard: Could the hon. member say to the house if he is aware that the Leader of the Opposition, at the time he was a member of the Liberal government, made similar statements concerning a distinctive national flag?


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I know the stand he takes today, as well as the stand he used to take then.


Some hon. Members:: It has changed. It has changed.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member put the same question first to the Prime Minister, then to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Minister of National Revenue and to many other members of his party.


Maurice Allard: May I ask the hon. member a supplementary question? Mr. Smallwood-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising to ask another question about the flag issue, which I suggested was not properly debated at this time?


Osias.-J. Godin: I have no objection to questions, but I realize that I have only a few minutes at my disposal, unless the house is prepared to extend my time.


Mr. Speaker:: 
than internal means to further growth. Whether or not it is a good thing to receive a substantial capital inflow which allows Canadians to import and to proceed with the development of the economy at a faster rate than would otherwise be possible is a question upon which there may be differences of opinion.
However, in a period of world-wide shortage of capital and savings we should not complain about our almost unique capacity to supplement the savings of Canadians through borrowings in the United States market. At a time of rapid technological change Canada cannot afford to stand aside and refrain from the modernization of its plant and the development of its resources in accordance with the changing and growing requirements of domestic and world demand. Our investment in recent years has been sound and productive. Canadian businessmen have judged well the likely requirements of the future and have moved in good time to place themselves in a position to meet the new demands on our production.
The experience of the last 60 years has shown that Canada has had a foreign account deficit in periods of rapid expansion and a surplus in periods of depression or recession. Over the last 60 years, excluding 15 years as war and immediate post-war periods when trade was upset and the economy out of balance, the record shows that on commodity account Canada had deficits in 28 years and surpluses in 17 years. Almost all the years in which commodity account deficits were incurred were prosperous years for Canada, while most of the years showing commodity account surpluses were years of declining economic activity or general economic adjustment.
In 1912, for example, our adverse balance of trade was the largest in the pre-world war I period and amounted to over $283 million or $35 per capita. In 1956 our adverse balance of trade, the largest in the post-world war II period, was over $842 million or $50 per capita, and the depreciation of the dollar in the 44 years intervening would close the gap between those two figures. In the eight years 1932 to 1939 we had a succession of trade surpluses. The surplus reached its height in 1936 when it amounted to over $315 million, and Canada became a net exporter of capital. Imports varied from a total of $400 million to $800 million. Capital investment in 1939 was three-quarters of a billion dollars. Compare that with a capital investment of $8| billion in 1959. In 1939 unemployment, as a percentage of the labour force, was three times as great as it is now.

As I said elsewhere, I leave it to the economists to determine whether having a deficit in a period of economic expansion is as serious as is sometimes made out. That is why I have drawn attention to the period of the great depression when we could boast-if we could boast about anything-of a surplus and of being a net exporter of capital. I grant that the field of economics is a difficult one. I simply draw the matter to the attention of hon. members.
Imports have been high because of the inflow of foreign investment. This foreign investment in turn has made it possible for Canada to develop resources which could not have been developed with Canadian savings and enterprise alone. New branch plants have been established which are now producing commodities formerly imported. It is true that Canadians are acquiring new tastes and are continuing to buy more abroad, but as the domestic market for such commodities grows new branch plants as well as Canadian companies are likely to spring up to meet that growing demand.
Foreign capital, particularly from the United States and the United Kingdom, has played the major role in the development of a number of Canada's principal resource industries. I have three or four examples here to indicate that development. In the pulp and paper industry, for example, more than half the $1.6 billion invested is from abroad. The industry employs some 66,000 persons in pulp and paper mills, compared with 6,000 in the year 1900 and 31,000 in the year 1939. Corresponding new jobs have been generated in the related logging industry. Newsprint and pulp exports together provided over $1 billion worth of foreign exchange, or nearly one fifth of our total exports in 1959.
Foreign investment is also important in the petroleum and natural gas industry, which has attracted almost $5 billion. At the present time some 16,000 persons are employed in the oil fields and over 14,000 at refineries. Additional jobs have been created in connection with pipe line construction and oil and gas distribution. Prior to 1947 Canada was almost entirely dependent on foreign petroleum. The Canadian oil and gas industry now produces the equivalent of 70 per cent of our greatly expanded requirements. Exports of oil and gas in 1959 were valued at $90 million.
Another example of the importance of foreign investment to Canadian development is to be found in the iron ore industry. In the mid-1950's foreign investors committed sizeable sums in this industry and production increased from 6 million long tons 79951-0-22j
The Address-Mr. Churchill in 1953 to 20 million tons in 1956. Iron ore exports were valued at $31 million in 1953 and $145 million in 1956, and are estimated at $155 million for 1959 and will continue to rise.
Our internationally-known aluminum industry was established by foreign capital and still relies on foreign funds to a great extent. Eighty five per cent of this industry's production is exported, bringing in foreign exchange in excess of $200 million in each of the last four years.
Rising imports have made it possible for the Canadian economy to grow more rapidly than would have been possible otherwise. In fact total economic activity over the last five or six years has grown more rapidly than commodity imports. Between 1953 and 1959 commodity imports rose from $4.4 billion to $5.6 billion or $5.7 billion, or by 29 per cent. During the same period the gross national product rose from $25 billion to $34.7 billion, or by 39 per cent. The ratio of commodity imports to gross national product declined from 17.6 per cent to 16.4 per cent over this period.
Hence, any implication that productive capacity in Canada has not kept pace with the growth of imports is not borne out by the facts. On the contrary, rising imports made it possible for the Canadian economy as a whole to grow at an even more rapid rate than imports.
If we keep our own economy healthy and flexible and avoid the excesses of inflation or deflation, and if we aim to be competitive, our balance of payments will not cause insuperable problems; and I do not doubt the capacity of the economy to service the foreign debt which our borrowers have so far seen fit to assume.
It is worth remembering in this connection that in the 1920's our foreign debt relative to our national product was a good deal higher than at present. In 1926, for example, Canada's net international indebtedness was equal to the annual gross national product. In 1958, by contrast, our net international indebtedness had declined to two fifths of our gross national product. Moreover, exports of goods and services considered in relation to net foreign indebtedness have increased from about one third in 1926 to nearly one half in 1958.
On the subject of wheat the Leader of the Opposition was not on very familiar ground. He had little to say, but what he did say was rather confused and misleading. He left the impression that Canada was losing her position as a wheat exporter. Well, here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. When I first spoke of Canada's wheat economy in 1957 I discussed
332	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Churchill at some length the surplus of 730 million bushels of wheat which was a cause for some concern. I pointed out that a long range view of Canada's wheat economy was the proper attitude to take in order to avoid undue alarm, and that a survey over a 30-year period indicated that periodically surpluses were accumulated but tended to disappear as conditions changed.
In the two crop years 1957-58 and 1958-59 the surplus has been reduced by almost 200 million bushels. In the present crop year a further reduction of the surplus will take place, and by July 31, 1960 it is unlikely that there will be many bushels of undelivered old-stock wheat on prairie farms.
Maintaining our export trade at a figure above, or close to, 300 million bushels has required vigorous action and constant attention. The wheat board and their agents have kept up their contacts with overseas buyers and have been alert to seize sales opportunities. In addition, the government has supported a large program of assistance to countries in need of food. That government program has provided in two years $46 million for gifts of wheat and flour to Colombo plan countries, and long term loans to those countries of $35 million. This substantial aid of over $81 million is not the whole story, but I might add at this point that it represents approximately 48 million bushels of wheat that have been moved from the prairies to these countries in need of food over the last two years.
In the same period the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, acting with government approval, has authorized insurance coverage of $22 million to assist in the financing of wheat and barley sales with three-year credit terms, and for the crop year 1959-60 these programs of assistance are being continued. Over $13 million has already been made available for gift purposes-I might say that not all of this has yet been taken up, but it is available-and a further $17 million has been authorized for insurance coverage to finance wheat and barley sales under the Export Credits Insurance Act. The major portion- that is 90 per cent-of our export trade in wheat continues to be sales for cash.
Canada has held her position-and I want to impress this upon the Leader of the Opposition-as the world's leading exporter of wheat in commercial markets. Canada's cash sales of wheat in the last crop year exceeded those of the United States by 125 million bushels. It is a confusing and misleading picture when you take just the total exports of wheat from other countries and place them against exports from Canada, and then infer that Canada has dropped in her position. It is


the great giveaway program of the United States which has so enlarged her exports. If we were able to match that with our treasury naturally we would continue to occupy, not only as a commercial salesman but as a donor country, the leading position in wheat exports. And let us not overlook the fact that thanks to the quality of Canadian wheat and the energy and initiative of Canadian salesmen and the Canadian wheat board, we are holding the leading position as exporter of wheat in commercial markets.
This is a creditable performance in a highly competitive field. World wheat production has increased considerably. The four major wheat exporters, Canada, United States, Australia and Argentina, do not have everything to themselves. France, Sweden, Italy, Mexico and Spain are also listed as wheat exporters under the international wheat agreement. In addition the U.S.S.R. has become active in the world's wheat market. Nor has there been any change in the situation I mentioned in 1957, namely that many importing countries continue to provide incentives for greater local production and maintain restrictions that limit the import of wheat. Developing markets in the countries of Asia and Africa provide hope for the maintenance of our export position as the populations of those areas enlarge their consumption of wheat flour.
In the chief and long-established markets of Europe we maintained our position in the crop year 1958-1959. Our exports of wheat and flour to the United Kingdom exceeded 100 million bushels. To West Germany we sold 35 million bushels as compared with 30 million in the previous year. Japan moved into second place with a purchase of 42 million bushels as compared with 39 million the year before. Those three major markets took 60 per cent of our wheat and flour exports. In other countries some gains were made and some losses were sustained. The longshoremen's strike on the west coast in August, 1958; the shortage of No. 5 wheat, the delay by Russia in taking up the balance of the shipments that we expected to make in the crop year-these three factors over which we had no control caused us to fall 6 million bushels below the target figure of 300 million.
In the new crop year 1959-60, of which nearly one half has already passed, our exports are running about 10 million bushels ahead of last year. What the final total will be no one can be sure. I express the hope that once again it will be at or near 300 million bushels. Every effort will be made to reach that figure but with increased world production, continued restrictive measures in some countries and the pressure in others to

dispose of surpluses, the obstacles are obvious and difficult. The high quality of Canadian wheat is the chief sustaining feature of our world wheat trade.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the question of the effects on our trade of the new trading arrangements in Europe. In the first place I wish to take the strongest exception to the Leader of the Opposition's view that for the past two years Canada has been entirely passive toward the new international trade developments in Europe. This is untrue. In the consideration of the European common market in GATT and elsewhere, Canada has taken a leading role in seeking to protect her trade interests in Europe, and in this we have co-operated with other outside countries whose trade might be affected.
A number of strong representations have been made directly to the common market countries in respect of access for Canadian goods. We have expressed particular concern about the agricultural policies to be adopted by the Six and the proposed level of the common tariff, including, of course, the tariff rates to be decided on for basic materials. We have been pressing the Six to adopt outward-looking commercial policies. There is now clear and welcome evidence in the statements of the European economic commission and of the governments concerned that it is their intention to move in this direction.
We have also been active in bringing to the attention of the United Kingdom authorities our interest in respect of the New European free trade association of the Seven. We have pressed for the elimination of barriers against our trade and for the maintenance of Canada's access to world markets. Given appropriate trade policies the potentialities for growth in Europe hold out the promise of substantially expanded Canadian sales to that area.
I might point out to the house that during the course of the last two years I have had the good fortune to meet the ministers of commerce in most of the countries of the Six and the Seven, those 13 countries in Europe that are so prominent in world trade. At every meeting we discussed the problem of trade between their country and Canada, and I received assurances from each minister I met that he and his country were in favour of expanding trade rather than restricting trade. That is why during the last while I have not expressed any despondency over the development of trading blocs in Europe, because I have had personal contact with the ministers of commerce in those countries.
Now, when you come to the bargaining table and documents are written and tariffs are being adjusted, there may be some areas
The Address-Mr. Churchill in which Canadian trade might be temporarily affected; but I repeat, as I have said before, that on a long range view Canada's trade will be enlarged because Europe is one of the great trading areas of the world and it cannot live by itself alone-because it does not have all the resources within its own boundaries-any more than the United States. And I would expect, the United Kingdom and western Europe being a great world trading area, that there would be just as much desire on their part to get into our markets as we into theirs. As their standard of living rises with increased trade, up will go their demand for goods and services from abroad. This is precisely what happened in Canada; as our standard of living rose, so our demand for goods and services increased.
Consequently, though we may view with alarm the formation of trade blocs, let us remember that we have presented the Canadian case directly to the people concerned. We have presented the Canadian case in the international form of GATT. The Minister of Finance and myself recently attended a conference in Paris where the Canadian case was again presented, and we will continue to present that case and to protect Canada's interests. Moreover, all those countries with which we are dealing are themselves signatories to GATT, which is an agreement calculated to reduce trade barriers throughout the world rather than to raise them. I do not want to take too optimistic a view of the situation, but I am certainly not pessimistic about it. Without doubt, western Europe and the Atlantic countries under the present arrangement will be in a much stronger position to face the competition which may come from other countries elsewhere; the iron curtain countries.
The house has already been informed of the recent conference at Paris at which machinery was established to deal with the substantial issues of trade which must now be faced as a result of European trade developments. In the further discussions which are about to take place concerning trade, aid and the refashioning of the organization for Europe an economic recovery we are entering upon a new course that may lead to a closer association with western Europe. We are prepared to play a more active part in new trading arrangements, provided no disadvantages result from such action; for although 30 per cent of our export trade goes to the United Kingdom and western Europe we have other important trade interests with commonwealth countries in the southern hemisphere and with Latin America and Japan. Canada's


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with all hon. members who have extended congratulations to the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I should also like to offer my personal congratulations to our colleague from Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) on the confidence displayed in him by his leader and by the house in electing him as Deputy Speaker.
May I now point out that in the historic growth and development of our country an event of some significance was marked during the year 1959, when the Jewish community across the length and breadth of the country in every city, town and village where members of the Jewish community reside celebrated the bicentenary of their settlement in Canada. Distinguished recognition of the event was shown in the fact that the Prime Minister and all ten premiers of the provinces of Canada recognized this occasion and gave the celebrations their personal approval. I therefore desire to draw this event to the attention of hon. members and, indeed, to the attention of the entire country.
History records, in fact, that the first person of the Jewish faith to settle in Canada was a British officer named Aaron Hart, who came to Canada in 1759 with General Wolfe's army. He subsequently settled in what is now known as Three Rivers. It was his son, Ezekiel Hart, who in 1807 was elected from Three Rivers as a member of the legislative assembly of Lower Canada, but he could not take his seat because as a Jew he was obliged to take an oath on the true faith of a Christian which the statute at that time provided. He therefore did not take his seat.
A quarter of a century later, Mr. Speaker, and in fact 20 years before such an act was adopted by Great Britain, Canada passed the act of political emancipation which gave to people of the Jewish faith the same rights and privileges as those enjoyed by all subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Since that

time the community has grown and prospered in Canada and now numbers a quarter of a million souls.
Celebrations were officially commenced on the afternoon of October 13, when the Governor General very graciously received a delegation of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who presented him with a beautifully illuminated scroll of a proclamation of faith and thanksgiving, which was issued in four languages, English, French, Hebrew and Yiddish. I now ask the indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker, to read into the record this document entitled "A Proclamation of Faith and Thanksgiving on the Occasion of the National Bicentenary of Canadian Jewry":
The year 1959 marks the 200th anniversary of Jewish settlement in Canada where the blessings of a free country have made possible a flourishing Jewish community living in harmony with its fellow citizens.
From many lands, our people have come to these hospitable shores in search of religious and political freedom and economic opportunity. Thanks to these advantages, we have taken our place with our fellow citizens in the promotion of the economic, political, religious, social and cultural life of our country. We have come to the aid of the needy among us, and have brought relief to our brethren in countries of oppression and poverty. Our sons have responded to the call of patriotism in peace and war, some receiving coveted awards for their bravery and service, others making the supreme sacrifice.
In this mosaic of Canada we have held fast to our ancient prophetic ideals. We have been motivated by our steadfast belief in human dignity and human welfare. In this hour of thanksgiving we recall that our generation was privileged to witness the creation of the state of Israel, and we express our profound gratitude for the leadership Canada demonstrated in the historic achievement.
Therefore, with humility, the Canadian Jewish Congress does hereby proclaim this year as one of thanksgiving, prayer and celebrations to commemorate the national bicentenary of Canadian Jewry.
Let us give thanks to the Almighty for granting us the freedom to practice our beliefs, to transmit to our children our cultural heritage and to live in full equality with our fellow Canadians.
Let us pray, on this blessed occasion, for lasting peace in our country, indeed throughout the world, and for the happiness and prosperity for all that dwell therein.
It is signed by Samuel Bronfman, president, Canadian Jewish Congress; Lavy M. Becker, chairman, national bicentenary committee. This proclamation, Mr. Speaker, is a complete expression of gratitude, confidence and hope in the future growth and development of our country based on loyalty, democracy and freedom. I feel proud at this moment that I have had the privilege to place this expression and this document on the official records of our country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad paradox indeed to have to draw to the attention of the house activities in Canada which threaten to mar that spirit of tolerance and understanding which our country enjoys. It is
The Address-Mr. Crestohl unfortunate that anti-Semitic manifestations in Germany and other countries have been permitted to spread to Canada. I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a violently worded anti-Semitic message decorated with swastikas, iron crosses and other fascist symbols. Hon. members may look at it after the adjournment of the house if they wish. I particularly draw attention to the way this document is headed. It is entitled:
Eternal glory to the Fuhrer. Heil Hitler. Death to the inferiors.
It is signed:
A right wing group.
This was delivered to the residence of perhaps one of the most oustanding physicians in Montreal. I draw to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, the battle cry of this document, "Death to the inferiors." Again we have a proclamation, so to speak, of the superior race, the herrenvolk, as it was called. This seems to still be the dominating feature of this move, and is something that is rather dangerous.
I would like to point out to hon. members that the swastika is not only an anti-Semitic symbol, it is also in fact an anti-Christian symbol, as leaders of the Christian clergy have announced. It is so much an antireligious symbol that to my way of thinking it is an extremely anti-democratic symbol and is in fact a symbol which denotes antidecency, which certainly makes it anti-Canadian. For example, no Christian would smear the swastika, remembering the horrors that the swastika caused to Jew, Protestant and Catholic alike. Today it may be smeared on a synagogue, and if that is permitted, tomorrow it may be smeared on a church. It is a symbol of tyranny and terror, and should make us parliamentarians really deeply concerned that such a thing could possibly be permitted in this country above all countries.
Do not think, Mr. Speaker, that because I of the Jewish faith fear the resurgence of the swastika in Canada today, members of the Christian faith have no reason to fear its resurgence tomorrow. Just for an instant let us recall what the swastika has meant in Denmark, what it has meant in France, in Coventry, Lidice, what it has meant to Cardinal Faulhaber and Reverend Mr. Nei-moller, and the Catholics and Protestants who have suffered.
But, Mr. Speaker, while it was comforting to read the statements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition condemning in forthright language the attempt to stir up in Canada a resurgence of this insidious Nazi propaganda; while it was also comforting to know that the press and the clergy throughout Canada vigorously condemned these activities,

The Address-Mr. Crestohl nevertheless I feel that the government should take some positive and direct action in a matter so dangerous to our country. If we are effectively to prevent this or any other type of sneak propaganda from spreading tyranny and hate I recommend to the government that they think seriously about enacting legislation which would impose severe penalties on those found guilty of actions of this kind. I do not think there is anything in the Criminal Code at the present time which could sufficiently, or even in any way for that matter, make punishable offences of this kind. I would suggest that the Criminal Code be amended to make a term of imprisonment mandatory. I think that would serve as some deterrent, though I do not think that in itself is a cure-all for this ill.
I consider the spreading of hate and violence as insidious as plotting the overthrow of government by force. Ultimately if such propaganda is permitted to penetrate into the vitals of the country, that too will be possible; therefore I consider them both treasonous acts. The fear of long term imprisonment would make these sneak culprits think twice and more before they would commit these crimes.
I do not want to suggest other remedies. I do not think any remedies can be suggested which could be a panacea to cure these things, but I do feel that members of parliament in their constituencies and in the house should in so far as possible encourage the educating of coming generations to understand that no one prospers by preaching hate, by preaching this form of animosity.
The program which the French television network had on Sunday night, I think, was the type of program which this country needs. I think it was educational. It was a splendid program directly on the point, indicating what sadness would result from these things and teaching the children of the coming generations the golden rule and to emphasize that the golden rule is not to be applied only to fellow Christians. I am certain that when the golden rule was preached it was intended to apply to all people of all faiths, because only then is it really a golden rule. I think such teaching is vitally important.
I also want to say that such organizations as the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, where Christians and Jews meet together and get to know each other, are very helpful. Then also there is brotherhood week, which the Prime Minister endorses year in and year out, and the interfaith meetings that are held. I suggest these things to members of the house so that they may have them in mind. They are vitally important, and I think


we can perhaps look forward to a better future in our life in Canada if we live harmoniously together.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I think, spoke yesterday about the various representatives of the commonwealth of nations who met in Australia. We met representatives there from South Africa, from India, from all parts of the commonwealth. We did not know them. The shades of skin were not like ours, but day after day we grew closer to each other. We ate with each other, we chatted with each other, we talked with each other, and after a short while no one even noticed that there was any difference of colour of skin or faith or religion or customs. We regarded each other as human beings, all children of the one God, and it was delightful to see the way we met and accepted each other's friendship.
I simply point out this fact to indicate that meeting and knowing people tells you at once that they are not always quite what you think. People are normal, people are fair, people are decent; but when opportunities are not provided to know each other all sorts of suspicions can creep in which should not. Therefore my appeal to hon. members is not because this propaganda is anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic-it is not only anti-Semitic, as I said a moment ago-but because it is a menace to the very security of our country, to the very security of our people, and all should combine and lend whatever support, assistance and thought they possibly can to see that evils like this are stamped out.
I should like to touch now on another matter. At the close of the last session I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether Canada would raise its voice in protest to Egypt for not keeping the Suez canal open for all members of the United Nations. The minister then made the following rather patronizing statement, and I read from page 5746 of Hansard of 1959:
The hon. member is quite right. We place great importance on freedom of the seas. Of course this applies in the case of the Suez canal. Canada has always taken the position that there should be free transit of that canal. At the moment the secretary general of the United Nations is in the Middle East and is endeavouring to get this difficulty ironed out. We are hopeful that he will have some success in this endeavour.
Then I went on to say:
Has the government made its opinion known in this matter? Has it transmitted any protest to Egypt that it is in contravention of this undertaking to the United Nations?
The minister replied:
We have made it clear throughout all this difficulty that we place great importance on the right of free transit through the canal.
I point out that the minister still has not made a forthright declaration that Canada

has sent a protest to Egypt over the violation of the United Nations decision. I can understand the minister's reply. If I were to use legal language I would say that he avoided the issue. He dodged around the question. Perhaps there was some reason for him to do so at the time because, as he pointed out, the secretary general of the United Nations was then in the Middle East dealing with the matter.
But what has happened since? Has the secretary general of the United Nations achieved anything? I say that notwithstanding his efforts Egypt and certainly its leader, Colonel Nasser, have flaunted their failure to comply with the United Nations decision and, indeed, with international law that might apply in such cases. He continues acts of piracy by seizing ships which fly the flags of member nations.
I would have liked to hear the voice of Canada raised in very direct protest to inform Egypt that Canada objects to the manner in which it deals with international shipping and with an important international waterway of the world. This protest has not yet come from Canada. The Prime Minister of India, on the other hand, was not silent on the matter. As recently as two weeks ago he courageously reiterated India's belief that Israel's ships have a right of passage through the Suez canal, and went so far as to state:
If the existing situation militates against the interests of the parties concerned, we would follow the advice of the United Nations secretary general and evoke the operation of the international court.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it would do our country's prestige some good, if not much good, if, consistent with the minister's statement, a direct protest were to be sent to Egypt. Unfortunately time does not permit me to go into too much detail about the nature and extent of the piracy of which Egypt is guilty. It is a psychological truth, and I underscore this to hon. members, that the violation of the rights of one nation is bound to lead to violations of the rights of other nations, and since Canada uses the Suez canal we may be affected.
I feel it is our duty to speak up on this subject and not wait until we might be affected by some case of piracy, either by Egypt or by another country. It is always right to speak up courageously for justice rather than to sidestep it for a consideration, even if the consideration is the right of passage of oil tankers for any one country. Canada has always given leadership in championing the cause of right, truth and justice.
The Address-Mr. Crestohl
I had hoped that before approving the recent $56.5 million loan by the world bank to Egypt for the purpose of enlarging the very canal about which we are talking, we would have raised our voice in calling for respect for the decisions of the United Nations. Instead of that, what did we get? In reply to my question to the Minister of Finance as to whether or not there was a condition made before the loan was approved by Canada, we got the unwholesome attempt to involve a civil servant in voting approval of the loan. The government lacked the courage and the character our country has shown in the past when truth and justice clashed with expediency.
I wonder, even now, whether it is too late to realize that Colonel Nasser is playing both with Russia and the west and is actually getting the best of the two worlds. From Russia he asks for and gets money to build the Aswan dam; from the west he asks for and gets money to enlarge the Suez canal, yet daringly flouts the decisions of the United Nations. Canada has had an opportunity to raise its voice, but sadly has remained mute.
This is merely another painful illustration of appeasement. As recently as last week Sir Anthony Eden again very sharply deprecated the weakness and danger of exactly this type of appeasement. We apparently have not yet learned, and I am convinced that the free world threw away another opportunity to end the illegal blockade of the Suez canal when the world bank unconditionally approved the loan to Nasser.
What price appeasement, Mr. Speaker? The United States cries for freedom of passage, yet financially aids a country which violates the decisions of the United Nations to enlarge this canal. What a contradictory position for a country. What does Canada do? We simply follow blindly the contradictory position taken by the United States. I had hoped our government would have had more courage. Our country could have made a reputation in terms of truth and justice if it had at least spoken up. It could have said logically, "We sit on the world bank and we are asked to approve a loan, but we cannot and we will not give blanket approval to a country to do things, and continue to do them, in violation of United Nations decisions". I had hoped that Canada would have risen to that great height, and I am sadly disappointed that it did not.
As I should like now to touch on another subject, Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
338	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Crestohl AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Leon David Crestohl: At the adjournment I was on the point of speaking on the last item that I want to raise at this time, namely the problem of the immigration policy of the government. I do not think it is necessary for me to advance further my views on immigration. They are well known. I have done so during the past nine or ten years and I feel that there is no need, even at the present time, to urge the importance of an increase in immigration. I think that importance is fairly universally accepted. Certainly it is accepted by the government, judging by the language of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Prime Minister himself and other speakers on the government side. For example, the hon. member for Parkdale the other day delivered an excellent speech urging upon his government the importance of an increase in immigration.
I repeat that I think everyone in Canada agrees on this matter. Boards of trade, chambers of commerce and industry generally all favour increased immigration. What I am wondering is why no one does anything about the matter. We all shout that we want increased immigration, but everything seems to have bogged down. The figures show a decrease in immigration.
What lies behind this situation? I tried to fathom it but I could not do so. I do not know whether there is some group, some individual or some machinery which interferes with the process of immigration into Canada. Speaking for myself, I have reached the conclusion that the difficulty could be the Immigration Act itself. If the difficulty is the Immigration Act itself I think it is time the act should be revised.
On April 12 of last year, as reported at pages 2937 and 2938 of Hansard, the minister herself had this to say, and I now quote what she said with respect to the possible revision of the Immigration Act. These are the words of the minister herself:
I hope to suggest revisions to the act in a few months' time in any event.
In other words she was informing the house that she hoped to suggest a revision of the act-which is probably going on-very soon, but in a few months' time in any event. Then she continued as follows:
I trust the revisions which I will then propose will be understood and will have the approval of all those interested in immigration.
That was fine. That was in April of last year. More than a few months have elapsed since that time. With the minister knowing that the country is really pressing for a revision of the act, and also knowing that she

plans a revision of the act, why was there not a word of reference to that matter in the speech from the throne? Is it again a matter of not wanting to revise the act? Is it again the well known process of simply letting things ride?
Only the other day I again asked the minister whether or not there will be a revision of the act during this session of parliament, and she very glibly ducked from under by the well known method of informing the house that the matter is receiving the constant attention of the government and of the department. I do not think that is a satisfactory answer. If the only thing apparent at the present time that could be blocking immigration is the Immigration Act, I certainly think something should have been said about it in the speech from the throne, especially in the light of the minister's promise last year that the act would be revised in a few months.
I wonder also whether recent publicity in the press, which was not very complimentary to the department of immigration, should not be another spur to the Prime Minister and to his government to really look into the revision of the act. Certainly there has been some extremely painful publicity both for the department and for the government. In the light of these promises what I am wondering is this, and I return to this matter. Is there some influence that is holding up the revision of the act? May I just read one brief opening paragraph in an editorial of the Montreal Star of January 4, 1960 entitled "Time for Overhaul":
Without delay the Immigration Act should be reviewed and the operations of the department surveyed. Either, if not both, is in need of liberalization.
Of course I like the term "liberalization", but in any event the editorial continues as follows:
Arbitrary behaviour on the part of department personnel would lead one to think sometimes that they are constantly hostile to immigration. It is a question whether they should have the power of discretion they sometimes exercise.
I know the Prime Minister's generous view about this matter. With his sense of justice I feel that he could not fail to realize with regard to the Immigration Act, many sections of which he himself so vigorously criticized when he sat on this side of the house, that after three years in office with the power to alter those things which he criticized he has failed to take one single step to deal with those matters which he knows are faulty in the Immigration Act, and has so stated.
Everyone who has been reading the papers has read the observations of a judge of the supreme court of Ontario. I know this matter

is not new to the house, but in order to emphasize it I want to draw attention to it. In the case of Imre Hirsch, which was recently before the supreme court, here is what the judge said. I am now reading from a clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail of December 31, 1959. Here is the quotation:
In an early brush with immigration department counsel John Hilton, who claimed his lordship was not empowered to hear the case, Mr. Justice Stewart replied: "If an asinine view is taken by an unqualified officer, you mean I can do nothing? If such a fundamental thing as natural justice is quite clearly denied I can surely do something about it."
That is a statement by an independent tribunal, the supreme court of Ontario. Surely when one reads an item like that it cannot possibly do the Prime Minister or the immigration department much good. I imagine he would feel a little embarrassed by a statement like that, and the Prime Minister should be the first one to look into this and say, "What is there in the act which could provoke a statement like that from a judge of the supreme court of Ontario?"
Then further on the following appears:
As a special inquiry officer, Mr. Gracie was pursuing his duty under the Immigration Act, he argued, and simply acting on his own opinion as he is entitled.
Mr. Justice Stewart promptly replied:
Can he be as arbitrary as he likes?-Yes, answered Mr. Hilton.
Then the judge, with almost absolute indignation, said:
You want the law interpreted in the lowest possible fashion on behalf of the special inquiry officers.
His lordship said such arbitrary discretion allowed officers was "perfectly shocking and disgraceful- against every conceivable thing since the Magna Carta and should be stamped out as vigorously as possible."
Mr. Speaker, I could pretty nearly let my case rest on this last statement in appealing to the Prime Minister, who should certainly recognize the poignant language of the judge. Since Magna Carta nothing like that has been heard of, and it arose owing to an interpretation of the Immigration Act. I do not want to use harsh language, but it is a disgraceful thing for the country when a judge so assesses the Immigration Act. However, there it is, and I think basically it is that which is at the bottom of holding up an increase in immigration to this country. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister promptly to see to it, as did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration herself, that all these faulty sections in the act which are repugnant to a sense of justice are immediately remedied by a revision of the act.
(Translation):


Mr, Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with previous
The Address-Mr. Grafftey speakers in this debate in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Casselman).
And now Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of telling you how glad I am to see you again carrying out your duties during this session. I congratulate you and extend to you my best wishes.
As to the Deputy Speaker, I wish to congratulate him on the great honour that was bestowed upon him.
This debate is of a particular importance. Indeed, what better way have we at our disposal to feel the nation's pulse than by listening to duly elected members from various districts from coast to coast?
Some of the problems brought up during this debate are of merely local interest, while others have national and even international significance.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity, since this session began, to talk with some of my fellow citizens of Brome-Missisquoi, and several of them gave me then their impressions and opinions.
This is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. It proves that the Progressive Conservative government is close to the people of Canada. I said it before and I say it again: we are the party of the people and the voice of the people is our strength.
This is why our party attaches such importance to this debate on the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is difficult to separate national issues from those of merely local interest.
As far as I am concerned I should like to deal not only with matters of particular interest to my fellow citizens of Brome-Missisquoi, but also with matters of concern to the people of Canada from coast to coast.
Let me therefore immediately take this opportunity to deal in particular with matters concerning Brome-Missisquoi, the riding of my fellow citizens, of my constituents.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, so many of the accomplishments of our government are naturally brought about by legislation. So many of the accomplishments of our government are brought about by announcements on the part of the government in this very house. But some of the things I want primarily to talk about this afternoon come about gradually, perhaps imperceptibly, and are brought about by the attitude and mode of thinking of our government, of our party and the present administration.

The Address-Mr. Grafftey
One of the things I would primarily like to talk about is the attitude of our government to the commonwealth. I would like to point out the government's and our party's attitude to the commonwealth, this informal body of states. In my opinion, since our party has assumed office I have seen a new look, a new, positive, constructive look, of associated leadership on the part of Canada. We are all aware of the fact that the commonwealth of nations has always been and is being a great force for good in the world today. I would simply like to say that under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canada has taken on a new, positive constructive role in the commonwealth of nations.
Would you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record some quotations from the book by D. Taylor called "The Years of Challenge". I would like to quote from his book the following passage:
The very day he was sworn in as prime minister he flew off to London to attend the meetings of the commonwealth prime ministers-Over and above that he had his own inspiring vision of a commonwealth growing ever more powerful in influencing the rest of the world. And he was prepared, even with his precarious majority, to add a decisive element of Canadian, leadership to that of Britain. He was prepared not merely to talk, but to act. It was this which made Diefenbaker a figure of incalculable significance, that he was eager to be actively responsible for the development of the commonwealth. This was precisely what had long been needed-a leader from the commonwealth who was prepared to make it the cornerstone in the development of his own policies, and not relegate it to a subsidiary position. In brief, it was not nearly enough to remove the word "British" from in front of "commonwealth" to demonstrate that all were equal. It was for the members of the commonwealth thenceforward to put as much into its development as Britain had done. Diefenbaker saw that. And he was prepared to do something about it-
The final quotation I would like to put on the record comes after the Right Hon. Prime Minister had spoken in Albert Hall in London during this first visit. He used the expression that the commonwealth has an appointment with destiny, and Taylor goes on to say:
A trite enough phrase, one of a hundred such which have too often in the past served to wrap the commonwealth in a platitudinous fog. But there was a difference this time. The difference lay not only in the sincerity but in the purpose of the man who uttered those words, and in the remarkable response of the people who listened to him. Led by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Harold Macmillan, they stood to their feet, clapping for minutes on end. They sensed that the commonwealth was indeed reaching a stage in its development that would decide how great an instrument for the welfare of man it would be-
Mr. Diefenbaker set in train greater things than perhaps even he had dreamed of when he pressed for a commonwealth conference. For out of Montreal there evolved the idea of a joint attack on poverty by a free world. This had of course been dealt with in a million words before, even tackled on a moderate scale, piecemeal. But now there was

clear the pattern of a grand design, and that pattern became clearer soon after the world bank meetings in New Delhi. Briefly, it came down to this: the richer nations of the commonwealth (led by Canada and Britain), the United States and the wealthier countries of democratic Europe were pledged to raise the living standards of less fortunate lands. The grim and unremitting war between the two great political creeds of the world, democracy and communism, was to be fought out on the economic as well as the ideological front, and victory there was the first essential.
I put those quotations on record to show that even people abroad recognize the new role of associated leadership that Canada is playing in the commonwealth; a new, positive, and constructive role that I should like to underline in my remarks this afternoon. And we can be assured that under the leadership of the Prime Minister this role of constructive, positive leadership will be foremost in the minds of the present administration and the government.
Along with the very hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrierl I had the pleasure of being invited this fall to a conference of parliamentarians at Clarens, Switzerland. I should like to stress that, like myself, all the parliamentarians present were merely speaking informally. We discussed many of the things that are concerning and influencing most of the nations of the world today. None of us, as I say, were speaking officially on behalf of our particular governments and I want to stress, before I make my brief remarks on this subject, that it was simply an informal meeting, informal conversations among members of parliament from various countries.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that why you made such a good free trade speech?


Mr. Grafftey:: I do not think I used the expression "free trade". The discussions were broken down under two general headings; first, the problem of armaments and, second, the problem of regional arrangements for European economic and political relationships. Under the first heading, armaments, we had the real pleasure of being addressed by Right Hon. Philip Noel-Baker, our principal speaker. Most hon. members of this house will know that he is this year's Nobel peace prize winner. Time and time again Noel-Baker stressed that in the twentieth century the imperative is disarmament. This has been, perhaps, the keynote of his life's work, and it was certainly the keynote of his speech to the conference.
At this point I should like to relate to the house some of the impressions I brought back home from those meetings in Clarens. Noel-Baker pointed out that he was really disappointed-and he was pointing his finger for the most part at the western nations-that

so many nations sent relatively minor officials to take part in disarmament talks and discussions. It is for this reason that I personally and, I am sure, many members of this house were very happy to find that General Burns has been named by Canada to take part in the disarmament negotiations which are to be held in Geneva. Certainly, in my opinion, work of this nature merits the attention, study and efforts of this eminently distinguished Canadian soldier and statesman. Noel-Baker went on to point out that although so much of the work which had been done at the old league of nations in connection with conventional disarmament ended up in failure, we would do well to consider the fact that many serious disarmament proposals were placed before the league, and it could yet serve a very useful purpose to look at some of the detailed proposals which were hammered out at Geneva in those days after a great deal of hard work.
I should like to say that in the field of nuclear disarmament there was a feeling at our meeting of cautious optimism that there might soon be an agreement covering inspection and the cessation of tests, but it was also pointed out that we should never lose sight of the real necessity for conventional disarmament as we became preoccupied-as well we might-with the problems of nuclear disarmament.
In bringing my remarks on this subject to a close I should like to say only that the fact that the western nations are conscientiously exploring all realistic avenues toward the realization of disarmament by no means implies that we are lessening our intention to be vigilant and strong at all times.
Under the heading "Regional Arrangements for European Economic and Political Relationships" we discussed, hon. members may rest assured, the problems of the European common market. We discussed the questions arising from the formation of the group of Six and the group of Seven, which have already been referred to at length by some of those who have taken part in the present debate. There was general agreement at our meetings that both these trading blocs or associations had very serious intentions; and it is my opinion, though I may be wrong here, that because of the balance of payments situation as related to these two groups it might be more than possible that in the future they will formulate some type of working agreement between themselves.
Naturally, from a Canadian point of view I took a great interest in these matters. I informed most of the people there that Canada as a signatory of GATT would be more than interested to see that the spirit of that agreement was always upheld. A question
The Address-Mr. Grafftey which I put to many of my friends at the meetings was this; how did they feel these new trading blocs could be prevented from becoming introspective and isolationist in nature, and the answer I generally received was that GATT was the best place in which to discuss these matters, and that GATT could be used as a forum for ironing out difficulties. It was stressed time and time again that we should not take a negative or defensive attitude toward these new economic blocs, but that if they were properly discussed in GATT or elsewhere trade co-operation in the world in general could be enhanced.
In spite of the fact that members of the opposition like to use the words "free trade" or "high protection" I myself prefer the middle of the road phrase "trade co-operation", believing it to be more realistic in this day and age. I often listen to the words of wisdom from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) in particular when he likes to impose on this house the classical debate on high tariffs versus free trade. I say that such a debate might have been relevant in a bygone age but I feel that it has outlived its contemporary usefulness and, speaking personally, prefer the expression "trade co-operation". Multilateral and bilateral trading agreements realistically arrived at will lead us into an era of trade co-operation with nations which have had such a wonderfully happy and well earned economic advance since the second world war. As Canadians we cannot but be happy to see our allies advance economically in this way. Again I say that a spirit of trade cooperation will underline our efforts to work with these trading groups, which should be expansive and outward looking in nature.
Obviously in a debate of this nature I cannot go into the subject in any great detail, but at our meetings at Clarens we naturally discussed in some detail the effects and implications of Russian and communist trading on the world trade picture.
I should like to close my remarks on this particular subject simply by saying that as Canadians, amongst other things, we should consistently support our government's intentions, plans and present efforts to effect a policy of more goods produced by Canadians for Canadians. A government policy thus primarily directed at our secondary industries will help productivity, and aid our trading picture.
Sir, before going on to the next part of my speech, perhaps some hon. members may recall that unfortunately I had some altercation in the house with the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis).

The Address-Mr. Grafftey We are neighbouring members of parliament, sir, and we like to have the odd little debate in this house. I challenged him with a remark to the effect, what did he know about my constituency, then he put the question to me, "Well, how do the unemployment figures today compared with the day you were elected?" Well, sir, I can only say to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville that it was a good question to ask. He gave me a little more work to do over the week end.


Mr. Rouleau:: You are looking for trouble, my friend.


William Heward Grafftey: No, they are not too bad. I would like to table the figures I have here, sir, but before I put them on the record I should like to preface them with three remarks. Naturally the first thing I should like to say is that since the time I was elected there has obviously been a population increase in my district.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Heward Grafftey: The next two arguments get stronger as they go along. The other thing I should like to tell the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville is that since my election I have had the good fortune to have another unemployment insurance office and a national placement office opened in my riding, and I can assure the hon. member that the present administration under the leadership of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) feels that the people must be considered.
During the Liberal administration many of my citizens of Brome-Missisquoi had to go miles and miles over icy roads to register for jobs and have their unemployment insurance claims serviced. Now that we have opened a second office I can assure hon. members that many people in Brome-Missisquoi, who never in the past were able to register for unemployment insurance or for jobs, are now on the list, and this obviously must affect the very small difference in the statistics.
Second, under the present administration unemployment insurance benefits have been extended to 52 weeks, thus covering another 80,000 people who were never covered before. Therefore all the statistics l am going to put on the record must be considered in the light of these general remarks.


Azellus Denis: Why do you not answer the question?


William Heward Grafftey: I am sure the house will have to agree with that. In March, 1958 there were 1,529 people registered as unemployed in my district. On January 7, 1960 the latest


statistics show that there were 1,837 registered as unemployed. In view of the remarks with which I prefaced those figures I do not feel that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville can take too much delight in those statistics.
During the last session of parliament this house debated the possibility of federal support for a national sports council. All I can say is that anything the federal government can do to make Canadians in general more aware of the real benefits and advantages of physical fitness should be supported and encouraged at all times. I feel that the sports council, to which consideration was given in this house during the last session, merits more consideration; and I repeat that anything the Department of National Health and Welfare can do to make Canadians aware of the real advantages and benefits of general physical fitness should be encouraged at all times. I feel, sir, that as a nation that enjoys a high standard of living and so many natural advantages economically, our physical fitness standard is below par. I know this is largely a private matter but I feel there are times- and this is one of them-when public action can at least provide leadership in this important area of activity.
Sir, before bringing my general remarks to a close I should like to state that very often members in the opposition, and notably of course members in the C.C.F., like to pretend that there is really no major difference between the two major parties that form the membership of this House of Commons. Well, sir, I certainly do not agree with this. I feel there are differences both big and small, and I want to point out a few of them this afternoon. One of the differences, sir, that I have noticed, certainly of late, is our party's attitude toward provincial rights as such. The other difference that I want to point out is our party's attitude to this very House of Commons.
Sir, today-and I do not think members in this House of Commons need to be informed of this fact-the relationships between the dominion government and my province are at an all-time high. Why? Basically because the party of Cartier and Macdonald realizes that the British North America Act is more than a piece of paper. The so-called party of pragmatic compromise never knew what compromise meant, sir, when it came to provincial rights. Past Liberal administrations, with their centralizing tendencies, hardly admitted that problems existed, and deadlock after deadlock ensued. Today outstanding problems are being solved and the party of confederation realizes, sir, that the provinces do have their rights.


Guy Rouleau: Are you serious?


William Heward Grafftey: I could not be more serious. Will the hon. member not admit that problems that were deadlocked during the time of his administration are now being solved in a healthy atmosphere?


Azellus Denis: No.


Mr. Bourgei:: No.


Azellus Denis: Name one.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that conservatism as a way of life and a mode of thinking receives varied emphasis in different parts of the world, yet there are aspects of conservatism which in my view, sir, do have universal application.


Guy Rouleau: And confusion.


William Heward Grafftey: Many great Canadians in my province have had a lot to say about exactly what the Conservative party means when we talk about provincial rights. In England Disraeli, Burke and Coleridge, the moral philosopher of conservatism, spoke out against the Whigs and their centralizing tendencies in London.
Yes, sir, one of the main tenets of conservatism is a high regard for local selfagency. This regard, sir, is well received in my province. Burke's idea of "the happy platoon" stated that our immediate affections are borne in our families, in our neighbourhoods and in our provinces. This is the germ, as it were, of our broader affections. Sir, the citizens of my province love their province but that in no way lessens their real spirit of Canadianism. If in the past Liberal administrations stated that this meant a policy of unco-operative autonomy, so much the worse.
It has always seemed paradoxical to me that past Liberal administrations, the architects of dullness, attempted to superimpose a drab degree of uniformity on our Canadian way of life by their centralizing tendencies while on the other hand, at the local level, they preached a divide and rule policy of sectionalism. I have seen this game being played in this house and outside the house in relation to my own province and I saw it played in this house during the last session in relation to Newfoundland during the Newfoundland debate. Mr. Speaker, these differences constitute a real and fundamental difference between the two major parties in this house, and I feel it is a difference that all members should note.
Just the other night the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Canadian nation about a distinctive Canadian flag; a laudable desire, a laudable subject, but do you think his desires are rendered any more easy to attain after speeches such as we heard from the
The Address-Mr. Grafftey hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) yesterday? I say no. This is the same old story. Time and time again we have had leaders of the Liberal party going out into the country and speaking about national unity, while the members of that party go back to their ridings and sometimes, as we saw the hon. member for Hull do yesterday, speak about that type of divide and rule sectionalism which does not enhance the possibility of uniting this country or obtaining the distinctive flag the Leader of the Opposition talked about.
The second subject I should like to talk about in my general remarks is the attitude of our party and government to the House of Commons in which we are debating this afternoon. We see that the rules of the house are coming up for review. We see the committee system working as it has never worked before. When our party assumed office we had a mandate to restore the legislative wing of government to its proper functions. While the separation of powers theory cannot be completely superimposed on the parliamentary system, we do know that our affairs are best governed when there is a healthy division between the legislative, administrative and judicial wings of government.
It has been said before in this house, and I will say it again, that our civil service is second to none in the world today. It is a good and great civil service, but no matter how good it is it should not and does not want to have what are essentially legislative functions. Before we came to office the voice of the people had been endangered by a government that had forgotten the people. Let us never forget that their very right to be heard in this chamber was being seriously challenged and endangered.
Today national interest in federal affairs is at an all-time high. This chamber is assuming its rightful functions. Members of parliament are working hard and doing their homework. But I well know, after listening to the debates last session, that often when members of parliament were advancing the true and legitimate desires and aims of their constituents, opposition members yelled, "Political interference, political interference". Very often when the government was performing its rightful legislative functions the opposition again yelled, "Political interference." I say, sir, that they are not serving well the true interests of this house if every time the government or private members try to perform their true and rightful legislative functions, opposition members shout indiscriminately "Political interference".
I will simply inform all members of the opposition that in this regard there will never be any gagging technique. The voice of the

The Address-Mr. Grafftey people will be heard by a House of Commons party, a House of Commons government, under the leadership of a House of Commons prime minister. I can certainly say that is one of the basic principles that will always be foremost in our minds as Progressive Conservative policy on the part of our party as our government leads the Canadian people into the decade of the 1960's.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, since the last session of parliament I have had the privilege and opportunity of discussing many federal problems with the citizens of Brome-Missisquoi, and at this time I would like to outline some of these questions. I would also like to thank my fellow citizens for the kind reception they always accorded me as I went about the constituency. Time, unfortunately, did not permit me to meet each and every one, but the warmth of the reception I received in every corner of my district surely is one of the real rewards of public life which makes our work a happy experience.
Under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, herds in both Brome and Missisquoi counties are undergoing the brucellosis tests. Brucellosis, commonly known as Bang's disease, has, in the past, caused many losses in my district. Not only have farmers lost stock at birth, but this disease has also been responsible for decreasing dairy production. Farmers from both these counties, situated alongside the U.S. border, could not freely export cattle due to the presence of this disease and due to the lack of certification of the two counties. Last but not least, cleaning out Bang's disease will have a beneficial effect on the health of all our people, whether they live on our farms or in the larger centres. I fully realize that those tests have caused temporary hardships for many farmers whose cattle have been condemned by the Department of Agriculture, but I am equally assured that all citizens of Brome-Missisquoi welcome the day when Bang's disease will be completely wiped out of our district and our two constituencies will be declared certified. I would like to thank the Department of Agriculture for the grand work they are doing in this regard.
Let me point out the fine work being done by the Apple Cooperatives at Frelighsburg and Farnham. Recently, great losses were sustained at the cold storage unit in Frelighsburg. I would like to congratulate those responsible for the modern plant that has replaced the destroyed buildings. Also, I would like to congratulate the authorities at Farnham for

the work that has been done at their cooperative in constructing new buildings and plant.
Mr. Speaker, farmers in my district recognize that the present government has a national farm policy from "coast to coast".
Citizens of my constituency sincerely welcomed the opening of the new national placement service and unemployment insurance offices in Cowansville by the Department of Labour. I have brought to the department's attention the necessity for keeping the Farnham office open, and am pleased to inform the house that this is being done. The opening of these offices in Cowansville makes it so much easier for many citizens in my area to have their placement requirements and unemployment claims serviced. On behalf of these citizens I sincerely thank the minister and his department. Recognizing, as does the minister, that the people would rather work than draw unemployment insurance benefits, I want to congratulate his department for the wonderful job being done in making more efficient our national placement service offices.
As in many other areas in Canada, many of my fellow citizens experience great hardships during the winter months, and everything that is being done by the labour department to encourage winter work is greatly appreciated.
The minister's intention to set up committees to explore areas of common and mutual interest between management and labour, even when there are no grievances at hand, certainly is a wise innovation.
I have watched with considerable interest, during the past months, the efforts of the C.C.F. party to line up agricultural with labour interest. I can inform members of this group that the people of Canada and of my district in particular will not tolerate any doctrine which conscientiously separates the working man's and farmers' interest from the national interests.
Since the birth of our nation Canada has been free from the type of ideological warfare promoted by men who are more interested in doctrine and theory than they are in facts and human beings.
In Farnham, the Department of National Defence maintains one of the finest military camps in the country. Especially noteworthy is the summer camp held for young cadets. These cadets not only receive the training which is of obvious importance to our military program, but, after several visits to the camp, I am convinced that the period of

training that these young Canadians are put through helps to start them on a sound road to good citizenship.
Next summer we look for an even greater number of cadets and militia units than before.
The department owns much land and many buildings at this site in Farnham, and I hope to see the day when more of an all year round establishment will be set up at this highly desirable location. It would seem that, if the department is pursuing any kind of a decentralization program under modern conditions, Farnham is ideally situated for some sort of permanent year round establishment.
Many of the remarks I am about to make concerning the Department of Public Works could equally be applied to the Department of Defence Production. I would like to thank the ministers of both these departments whenever they have encouraged a policy of what I call "local work for local people". I realize this means that regulations require-as well they should when we are dealing with the taxpayers money-that work and contracts should be carried out as economically and as efficiently as possible.
When it is consistent with sound economy and efficiency, I hope a policy of local work for local people will always be encouraged. This has obvious importance in a rural area. Thus, when contracts for public works are awarded in a town to outside contractors I would like to emphasize the importance of enforcing the clause that obliges the contractor to employ local labour.
May I say that, when parliament votes more money for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, more of this credit should find its way into the rural areas.
In another realm, we have seen that available bank credit is often used up before the small borrower is considered. I understand it is probably easier for the banks to administer a few large loan accounts than a lot of small ones. In housing legislation I feel that the public interest demands that more credit be extended into our rural areas. If there seems to be a chance that housing credit will be used up in the larger centres for many reasons, such as administrative ease, then, perhaps, parliament should insist that a certain percentage of money voted for housing should be earmarked specifically for what we might define as rural and small town areas.
The Address-Mr. Grafftey
During the last two years the Department of Public Works has completed many projects in the area of Brome-Missisquoi. While much remains to be done, other projects are underway or are being contemplated. These improvements are most certainly welcomed by my fellow citizens.
Similarly, the accommodation section of the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Public Works have carried out extensive repairs and alterations to many of the customs ports and immigration offices along the border in my constituency. In some cases, completely new buildings are being erected at different border points, thus increasing the efficiency of the work being done by the departments involved.
Within my area the textile and allied industries are always adversely affected by unfair dumping practices in relation to the goods they produce. Efforts by the Department of National Revenue to police and stop these practices meet with my complete support and commendation.
I admit the textile and related industries in Brome-Missisquoi are faced with a real problem resulting from the importation of Japanese textiles. I sincerely hope that the problem will be solved, especially on account of the recent talks between our Prime Minister and the prime minister of Japan.


Azellus Denis: This would require another government.


William Heward Grafftey: I do not think that the situation was so good at the time of the former government.
I would also like to congratulate the citizens of Farnham for the great initiative they have taken regarding their film library. At the same time a real word of appreciation is due to the officials of the national film board who have so ably helped and co-operated with the local organizers of this work.
I look forward to the day when the Department of Justice will see fit to erect quarters of a permanent and satisfactory nature for the R.C.M.P. both at Knowlton and Bedford. But in another sphere I would like to repeat words of real congratulations to the minister.
When he assumed his present portfolio much had been left undone in the sphere of prison reform. I fully recognize that, insofar as man is meant to be a little lower than the angels, he is objectively responsible for his acts and that, perhaps, there are some punitive aspects in most theories of criminology and

The Address-Mr. Bourget penology. On the other hand, the minister recognizes that a convicted man must be treated and reformed. This is obviously beneficial to the man involved and to society. Every member of this house should offer his support and encouragement to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer to all the ministers of the government and to the different officials of the departments, my sincere thanks for all they did for me. I want to thank them for their co-operation in the best interest of the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi.
(Text):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, before commencing the remarks I intend to make this afternoon I should like to say to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that in trying, as he did, to answer the question asked of him by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), he must have realized how difficult it is-we noticed it in his answer-to give a short, clear and good answer when you have a bad case to defend. It is not my intention this afternoon to follow the hon. member in a discussion of federal-provincial relations. However, may I tell him that in so far as the majority of the people of Quebec are concerned, so far nothing has been settled in the field of federal-provincial relations. I believe I may add this, that the question is more mixed up than it has ever been in the past.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that during this session we will have many opportunities to discuss federal-provincial relations, and I hope also that we will have the opportunity of listening to the Quebec members of the cabinet on this subject so we will know where they stand on the very important question of federal-provincial relations.
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: Ask Mr. Jean Lesage.


Maurice Bourget: All right. Mr. Speaker, I will restrain myself. On Friday, January 15, we had the opportunity to hear the speeches made by the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. With regard to the former, it can be said that he did a good job, because his was a difficult

task in the circumstances. I therefore congratulate him.
(Text):
So far as the seconder (Mrs. Casselman) is concerned, I should like to tell my hon. friend publicly, as I have already told her privately, that she certainly deserves all the sincere congratulations that were extended to her after her speech. I hope that we will have other opportunities of hearing her speak in French, because the French members of this house have noticed that her French is excellent and her pronunciation is very good. Again may I extend my congratulations. (Translation):
I also want, Mr. Speaker, to tender my congratulations to hon. members who, since the last session, were appointed either parliamentary assistants or ministers. I can assure them at this time of my best wishes for the work they are going to accomplish in their new functions.
With regard to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) who was just appointed Deputy Speaker, I want to tell him that I am happy about his appointment. I trust that, when discharging his responsibilities, he will mainly be guided by his sound judgment and fair mind.
It is now two and a half years Mr. Speaker, that the country's fate has been in the hands of this government. As a matter of fact, more than half the term of the legislature has passed since June 1957, which marked the advent to power of the Conservative party.
We may very well remember that after two electoral campaigns of belittling, filled with all sorts of promises, as glittering as they were hollow-supported by expensive organization and publicity-the people of Canada entrusted its lot to a Progressive Conservative government, and did so with an overwhelming majority. After the Canadian people had given them this token of confidence they were entitled to expect that the government's promises be kept. That was the hour of the great delusion.
For practically the past three years we have had a government which is very strong in the house but extremely weak and hesitant when any issue is to be settled. We were all anxious to find out from the speech from the throne whether the government was able to remedy these conditions, particularly with regard to tight money and high interests.
But no, the speech from the throne is very poor, and there is nothing in it that might

give the population which is so deeply affected, any confidence.
We are far from those days, where the Prime Minister roused his listeners, with his visions of the prosperity which would be theirs in Canada, when he would be in power.
After two and a half years of administration by this government, it will certainly be interesting to look at the record of the first part of their term of office, and, in order to do so, I believe it might be wise to recall some of the promises-not all the promises that were made, for their list would be too long-but some of the most important and significant ones which were given by that party in 1957 and 1958.
Here are some of them: "Tax cuts with a balanced budget." That has not been done.
"Increase in social security measures, without increase in taxation." That has not been done either.
"Interest rates cuts, especially for housing construction." On the contrary, they were increased. We then came to a period of tight money. Reference was made to "tight money policy", at the time of the Liberals, but credit today is more restricted than ever.
"Checking inflation." Yet the cost of living has constantly gone up since.
"Settling of fiscal problems with the provinces." Another point which is not settled; perhaps the provinces are waiting for an arbitrary decision by telegram.
"Financial help to municipalities." During the election, the Prime Minister told them he would grant them their share of taxation, especially to facilitate their rapid growth. Now our municipalities are not even able to borrow money.
"Settlement of the unemployment problem." Mr. Speaker we were promised that the unemployment problem would be solved; and you know the fine result we have had: there are now 700,000 unemployed.
"Opening of new markets for our products." That must have been also a vision, because we do not see many new ones.
"Better protection for our sovereignty, especially as opposed to the increasing United States influence in Canada." In his speech this morning, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) showed, in this regard, what I would call the best example of turnabout one could imagine.


Lionel Chevrier: Hear, Hear.
The Address-Mr. Bourget


Maurice Bourget: And the small industry was promised help, etc., etc. No reference is made to that now. There again, it was a vision and a fugitive one at that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, needless to say it is not in the few minutes at my disposal that I would have time to analyse each of those promises, to recall the astonishing statements made at the time mostly by the leaders of the party and, later on to show conclusively how lamentably the present government has failed in its task.
I shall therefore limit myself today to the discussion of two or three matters which, in my opinion, are of particular interest to the major part of the population.
May I first be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the promises made by the Conservatives to the effect that they would reduce taxes while balancing the budget.
Memories are still ringing with the charges hurled at the Liberal administration, in the year 1957 and also in 1958 and during the elections, to the effect that the Liberal government of the time was robbing every family of $120 a year-


Lionel Chevrier: That is fine-


Maurice Bourget: -by way of taxes. No words were strong enough at the time to criticize the Liberal party.
But what has happened since the Conservatives came into power?
In December 1957, and to a lesser extent in June 1958, the present government reduced taxes by $204 million. It can be seen today, however, that such a reduction was only temporary and was a short-lived relief for people so heavily taxed.
In the last budget, in April 1959, taxes were raised by $352 million, and later in the session, when amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act were brought before the house, workers and employers realized they would have to contribute $80 million a year more than previously. If you add up both amounts, you get an impressive total of $432 million in direct tax increases.
Thus it is obvious that far from reducing taxes, the government has raised them to impressive heights.
Of course, one might think that the tax increases would have had the effect of helping the government balance its budget of expenditures and income, but such is not the case, far from it. Ever since the Conservative government has been in office, it has had

The Address-Mr. Bourget the dubious honour of piling up a $2 billion cash deficit and of squandering away an amount of $2,400 million that the Liberals had saved.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, that we are now faced with a tight money situation, with such high interest rates.
And whose fault is it? The government's. It has to assume the responsibility and should not try, as it has been doing since it is in power, to pass the buck.
At this stage, Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record a statement, or rather the opinion of a man who cannot be accused of being politically biased. I am thinking of a man who is an expert on monetary questions. This statement was made in Montreal on June 10, 1959 by Mr. J. Perry, of Toronto, who is director of the Canadian Tax Foundation, before the delegates of the Municipal Treasurers Associations of Canada and the United States. I am quoting this statement which was reproduced in Le Devoir of June 11, 1959:
The first fact which has to be kept in mind, the lecturer explained, is that, after a long period (as a matter of fact it is the first time in 10 years) the federal government, while launching its conversion loan, was putting out a considerable amount of bonds upon the market thus glutting the market in a way. The core of the problem, he added, resides in the fact that such financial operation had not been expected to have any disastrous effect for the "weaker" borrowers, i.e. the municipalities. Mr. Perry also stressed that in 1958, the federal government had its first peacetime deficit (of about $650 million), a fact which he considers as being at the base of present conditions in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that we can rightly say that the government should assume the responsibility with regard to the serious fiscal and monetary position, which is prevailing in our country today. Neither is it surprising that the small borrower has some difficulty in obtaining funds, as the government has monopolized the greater part of the money supply.
Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr, Pearson), pointed out in the magnificent speech he delivered on January 18:
In the 15 months from March 31, 1958 to June 30, 1959 federal government issues took 58 per cent of all new money provided by the bond market.
Consequently, for the same reasons also municipalities and school boards now wishing to borrow have to pay prohibitive interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, I was curious enough to make a survey of the actual interest rates paid by municipalities and school boards on issues

sold during 1959. I do not want to take all the time allotted to me to give that list, but we can see that the actual interest rate, or return if I may say so, ranges between 6.5 and 7.89 per cent. Quite recently the city of Montreal floated a $13 million issue on which it has to pay 7.58 per cent.
Needless to say that such an increase in the cost of loans to municipalities and school boards will, in the long run, result in further taxes being paid by Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to another vital question which is seldom mentioned in the speech from the throne. I refer to unemployment. I shall not take the trouble to discuss whether there are exactly 500,000, 600,000 or 700,000 unemployed people in Canada. In any event, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) stated in the house last Thursday, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), that on December 31, 1959, there were 667,715 current applicants and 17,976 fishermen who were unemployed. I think that in a country such as Canada, when hundreds of thousands of people are jobless, the important question is what should be done to put those people back to work.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that this is no easy problem. However, I think it is outrageous that the government should be satisfied with a tiny decrease of 1 per cent in the number of people unemployed and in search of employment, in proportion to the total labour force. With a figure of 5.6 per cent for the first 11 months of 1959, this is still the second highest rate of unemployment ever reached since the thirties, and from the statistics quoted by the Minister of Labour, it seems we are due for an increase.
Another thing I cannot approve is the way the government has been handling the problem. Again this year, the government has offered to share the cost of winter works with municipalities, promising to pay 50 per cent of the cost of labour, which represents between 10 and 12 per cent of the total cost of the works.
It will be recalled that last year, that program was hardly a success, particularly in the province of Quebec, where it provided jobs for only a small number of people. Furthermore, I hardly believe that the government could boast of being overly generous, if I may use that phrase, because if we look up the annual report of the Department of Labour, we note on page 35, that

the estimated amount of the federal contribution to the cost of projects in direct salaries-and I am told it was less than that-was $10,698,000. Now, the contribution offered by the federal government this year is the same as last year's; it has not been increased. All that seems to have swelled up at present is newspaper publicity which is organized, actually, by the managers of local unemployment insurance offices.
Mr. Speaker, I just said that in the province of Quebec that program was far from being a success last year. Now, this year it does not seem to arouse much enthusiasm in the various municipalities. In this connection, perhaps it would be of interest to you to know some of the comments made in the newspapers where statements of mayors and aldermen of certain municipalities are quoted and which were reproduced from time to time in other newspapers.
For instance, in the newspaper La Presse of December 17, 1959, the mayor of Shaw-inigan is reported as saying:
That the winter works federal assistance plan was a monumental joke. He added that the unemployment problem was a national problem and that, so far it is up to-
And he was right because we heard it said so often from our hon. friends across the floor, when they were sitting on this side of the house.
-and so far, it is up to the federal government to solve it.
In the L'Action Catholique of December 16, 1959, an alderman of the city of Quebec is reported as saying:
That such a program would provide work to a very small number of unemployed.
And he added:
Last year, 100 unemployed got jobs for an average of two weeks each.
Actually it was an affront to the unemployed, said he.
According to another report published in a local paper, Le Soleil, the province of Quebec and Ottawa have not yet replied to requests for work projects submitted by municipal authorities. This is January 26; two months have passed already and the city of Quebec has not yet received a reply to the requests submitted in order to supply work to the unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, I could also quote from an article published in the issue of October 10, 1959, of Le Soleil under the title "No winter work projects". This is what it said:
Most municipalities in greater Quebec totalizing afteen have decided to shelve their winter work
The Address-Mr. Bourget projects on account of problems resulting from credit restrictions.
Mr. Speaker, I could quote many others.
I suppose however that the three or four quotations that I have just read make it abundantly clear that the government is taking no action whatsoever in spite of the loud and fallacious publicity it is giving to this matter.
Besides, one can readily understand why municipalities are not very interested in this program.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member allow me a question?


Maurice Bourget: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to answering questions, but if I do answer them, I should like that the time be taken into account, because I have another important matter to deal with. If the hon. member wishes to wait until I have finished my speech, I shall then gladly answer all the questions he will put to me.
The plight of the municipalities at the present time is that they have to borrow money at prohibitive interest rates, ranging, as I said earlier, from 7 to 8 per cent, while the federal government's contribution in this winter work program amounts to only 12 per cent. The municipalities readily realize and with good reason that the government wants them to pay the whole costs.
There would be a lot more to say on this question of winter work program, but we shall have the opportunity to discuss that matter again when the budget of the Department of Public Works comes before the house.
Well, on this point as on many others, we find that the present government does not dare face its responsibility. And the question is: when will it become aware of the facts?
Every day for the last two years and a half, the people of Canada have realized more and more that those who excel at making election promises are also those with the worst record for keeping their promises.
There is also another question, Mr. Speaker, on which I should like to draw the attention of the members of this house, a question which I think is of vital interest not only for the city and district of Quebec, but also for the province as a whole. I am thinking of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence up to Quebec.
The confusion that for a few months followed the statements on this matter by

The Address-Mr. Bourget the relevant authorities and the interpretation of these statements by well informed persons, has now disappeared but the issue is not settled.
No need to say that our people are terribly disappointed, particularly after receiving from authorized persons the assurance and even the certainty that the government was willing to help winter navigation from the Atlantic ocean to Quebec city.
May I be allowed to quote here some excerpts of a talk given by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Tasse) in Montreal on September 24, 1959. It was entitled: "Quebec, a winter port". I shall now quote from the statement made at that time by the hon. member for Quebec East:
In this case, what can be done to overcome the obstacles which during the winter months, prevail on the stretch between the Atlantic ocean and Quebec? First of all, we would recommend sufficiently powerful ships with re-enforced structure and hull. A good number of such ships are available at this time, and other ones are being built, so that some progress has been made in this respect. Yet, those ships also sometimes need the help of ice-breakers and general information on the position, nature and movement of the ice, as well as on prevailing weather conditions. Those services are under the Department of Transport of the federal government and it would be well to hear the point of view of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), himself on that matter.
This is still the hon. member for Quebec East speaking.
On January 22, 1958, the Minister of Transport (Hon. George Hees), when speaking at the annual dinner of the Dominion Marine Association and of the Lake Carriers Association in Montebello (Quebec), reviewed the activities of his department. When he came to speak about winter navigation, he listed what was being done with regard to the building of ice-breakers, reconnaissance flights, navigation aids, etc. in the estuary and the gulf of St. Lawrence, and he ended by saying:
And I am still quoting, which means that these are the words of the hon. member for Quebec East:
(Text):
With this group 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 into the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence even as far up as Quebec.
(Translation):
And the hon. member for Quebec East pursued as follows:
This is self explanatory. On June 11, 1959-
And I am still quoting the hon. member for Quebec East:
On June 11, 1959, when his department's estimates were being discussed, somebody inquired about the activity of ice-breakers in the lower St. Lawrence, and the minister answered: "One of our new icebreakers will be put to work all winter in that 
area". Then, another question being asked, and I quote: "How many ice-breakers will be assigned to help winter navigation between Quebec and the lower St. Lawrence", the minister answered: "There was one this winter and we shall add another one next year, i.e. during the coming winter". These few quotations-
These are not my own words but those of the member for Quebec East:
These few quotations may well point out that the Minister of Transport is willing to help winter navigation from the Atlantic ocean to Quebec.
Let us now go back to the Department of Transport and see-
Once more these are the words of the hon. member for Quebec East;
-and see what action was taken to follow up the minister's statement. Reconnaissance flights had been made over the gulf for several years but, since 1959, this activity was extended as far as Quebec by means of planes based in that city. Moreover, the department instructed a number of people on the banks of the St. Lawrence to make observations on the ice position during the winter and report current conditions. All this information is either gathered in Quebec or at the information centre on ice conditions in Halifax, and then verbally transmitted by radio, or else collected in the form of ice cards and transmitted by means of a so-called "fac-simile" apparatus which allows transmission of those cards by radio. Those include forecasts and are put at the disposal of ships to help them follow their route. Navigation is also helped by the Bendix-Decca system which allows a ship having such apparatus to know at any time even at visibility zero, where she is, where she has gone and where she is heading. As regards ice-breakers, the program is even more significant, since this year the Department of Transport has put in operation a new ice-breaker, the Sir Humphrey Gilbert; it has launched another one in Montreal, the Wolfe: and it will launch another one at Lauzon, on October 31, which will be the largest ever built in Canada, and the third greatest m the world, with 15,000 H.P., which will bear the name Sir John A. Macdonald.
May I be allowed here to digress a little.
I should like to say that the contract for that ship, the third greatest ice-breaker in the world that is to say the contract for the Sir John A. Macdonald-was granted to the shipyards of Lauzon by the Liberal government of the time, since the contract was granted-


Mr. Martel:: Could you give us the date on which the contract was granted?


Maurice Bourget: Certainly. The date on which the contract was granted is to be found in a press release of October 31, 1957, issued by the department of Transport, which states:
(Text):
The contract for the construction of the Sir John A. Macdonald was awarded in 1957 at a cost of $9.8 million.
(Translation):
In April 1957, our friends were not yet in power.

Well, I continue with my quotation from the hon. member for Quebec East:
We have just been informed, at last, that another ice-breaker, identical to this one, will be provided for in next year's estimates.
That considerable increase-continued the hon. member for Quebec East-is justified by the very particular conditions prevailing in Canada. In fact, our arctic areas are being developed intensively and are in need of ice-breakers in summer and fall for supplying their establishments. The needs of those areas are increasing very rapidly, since this year about 30,000 tons will have been transported there, while last year only one third of that was transported. When winter comes, those arctic areas become inaccessible, so that the ice-breakers are available for use elsewhere, but this time, in the St. Lawrence gulf and river.
And I close here the quotations taken from the talk given by the hon. member for Quebec East in Montreal.
Now, here are the answers given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to the questions asked by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and myself, on Tuesday, January 19, 1960. This was my first question:


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house whether the ice-breakers stationed in Quebec city harbour and in the lower St. Lawrence are there to maintain ocean shipping in winter time up to Quebec city?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not have sufficient icebreakers to perform that task. As the hon. member knows very well, the small icebreaker in Quebec harbour has three specific tasks: first, making sure that the ferry goes across from Levis to Quebec city and back; second, to make sure that ice does not accumulate under the Quebec bridge; and third, to see that much needed supplies are delivered to certain island communities that otherwise would not receive supplies. Other icebreakers are working farther down the river and in the maritime area and in the gulf. They are kept busy all the time, and our ice-breaker force is taxed to capacity at all times during the winter months.
And here was the question asked by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier):
May I ask a supplementary question of the minister, which I hope he will answer. Is it the minister's intention to assist ocean ships which desire to service the city of Quebec by means of the transportation of cargo?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we assist all ships
that we can up to the limit of our capacity, and our capacity at the present time has already been reached.
The Address-Mr. Bourget
Well, in closing my remarks I will add only this, as the hon. member for Quebec East said himself in his talk:	"This is
self-explanatory".
One last point I should like to raise at this time, Mr. Speaker, is in connection with civil servant salary increases.
I had occasion, last fall, to attend a meeting organized by the federal civil servants association, and I was there in a position to realize that those employees submitted the reasons for their demands with both diginity and energy.
For a long time it has been recognized that the government, as an employer, ought to pay its employees fair and reasonable salaries, which must favourably compare with those paid by private enterprise for similar work.
I personally believe, as many others, that the government is to blame for its failure to publish the commission report, which would have allowed the population to know all the facts. I would therefore ask the government to resume its negotiations with civil service representatives in order to arrive at some agreement which would be fair to both parties. Civil servants should not be the only ones to "hold the line" in order to check inflation. In the past, those people have shown that they were reasonable; but at the same time, they rightly expect to be treated with fairness.
Mr. Speaker, may I, with the permission of the house, table a list of the loans contracted by some municipalities and school boards in 1959?
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to have reproduced in Hansard the table to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Bourget: Thank you very much.
(Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:)

The Address-Mr. Bourget
(Translation):



LOANS TAKEN OUT IN 1959

[Stage Direction]
Borrowers
Eastman school board, Brome City	
City of Lac Megantic	
Baie d'Urfee school board	
Chateauguay school board	
City of Cap de la Madeleine	
Shipshaw school board	
Lachute school board	
St. Hyacinthe school board	
Ville St. Laurent, Montreal	
St. Lambert school board, Montreal	
Thetford-Mines school board	
Boucherville school board	
Ste. Genevieve school board	
City of St. Leonard de Port Maurice	
City of Duvernay	
City of Chicoutimi-North	
City of Dorval, Montreal	
City of Verdun	
City of Montreal
Maurice Bourget: Thank you, thank you very much.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Levis allow me a question?


Maurice Bourget: Certainly.


Léon Balcer: Is the hon. member aware, with regard to winter navigation up to Quebec, that the former Liberal candidate in Quebec East, Mr. Maurice Lamontagne, regarded the matter as a pipe dream dating back to several generations, and something that cannot be done?


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the Liberal candidate might have said in Quebec East in the last general elections. In any event, the Solicitor General would show more spunk if he read that statement and gave the source of his information, instead of making unsubstantiated assertions about a man who is not in the house to defend himself, and saying that he has said such and such a thing. I hope the Solicitor General will not try to wiggle out of this, and will have an opportunity during the day, or on the orders of the day-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker,-


Maurice Bourget: You asked a question, now let me reply. I hope you will have an opportunity to quote the source of that information, and to tell us exactly what were the words-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


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


Georges-J. Valade: May I direct a question to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker?

Amounts	Bates	Yields	Term$ 815,000	6 %	6.81%	1960-69430,000	6 %	6.77%	1960-70520,000	6 %	7.63%	1960-79200,000	6 %	7.45%	1961-80546,500	6 %	7.43%	1960-80160,000	6 %	7.09%	1960-69412,500	6 %	7.21%	1960-69180,000	6 %	6.42%	1960-69620,000	6 %	6.59%	1960-79551,000	6 %	7.89%	1960-79242,000	6 %	6.83%	1960-79470,000	6 %	7.40%	1960-69197,000	6 %	7.79%	1960-69295,000	6 %	7.78%	1960-69497,000	6 %	7.78%	1960-69200,000	6 %	7.88%	1960-75775,000	6 %	6.99%	1960-74550,000	6 %	6.47%	1960-6913,000,000	51%	7.58%	1960-70-80


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member cannot be allowed to answer questions on someone else's time.


Maurice Bourget: I would like to do it.
(Text):


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my contribution to this debate, I want first to congratulate the government of Canada on the very fine choice that was made in the appointment of the Queen's representative in Canada. A better choice was impossible to be made.
I also want to congratulate the two new cabinet ministers and the sixteen or so new parliamentary secretaries. I know they will do their jobs well and diligently. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne and the charming seconder of that address. Her very fine speech certainly put some of us older, almost senior citizens, I would say, to shame. I would also like to offer my most sincere felicitations to my good friend, the gentleman with the noble Irish name and French tongue, who has been appointed your assistant, or deputy, Mr. Speaker, and who is at the moment sitting in the Speaker's chair. I know that he will acquit himself with all honour.
There are two new members in the house who also should be congratulated upon winning their elections and the government party to which one belongs and the official opposition to which the other belongs and, in order that I do not leave out anybody, I have a slight accolade for the group to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely pleased to see that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is showing certain signs of statesmanship at times, and

I certainly congratulate him and his party upon those efforts. I cannot let this occasion pass without offering my condolences to the province of Quebec, represented by many members in the house, on the loss of two great premiers. For Quebec and for all Canada the loss has been very great.
Because I am a farmer in my own right I want to read a short article from my home town paper, the Vegreville Observer.
Here's a resume of a farmer. I mean the ones who work 12 to 16 hours a day, not the white-collared types who sit in town and hire someone to do the work. He has to be an agriculturist to know when to plant his grain, how to till the soil, when and how to hay, etc.
A mechanic to keep tractors, trucks, cars and all other farm machinery in good repair.
A veterinarian to take care of all the ills of livestock-and there are plenty.
A stockman to know how to feed and care for stock.
A carpenter to keep old buildings repaired and build new ones when necessary.
An accountant to keep books on stock, grain, income tax, etc.
A poultryman to know how to care for and feed poultry of all kinds.
Last but not least, a labourer to do all the work.
The next time you farm men and women say, "We're farmers," say it with pride. It takes a lot of brain as well as brawn to be a farmer.
So I say with pride that I am a farmer when I am at home. Having said that, if I touch on many subjects hon. members will know it is because my way of living necessitates my dealing with many things. The first thing I want to do is to say how fortunate we in Canada are that we live in a democracy. We have a parliamentary system. I know there are times when I wonder whether we are very smart in having such a system because often so much talk is indulged in and so much time is taken without getting anything done. Systems that get things done fast may at times be more efficient but the people of Canada would never accept them.
I have wondered at times what would happen if some foreign power, not mentioning any names or pointing any fingers, were to send to Canada a very efficient group of fifth columnists to try to take over this country. If parliament were in session I wonder whether we would spend all our time talking about it until we were gobbled up or would we all get down to business and do something about it immediately. Then I remember that we are all Canadians and we as members represent all parts of Canada and I know we have nothing to fear because when the chips were down we would all get down to business and get something done very quickly.
I also wonder very often whether in their effort to oppose all legislation put forward by the government, opposition members are 79951-0-23
The Address-Mr. Fane not opposing with their tongues in their cheeks. I think it must be so because they too must have the interest of Canada at heart. Members of the opposition have said that the speech from the throne has absolutely no meat in it. I will admit that it was not very long and did not take long to read but I found that there were a great many things in it.
There is going to be a meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers before too long. Canada is working for lasting world peace. We are still providing economic and technical assistance to the less privileged nations. We are working very hard and effectively on the matter of international trade, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) showed in his address this morning. There has been improvement in Canada's economic position and the outlook for 1960 is good. Measures are being taken for the further development of Canada's northland, including exploration, drilling and development with respect to oil. There is a continued and constant effort to help the farmers of Canada. A bill of rights will be introduced this year. Amendments are proposed to the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code as it relates to that subject. A revision of the Civil Service Act is projected as well as amendments to the Federal-Provincial Tax Sharing Arrangements Act. The Indians, our native Canadians, are being given the franchise at last. There is to be a new department of forestry and there are observations with respect to the trans-Canada highway. Amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the Veterans' Allowance Act will be introduced. There are several other matters mentioned which do not affect my constituency but are nevertheless important.
I am going to enlarge on a few of these items and take the last one first. I will say very little about each as I go along. Certain amendments are to be introduced affecting old age pensions and veterans allowances which will be a very good thing. I want to remark particularly about the amendments to the Indian Act and to compliment the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough), who is inspector general of Indian affairs for Canada, on her interest in the Indians and bringing forward these amendments. We have seen in the newspapers that certain bands of Indians do not want the vote, that they could not care less whether or not they have the franchise. That does not apply universally in my constituency. There are a few Indians who could not care less but the majority are beginning to feel they are Canadians and should be taking their proper place in the affairs of their native land. They are ready to do so. They are


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks today, I


wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. members for Rimouski and Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Morissette and Mrs. Casselman). Both have very successfully carried out the task assigned to them by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker).
It was delightful to hear the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas tell us, with her great charm, of the beauties of the constituency she has the honour to represent in this house.
With regard to the member for Rimouski,
I was startled at his magician's ability to draw a rosy picture of Canada's economic situation, at a time when it is in a state of confusion worse than ever before.
At the beginning of his remarks, the member for Rimouski told us of the loss he suffered from the death of his provincial leader, Mr. Maurice Duplessis. To hear him, one would think that before Mr. Duplessis, nothing had ever existed or had been done in the province of Quebec. Even if, as a Canadian citizen living in the province of Quebec, I deplore the death of Mr. Duplessis, I will let history be the judge of his work. It is true, none the less, that very often during the leadership of Mr. Duplessis in the province of Quebec, we had the impression that the province was a state somewhat detached from the rest of Canada. It is so true that the Conservative members from Quebec who sit here seemed to breathe more easily when Premier Paul Sauve went through the motions of improving federal-provincial relations.
A few days ago, the Prime Minister of Canada told us that he would try to bring the Canadian constitution under Canadian control. Some newspapers thought that this was only meant to elicit the views of the present premier of Quebec, whose leader-he himself told us during an election campaign -was then Mr. George Drew while his leader now is our present Prime Minister.
It is a known fact that Mr. Duplessis has always opposed the Canadian constitution being brought under Canadian control. However, I wish with all my heart that the federal government would be able to realize its project without being stopped by the veto of the present premier of the province of Quebec.
I wish also to associate myself with the congratulations expressed by the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne to the new Associate Minister of National Defence. On his appointment, he exerted himself on television to convince the Canadian people that he shared the same responsibilities and rank with the Minister of National Defence. I wondered at that time

why the latter was not also called associate minister of defence. In any case, we now have in the house Don Quixote and Sancho Panza.
I also congratulate the new Deputy Speaker of the house who, I am sure, will maintain the tradition of this parliament requiring the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to be fair beyond reproach.
I congratulate also the members who had the good fortune to be appointed parliamentary secretaries between the sessions.
I must not forget those whom the member for Rimouski has described as being "devoid of either title or glory". I refer to the Conservative members sitting in this house, and since it is still early in the year, I should like to extend wishes to some of my Conservative friends.
First, I wish the member for Rimouski a job as parliamentary secretary or even cabinet minister, as a reward for almost succeeding, in the speech he delivered in this house on January 15, in making us forget the record number of unemployed people we have in Canada, in our province, and in his constituency particularly. He also nearly made us forget that school boards, municipalities, businessmen and the people generally are no longer able to borrow money because of the tight money situation, -and also that the affairs of the nation, as a result of this government's poor administration and lack of leadership, are in a dangerous state of confusion.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to forget in my wishes the man with whom I had the pleasure of engaging in many verbal duels, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Because of the many counsels he gave to the government in the innumerable speeches he made during the last session, the hon. member would likely deserve to be named chairman of a new committee that could be called "the committee to shorten the debates of the house".
Mr. Speaker, I would like also to wish that my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Bourdages), succeed in having a channel dredged in the Thousand Islands river, to allow his voters and mine to go from the Thousand Islands river to the Deux Montagnes lake without difficulty. Besides this project would allow the city folks and tourists to come and admire the magnificent scenery of the region.
The Address-Mr. Rouleau
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to forget in my wishes the ineffable member for Rob-erval (Mr. Tremblay). Because of his vast literary knowledge, his hidebound nationalism, his verbal niceties, he would surely deserve to be put in charge of a new department that could be called the department of art and culture, and could become a teacher of French in Ottawa.
I think those appointments would agree very well with the present government which has never ceased to confuse the affairs of the nation.
All together, guided by their new moral counsellor, Ottawa parliamentary correspondent for Le Devoir, Mr. Clement Brown, they could co-operate in making the situation even more confused than it is now.
I would not want to forget in my wishes, as I said earlier, my good friend the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montealm who, I trust, will continue this year to give advice to the government as he did during the last session.
The lack of policy of this government has brought chaos in almost every sphere of government activity. By civil servants, to whom salary increases are systematically refused, and by the unemployed who cannot get any more unemployment insurance benefits because their credit has run out, the government is criticized from all sides, and there are countless reasons for directing criticism against it.
As far as the civil service commission is concerned, some people feel that the Conservative members want to starve the federal civil servants because they could not enslave them. Personally, I believe that the civil servants do an excellent job and deserve the same treatment as that enjoyed by workers in private industry. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) has decided otherwise. With his characteristic arrogance, he has refused to publish the recommendations that have been made in their favour. Not only did he deny their claims, but he added with callous cynicism that even if the government had the money, he would not consider granting them a salary increase.
Mr. Speaker, those are the very men who, not so long ago, were accusing others of being dictators. The members of this government look like overgrown children who do not want to part with their toys. They leave the impression to the nation and to the

The Address-Mr. Rouleau whole world that they are irresponsible. In fact, when things are bad, they do not want to assume their responsibility, and this is precisely what happened in the matter of tight money with which I want to deal today.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I remember having read in some newspaper, under the signature of Mr. John Bird, a lesson to aspiring candidates on how to get elected on a Tory ticket. It went something like this: When trying to get into office, give the government blazes for everything. But when you are in office, disclaim all responsibility. Is that not typical of the leader of the Tory party, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), his associates, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming)?
While in opposition, they were blaming the government for everything, from a snowstorm to a plane crash. Pointing their little finger, if not their fists, at the government, they used to accuse the government of all sorts of things. During the 1957 electoral campaign they accused the Liberal administration of all evils from a snowstorm to a plane crash. By telling all sorts of lies, and by distorting the facts-in a convincing manner, I must admit-they managed to get into office. But instead of discharging their responsibilities as administrators of Canada, they carried on their electoral campaign in the House of Commons by putting the blame for everything that went wrong on their predecessors.
At the beginning of 1958, they decided to go back to the people and they were elected by an overwhelming majority. One would have thought that they would have stopped campaigning; that they would have got down to business and stopped playing small politics; that they would have become conscious of their responsibilities; that they would have become real administrators of the affairs of the nation. But no, they acted as if they were still in the opposition and they kept campaigning as if the elections were not over.
While they were doing so, the affairs of the nation started deteriorating. Unemployment kept increasing, and the government had to face huge deficits. Confusion became the symbol of the Tory government. But the Tories, headed by the Prime Minister, kept putting the blame on their predecessors.
After editorials began to appear in several newspapers across the nation to the effect that the government after two years in office should stop blaming the Liberals for everything and assume its responsibilities the Prime Minister, realizing that he and his government were becoming the laughing stock of the country, started looking for

others than the Liberals to blame for the lack of policy which, as we all know, resulted in chaos in almost every sphere of activity. The Conservatives either ignored the evil results of their lack of policy or found a goat to put the blame on.
They do not want to admit that there is unemployment at the highest level ever reached in Canada. They do not want to face the fact that Canada has never suffered higher deficits than it has since they were elected to office. They ignore parliament. They reject in a very arrogant way the demands of the civil servants for equitable treatment. They conduct the nation as real dictators.
Unfortunately, they are no administrators, and the country and the nation suffer greatly from their lack of policy. They have, through this lack of policy, led the nation into such confusion that no one class in our nation really knows where it is going. The only thing we all know for sure is that the state of the nation is in a real mess.
As I said before, I should like to deal today with a matter which is of vital importance to each and every Canadian, a matter which has been voluntarily omitted from the speech from the throne and another question which makes the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other ministers duck their heads in the sand like ostriches. It is the matter of the tight money policy.
During the electoral campaign of 1957, the Progressive Conservative party of Canada published a booklet entitled "A New National Policy" containing highlights of Progressive Conservative policy in verbatim quotations from speeches by John Diefenbaker, and I would like to quote from page 3 of this booklet, hoping that the Prime Minister will not say that he is being misquoted: Speaking of the Liberal party he is reported to have said.


Mr. McGee:: On a point of order it is, I submit, completely beyond the scope of the rules of this house to quote extensively from interesting comments in the newspapers and from other sources under the guise that they are a speech.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: He has not quoted anything yet.


Maurice Bourget: Are you afraid of what was
said?


Guy Rouleau: With your permission, sir, I will quote just a sentence, just the same, from a very nice booklet entitled "A New National Policy" published by the Conservative party in Canada.
They will brush aside their responsibility for
ineffective credit restriction, the raising of interest rates which have not stopped the race of inflation

but have struck down necessary home building and embarrassed financially municipalities and provinces who require to borrow funds for needed public works.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to say that 1956 economic conditions are not the same as they are today and I shall deal with that later, but the fact remains that when we had that restriction of credit the minister of finance as well as the prime minister at the time and members of the cabinet accepted their responsibility at election time and had the courage to defend their actions. What does the same man, the leader of the Tory party, the Prime Minister of today and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) do now when we are facing a serious restriction of credit. They want to ignore completely that there is such a restriction. They deny it. They even go so far as to say that they are opposed to such a policy. The Prime Minister said at Kitimat, British Columbia, according to a despatch of the Canadian Press dated September 25, 1959, that his government had no tight money policy. He said in a television broadcast on the C.B.C. television network on October 1, 1959-and I quote from his speech:
There has been no government tight money policy. There is no such policy.
Naturally, the Minister of Finance agreed with this and never admitted that there was a tight money policy. As a matter of fact he said, and I quote from Hansard of May 18, 1959, at page 3746:
There is no tight money policy as far as this government is concerned.
On several occasions he has repeated the same thing. Asked by reporters on August 19 whether there was a tight money policy he answered, as quoted by the Canadian Press, that as far as the government was concerned there was no credit restriction in Canada. Mr. Speaker, these people were either blind or of bad faith. They do not admit that there is a tight money policy; that there is credit restriction in Canada, but let them ask the young couples who are trying to find money to build houses; let them ask the contractors, the businessmen, the small merchants, the school commissioners, the municipalities, the provincial governments. Not only will they tell them but they will shout at the government that there is a credit restriction in Canada and that Canada has a tight money policy.
The Prime Minister's friend himself, the premier of Ontario, told Ottawa not so very long ago that credit restriction in Canada existed and was curtailing the economy of that province. Let members of the government ask the people I have just mentioned; let them ask the man on the street, the
The Address-Mr. Rouleau ordinary citizen, if there is such a thing as a tight money policy in Canada today. They will realize that the people of Canada are not blind and that they have experienced in one way or another the results of the tight money policy for which this government cannot deny its responsibilities.
As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and their closest associates are the only ones in Canada not recognizing openly that there is at the present time a major restriction of credit in Canada. It suffices to read the newspapers, the comments from financial reporters, commentators and the annual reports of banks to realize fully that there is in Canada such a thing as credit restrictions.
As a smokescreen, the Prime Minister mentioned in the television broadcast referred to earlier that there was under the Liberal government restriction on credit in 1955-56. As I said earlier in my remarks, the government at the time accepted its responsibilities. Things were quite different then from what they are today. I would like to quote from an article written by Mr. Blair Fraser which appeared in Maclean's Magazine on September 26, 1959:
What's the difference between 1956 and 1959? If tight money was the government's fault then, why not now?
It is true that the two situations are not quite the same. Last time the increase in the money supply all went to private enterprise. The government then had a surplus for the period as a whole, and did not need to print any money for its own use. This time, the increase in the money supply-which happened to be almost the same percentage-all went to meet the government deficit. Both times it was the big previous increase in the money supply and the consequent risk of inflation that made the tight money policy necessary. If anything it would seem that the 1959 shortage is more and not less a result of government policy than was the 1956 one.
We have read in almost every newspaper in Canada about credit restrictions. Bankers have dealt at length with the matter. In his last annual report, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. James Muir, in a speech delivered at the annual meeting of the shareholders of that bank held on December 7, 1959, dealt with the matter and I would like to quote from what he said:
The over-all restriction of the money supply resulted in a rise in market rates of interest, that is the price of credit rose, just as the price of any commodity will rise as demand increases relative to supply. Only one ''price" in the market for credit was not allowed to rise; the maximum lending rate for chartered bank loans, fixed by the Bank Act at 6 per cent. This, along with other "preferred rates" for government-guaranteed loans, put additional pressure on the one "commodity" in

The Address-Mr. Rouleau this special market subject to "selective price control", namely, the bank's stock in trade, bank credit.
As a rule, a seller subjected to price control and rising demand must ration his product among prospective customers, or see his shelves completely cleared of merchandise. Denied the use of the price system to allocate credit in accordance with market forces, banks were indeed forced into the thankless task of rationing credit as best they could among their customers.
That is the frank explanation given by a responsible man, and that is the frank expression of views which we would like to hear from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
Another respected man, Mr. Arnold Hart, president of the Bank of Montreal, in a speech delivered on December 7 at the annual meeting of the bank dealt with the matter at length and I also want to quote from his report. Among other things, he dealt with the problem for the borrowers and he had this to say:
In a time of monetary scarcity the situation becomes that much more difficult, not only for banks but also for those responsible for national policies. No banker likes to say no to a credit worthy applicant, but with broad limiting forces at work over which the banks have no control such an answer may on occasion be the only answer that can be given. Nor is it very reasonable to expect a customer, who under more normal circumstances would have no difficulty whatever in obtaining his credit requirements, to be very happy when told that existing monetary pressure makes it necessary to put his request aside for a time.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, businessmen, bankers, workers and the people at large know for a fact that there is such a thing in Canada at this time as credit restriction. But these nice little angels, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, ignore the fact. I do not want to think that they are completely dumb but I sincerely believe that they are afraid to admit to the people of Canada what they know and have known for a fact for a long time since they have had, I am convinced, the opportunity to discuss the matter with the bankers and the Bank of Canada. But officially, Mr. Speaker, until a little while ago they ignored the matter completely. There was a slight change in their attitude then on account of the fact that bankers and businessmen have dealt with the matter and on account of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has spoken clearly to the people of Canada about the matter.
The Prime Minister of Canada followed by the Minister of Finance, the political Mutt and Jeff of Canada, keep saying that there is no such tight money policy today and that what has happened is in consequence of natural economic forces resulting from the demands of the phenomenal economic recovery. The Prime Minister said in a television broadcast:

Interest rates have gone up. The commercial banks have restricted their lending operations with the result to the average man that money is harder and more costly to get than has been the case heretofore.
Now they are ready to admit that there is a certain uneasiness as far as money is concerned but, God forbid, they could not be responsible for it. It was the chartered banks who should take the sole responsibility for this bad state of affairs. That is the kind of fancy footwork performed in the last few weeks by those two good performers, Dief and Don, who have taken it upon themselves for their political advocates to chastise the chartered banks. They deny that they have had anything to do with actions taken by the Bank of Canada as if it was not their responsibility.
I should like to answer the contentions of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and as an answer I should like to use the exact words spoken by the Minister of Finance of today when he was in the opposition. I should like, with his permission, to quote Hansard, session of 1956, volume 7, page 7459, when he said to the then minister of finance, Mr. Harris:
The minister has a very direct responsibility because the action taken by the Bank of Canada in this respect surely has a direct influence on the whole field of action and on the whole field of responsibility of the government in relation to fiscal matters.
Then he went on to say:
I say, sir, that the government cannot shed its responsibility for full fiscal policy in the broadest sense of the word, and that must include the actions of the Bank of Canada, even when, in a technical sense, those actions are taken by the governor of the Bank of Canada in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Bank of Canada Act.
In order to bring about a sound economy in Canada for the sake of the nation and of the country, as a young Canadian, as a member of parliament representing an area where there are hundreds and hundreds of industries, I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Minister of Finance and their associates to accept their responsibility, to be frank with the people and the nation and to tell us once and for all that there is at the present time such a thing as a tight money policy and to tell us that they endorse the actions of the Bank of Canada in this regard.
With the permission of the Minister of Finance, in asking that question I should like to use the very same words he used in 1956 as reported in Hansard for 1956, volume 7, page 7459:
We ask the Minister of Finance now to say, and to say for the first time, because he has not said it yet, did not say it in his speech today, and has not said it at any time yet, whether he approves the actions taken by the Bank of Canada in

those various stages, both with respect to the rate of interest and also with respect to restriction of credit in other forms. Let him say whether he did approve of those actions before they were taken by the Bank of Canada.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the nation would like to get from the minister a decent and honest answer to that question. It is the minister's responsibility. We all know it. Let him admit it at last.
The president of the Imperial Bank of Canada, Mr. John S. Proctor, has said that the tight money policy was brought about by government and the central bank, not by commercial banks. He also added that the Canadian people are not given official explanations and reasons for actions taken by monetary authorities and he said that federal authorities should explain their monetary policies to the Canadian people.
In an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Star of August 25 the responsibility for a tight money policy is put on the government. I quote:
In the present tight money emergency Mr. Fleming has leaned over backward to point out that it is the bank alone which controls the money supply. There was no need for him to do this, no need to impart an impression that the bank rate was not his business. It obviously is.
Mr. Alexander, president of the investment dealers' association of Canada, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of October 1, 1959, said that the federal government should explain the monetary and fiscal policies to the people. He said that such a statement "would indicate leadership and help restore activities in the securities market to a level where the borrowing requirements of provinces, municipalities and corporations could be carried out successfully."
In an article which appeared in the Gazette on October 5,	1959, entitled "Leadership
Wanted, Not Politics", by John Meyer, financial editor, the same explanations were asked from the government, and the editor wrote:
As long as these are lacking, so also is confidence in the government's monetary leadership.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is leadership Canada needs at the moment and not politics, but from our experience with the present government I am afraid we will not get any leadership as long as those in front of us carry on. For leadership the people of Canada are turning to this side of the house, are turning to the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Montreal Star on October 17, 1959:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker's C.B.C. talk on money and credit made so poor an impression that a good many people must have hoped that, when Liberal leader Pearson's turn came, he would take him on. This was duly done on 79951-0-24
The Address-Mr. Rouleau Thursday night and there is no question who won the round. It was Mr. Pearson.
The Prime Minister on Monday last accused the Leader of the Opposition of going around the country telling the people what he thinks of the lack of leadership given by the government and of its lack of policy. The Prime Minister has no respect whatsoever for our political institution. Had he any respect, he would not accuse the Leader of the Opposition of discharging his responsibility as Leader of the Opposition by criticizing the government for its lack of policy.
But the Leader of the Opposition did not hesitate to repeat his charges right here in the chamber, and on several grounds when he spoke on Monday last as reported on pages 43 to 55 of Hansard. In so far as the tight money policy is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition gave the real reasons for it. He had this to say, and I quote from page 50 of Hansard:
We know what the real reasons are for this period of tight money through which we are passing, If we are passing. The first reason is election promises to increase expenditures without increasing taxes, promises even to cut taxes and increase expenditures, with the result that we have had huge deficits and great loss of confidence.
The second reason is that wrong methods were adopted to fight the recession when it was finally recognized and as a result while not out of that recession we are still in the tightest money period in our history.
No one can deny the soundness of those remarks by the Leader of the Opposition. When this government was elected to office they increased expenditures enormously to fulfil their promises. Since they have been in office their total expenditures have far exceeded the revenue collected. In consequence, in order to meet these expenditures the Diefenbaker government has had to borrow colossal sums of money. Between the time they took office in 1957 and October 15, 1958 the government increased the national debt by $1,100 million. They borrowed this amount by selling bonds, but as the public was unwilling to add to their holdings of government bonds the chartered banks and the Bank of Canada were obliged to take them up. Moreover, because the public was selling government bonds, and the government itself was liquidating bonds held in various government accounts, the banks also had to take up these bonds.
As a result of these large borrowing operations being facilitated by the Bank of Canada the money supply was increased by nearly $1,800 million, and a tight money situation did not immediately develop. But in the process of doing all this borrowing the government took a very important step, it undertook the great conversion loan. In order to make it a success the price of bonds was

The Address-Miss Aitken raised to an artificially high level; the government offered 4J per cent interest on long term bonds and put on a high pressure campaign of advertising and ballyhoo. When the smoke had blown away and the exhortations and appeals to patriotism by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were no longer heard, many Canadians realized that they were not only committed for 25 years to pay the highest interest rates they had paid for a generation, but the government still proposed to borrow a lot more money.
We on this side of the house criticized the conversion loan and refused to accept the government's repeated assertions that the conversion loan would stabilize the market for other borrowers. It has not, of course, stabilized the market at all; it has practically closed the market to the provinces and municipalities. Since October 15, 1958, that is to say during the last 12 months while the country has been recovering from the recession and borrowers in all walks of life have been competing for available funds, the Diefenbaker government has been making its own claims upon the limited supply and has borrowed $676 million of new money. When I use the term "new money" I mean borrowings in addition to those to which the government has resorted to meet outstanding bond issues as they became due.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am advised by the Clerk that the hon. member's time has expired.


Guy Rouleau: May I continue for one minute?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Rouleau: In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to use the very same words as the present Minister of Finance used in 1956, as found at page 7462 of Hansard:
-I think that a good deal of the solution lies within the power of government. On the one hand we have the government lauding the boom and asking political support because they claim we have a buoyant economy with expanding revenues, and on the other hand we have the government taking steps which look as though they were trying to apply the brakes and put a check on the very things for which they are claiming political credit. Let them stop applying conflicting and contradictory policies.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Morissette) and seconder (Mrs. Casselman) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Rimouski and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas embraced the honour bestowed upon them by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) with grace and eloquence. As another woman member of parliament and colleague and friend, I was especially proud of the hon. member for
[Mr. Rouleau.l
Grenville-Dundas. It seemed to me that her's was as fine a maiden speech as I have ever heard in the House of Commons.
I have three subjects, Mr. Speaker, upon which I want to speak rather briefly. They are somewhat controversial. The first one is recognition or non-recognition of the government of red China. My only authority for speaking on this subject is the fact that I visited the People's Republic of China this summer. I saw how the people lived under the Chinese communist government; I talked to government officials and to ordinary people, but it was mostly as an eyewitness that I formed my opinions on this problem. From Canadians one hears two basic arguments for recognition of the People's Republic of China. The first is that you simply cannot ignore 650 million people; that nonrecognition is to behave like an ostrich burying its head and saying 650 million people are not there. The second argument involves trade. It is stated that recognition would automatically open the trade routes to China.
In so far as the first argument, that it is ridiculous to refuse to recognize 650 million people, is concerned, actually what we are refusing at the present time to recognize is a ruthless aggressor government. From my observations and from what I have heard I would say this is the strongest government China has ever had and it has an absolute stranglehold on the people.
I personally liked the Chinese people. They were courteous, friendly and hospitable. If recognition would do those people any good, I would certainly be all for it; but it would not do so. I have never in my life seen men and women work as hard as they are working under that communist government. They are kept at a substandard existence level of living, always with a sort of carrot held out in front of them: if they work harder and harder, things will be better.
In the communes their lives are based on military lines. They live-one family of usually five to one room-in barrack-type houses. They are divided into brigades and each brigade has its own communal kitchen, communal dining room and communal community hall. Every woman on a commune must work. On the farm I visited 68 per cent of those working in the fields were women and 32 per cent were men. I suspect the reason for this situation is that the Chinese want to keep their manpower mobile for their aggressive actions; and by making the women work in the fields they make sure that, should they want to take their men into the army or to war, the production of food will not be dislocated.

From dedicated communists you hear these parrot-like accusations of "evil United States imperialism" and "the wicked exploitation of labour as practised in the capitalist world". I just wish that every working man and working woman in Canada could see what a ruthless, all-powerful communist government does to the spirits and the lives of 650 million people. But quite aside from a feeling of horror toward such a government, I think that recognition of China at this time could do irreparable harm to our friends in that part of the world, countries that are trying to set up their own democracies, and are friendly to us.
To take one example, I would mention Japan. In the past 15 years the Japanese have made great efforts to democratize themselves, as they call it. On the other hand, red China has made equally great efforts to draw Japan into the communist bloc. China has used every trick short of war in order to impose communism upon Japan. Forty per cent of Japan's export trade was with China and this trade was wiped out at one fell swoop. I think that we of the western world must realize and appreciate the stupendous efforts that countries like Japan are making to withstand the pressures from communist countries in that part of the world.
As to recognition of China opening up trade routes for Canada, I would say this. Certainly the experience of other countries has not proved this to be the result. For instance, Britain recognized China quite a few years ago and British trade with China is really inconsequential. West Germany, which does not recognize China, has far greater trade with that country than has Britain. Indeed, British diplomats are really shabbily treated in red China. They were thrown out of their beautiful embassy which they had occupied for many years. They are now housed in apartments. They are not permitted to fraternize with their counterparts in the Chinese government and most of them are extremely fed up in that country.
I therefore agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green) that it makes no sense at this particular time to recognize the government of red China, that it makes no sense to recognize a ruthless, aggressive government that even attacks the borders of a friend, namely India. It seems to me that the republic of China must show more good faith and much greater responsibility for world peace before Canada bestows recognition upon it.
The next matter I wrish to raise has to do with old age pensions. Many people have approached me during the past few months 79951-0-24J
The Address-Miss Aitken to ask if the government would or could lower the old age pension age from 70 years to 65 years. More and more people are finding that they are obliged to retire at age 65 and in that gap between age 65 and age 70, that five-year period, there can be real hardship. We all know that it would cost the taxpayer a great deal of money to lower the eligible age. I feel sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), in their responsibility to the taxpayer, would hesitate to impose such a burden at the present time.
But what I should like to see-and I know others have expressed the same thought in the house-is a long term view on old age pensions under which there could be much more of a contributory social security pension plan. If every man and woman during their productive years contributed according to their earnings, as is done in the United States, such a scheme could be built up on a sound actuarial basis. I know the government would have to continue to pay the present old age pension to those already receiving it and to those on the eve of retiring. But in two decades or 25 years I am sure that such a contributory plan could be well established.
I was delighted to note that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has removed the restrictions on old age pensioners with respect to receiving their pensions outside of Canada. However, I really believe that a universal contributory scheme would benefit everybody and would clear up some rather ridiculous situations. For instance, we hear so much these days about men and women applying for jobs and being told they are too old at the age of 40. The real reason is that people of 40 or 45 years of age going into new jobs create a lack of balance in company pension schemes. Actually-and I have found this situation in trying to get jobs for people-it is sometimes easier to get a job at the age of 65 than it is at the age of 45 because a man going into a company at age 65 does not expect any return from the established pension scheme. I should therefore like to see in the not too distant future the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduce a social security pension which would allow Canadians to retire at age 65 if they wanted to do so. If they did not want to do so they could go on and, I presume, get a bigger pension.
My final controversial subject is this modern thing called discount stamps. My interest in discount stamps per se is nil but it seems to me that the great majority in this parliament will believe that an extremely

The Address-Miss Aitken basic principle is involved in this matter. We in this parliament believe in free enterprise, in the minimum of government interference and in the rights of individuals to buy and sell in the open market place without government interference.
Personally, I commend the Canadian association of consumers for its self-assigned role as watchdog on behalf of the consumer. It is well known that the consumers, generally speaking, are the women of this country. It is a trite phrase now, but it is still true that they spend 85 cents out of every dollar earned. I commend the Canadian association of consumers for its diligence in this matter, but I think it is wrong to ask the government to legislate against private enterprise promotion. For one thing, there seems to me to be an apprehension about the women buyers of this country. We are not the dopes that you might think from listening to other people talk about how we are being led astray with these discount stamps. The women of this country do not need to be protected against the food merchant; they are just about as shrewd and astute buyers as you would find anywhere.
One rather patronizing tag line thrown at them is that you cannot get something for nothing. Mr. Speaker, the woman buyers know you cannot get something for nothing, and their answer is that they are getting something where nothing was before. Before Christmas one retail store in Toronto gave out 7,000 dolls, and I would like to just take a look at the chain reaction of this something where nothing was before. Seven thousand mothers had the pleasure of giving their little girls each a doll. The little girls were richer by one doll. The merchant won a steady customer. The manufacturer of the doll sold 7,000 dolls he might not have sold before.
It seems to me that government interference in this kind of chain reaction can grow to ridiculous proportions. The role of government in a private enterprise economy is not to impose more and more controls, particularly controls against competition, but rather to encourage competition, because it is the consumer always-the public-who benefits by competition. If government is pressured into putting such legislation into the Criminal Code, making something that is legal illegal, surely the method by which a merchant allocates his promotion budget is of no concern to a private enterprise government. If discount stamps were declared illegal, why not television extravaganzas and coupons on boxes of soap? It seems to me you are just asking the government to get into matters that should be of no concern whatsoever. I hope we will never put any such discriminatory law into our Criminal Code. As long as

the public is not being victimized, the government should not interfere in competitive enterprise.
It always comes as a surprise to me the number of people or groups who want government to step in immediately to correct what they think is an evil, but if it affects them, then they want government to mind its own business and not interfere. The other day a man expressed his indignation to me over a regulation which was imposed a long time ago and of which I have never heard before. It concerns chartered planes. Apparently in Canada you cannot buy a flight on a chartered plane at less than 65 per cent of the cost of a flight on a commercial plane; in other words, it costs 35 per cent less. Of course, there are many groups crossing the Atlantic in chartered planes, and they go down to Buffalo or New York where they get the flight much cheaper because there is no such protective restriction. Of course, this has boomeranged back now that this regulation has been imposed, because the Canadian charter companies are not able to sell their flights. This man thought it was a terrible thing and that Canadians were being deprived of this advantage, and the only way they could get a cheaper flight was to go to the United States.
I agreed that it was a silly thing and should not be one of our regulations, but when I said to this man, "What do you think of discount stamps?", he wanted them all banned. He said, "They are gimmicks; the government should step in immediately and ban them all". He thought that the government should not interfere in a thing affecting his pocket book; but the government should ban the other thing which apparently he had strong opinions about.
I suppose this is the kind of human inconsistency which wise governments have to deal with, but that is why I say I hope that the present government will not be pressured into introducing such laws into our Criminal Code, because I do feel that we must cling to our basic principles of freedom and have the minimum of government interference in private enterprise.


Mr. Michaud:: Mr. Speaker, my attention has just been drawn to the fact that one point I made during my speech in this house yesterday has been misunderstood in a dispatch by the Canadian Press. I know this was not intentional, but I should like to make it clear. In the course of my remarks yesterday, as reported on page 310 of Hansard, I said:
The desperate situation of those fishermen already referred to a moment ago was the result of being unable to land in the dark due to the absence of lights, both in the channel approaching their wharf or mooring, and on the wharf itself.

The Address-Mr. Howard
I was not at that, time referring to those fishermen who had lost their lives but to those fishermen on the fringe of the disaster area in my own constituency of Kent, who, though they were saved, had to wait until morning to land.


Mr. Frank Howard (Slieena):: Mr. Speaker, in starting off my participation in this debate I would like to express my appreciation at hearing the points of view of the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) who has just resumed her seat, because she touched upon two or three subjects that I am also interested in.
I do not think it would be wise, or correct in accordance with the rules, for me to discuss one of the points she made, because I have as a notice of motion on the order paper a bill dealing with the question of trading stamps, and perhaps that will be the appropriate time to make my views known on that particular subject.
I was also interested in her comments regarding the People's Republic of China and what she experienced while visiting there a short time ago. While I appreciate very much that the government there probably operates in a rather ruthless fashion, certainly ruthless compared with our standards and appreciation of the way governments should operate and our hopes of the way governments throughout the world should operate, nevertheless I feel it is most necessary that we should extend diplomatic recognition to that nation.
Arguments about this being the forerunner to increasing trade are not very valid arguments. Probably the most important reason why we and other nations should recognize the fact that that government is in effective control on the mainland of China revolves around the questions of war or peace, external affairs, trade economics and broad important questions of that nature. Certainly if China has the ability to progress as it apparently has within the last ten years within its own borders, and it continues in this way, it will not be many years hence, probably five to ten, before China will be a nuclear power too. With the technical assistance which that nation is apparently receiving from the Soviet union, this process may be speeded up.
The impact that a country of 650 million people could have upon the world and upon the question of war or peace is most important, and China, if it continues under the same type of government as it has at the moment-and there is every indication this will be so-will drive her way to diplomatic
recognition. I am afraid that, unfortunately, by the time she does we shall have delayed too long before granting that recognition to her; not recognition of the type of government or of the economic system under which China lives, but recognition of the fact of China's existence. That is the important question on which we should base our decisions as far as recognition or non-recognition of China is concerned.
Though she is not in her seat at the moment, I should like to express my pleasure on listening to the maiden speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) and say through you, Mr. Speaker, to her that her clarity of expression and speaking ability are surpassed only by her attractiveness.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Frank Howard: When someone mentions the truth I hear a murmur of protest arising throughout the house.
One of the most important things mentioned in the speech from the throne, and one of the most acceptable as far as I myself am concerned, in the statement that the Indians in Canada will be given the right to vote in federal elections. As hon. members know, this has been a subject in which I have been interested for some time. It is most welcome, but I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) should take the first opportunity of giving a clear and definite indication that this right to vote which is to be given to our Indian population in no way infringes upon or affects treaty rights, other aboriginal rights, fiscal exemptions and so on. I think the minister should make this clear, either during the present debate, if she should take part in it, or in a public statement, or at the very latest on the second reading of the relevant bill.
I know, and the minister knows, that this proposal does not affect treaty rights; that the right to vote does not affect the privileges I have mentioned, but judging from reports in the press about their response to the mention of voting rights in the speech from the throne there are many Indians in Canada who are reluctant, because of misunderstanding or lack of understanding, to accept the right to vote in federal elections. I am sure, therefore, that the minister will undertake to make it crystal clear to our native Indian peoples that there are no strings attached to this particular proposal.
There has been a good deal of discussion in the newspapers about the possibility of a so-called free vote in this house on a particular bill standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) and this

The Address-Mr. Howard question has been discussed, of course, in a recent television program. But concerning this question of a free vote, or an indication that there will be a free vote, let me remind hon. members of something which I said last session, something which I think needs reiterating because it could make the functioning of parliament more effective and enable the individual private member to play a more useful part in its proceedings.
What I have in mind could, moreover, allow for a better indication to the cabinet of the views of parliament on particular pieces of legislation. It is my opinion that public bills which stand in the names of individual private members should all be allowed to go to a vote. At present it is easy for a government, if it dislikes the ideas put forward in a bill standing in the name of a private member, to avoid embarrassment by arranging for the bill to be talked out without allowing it to come to a vote. This, naturally, is frustrating to the individual member who has the bill in his hand. I hope the hon. member for York-Scarborough will not feel such frustration, because I am aware of the interest he has in the bill he is sponsoring.
I hope sincerely that his bill does come to a vote because, as I said, I believe all bills in the names of private members should be allowed to come to a vote, and that the government should show more courage than it has shown in the past by letting such bills proceed, even if it dislikes them, and allowing them to be voted down or accepted. Certainly, all the brains in the house are not concentrated in the cabinet, though I am not suggesting that they are concentrated in any other quarter of the chamber, either. I do think, however, that the government should draw on the ideas of all hon. members. If the ideas which are put forward by those members are good in essence then I think the government should indicate that it is willing to accept them and allow them to go to a vote. Of course, it may well be necessary to amend or revise them during the committee stage, but that could easily be done.
I am of the opinion that government legislation should also be allowed to proceed to a free vote and that the government should not stand or fall on whether or not its legislation is acceptable to the two parties. It should not indicate that each government bill which is introduced involved a vote of confidence. That has the tendency to continue the system of cabinet control over parliament and leads to the party system having too much control over individual members of parliament.
I wonder if I may call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.



COMMONS AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose for the dinner adjournment I was indicating that not only should the government undertake to allow free votes on the various public bills that are now in the names of the private members, but it should also undertake to allow free votes on its own legislation. I may say I think the government too often indicates that a bill introduced by one of its cabinet ministers must be endorsed by the house or it is taken as want of confidence and the government must resign forthwith. The application of this principle of government means merely that the government backbenchers feel reluctant to express themselves, as they might like to, if they are opposed to any particular legislation; and it certainly means that they are unlikely to vote against the government legislation itself. If this system of dealing with legislation were changed and there was an expression of individuality on the part of the private members, not only on the government side of the house but on the opposition side as well, it would allow for a truer reflection of the opinion of the house on government proposed legislation.
There certainly appears to me to be a sufficient number of opportunities during the session to express want of confidence in the government by use of motions and amendments without including in that want of confidence attitude government legislation also. We are debating one of the motions now which traditionally is considered to be, if there are any amendments to it, an expression of want of confidence in the government. The budget debate is another time when this takes place, as well as the various supply motions which are presented to the house.
There was some reference-I do not know whether it was in the speech from the throne or the speech from the chief-to the establishment of additional committees. Unfortunately, while we all looked with pleasure upon the indication by this government that it was going to expand the use of committees and was going to give its government majority particularly some things to do to keep it busy, I am afraid we discovered that the operation of those committees had been seriously hampered. Unfortunately members of them have to operate on a scatter gun basis, directing questions to the departmental officials from the deputy minister down in a rather haphazard way which does not allow for too much of a check and a balance against the operations of the government, or the operations of a minister or his department.

What should occur is that provision should be made for the attachment of research staffs to various committees which function in order that the members of those committees can be provided with some pretty comprehensive and interpretive material into the operations either of a government department, if that is what the committee is considering, or legislation, if that is what a particular committee is dealing with. This, too, would assist in drawing upon the individual members as individuals, drawing upon their intelligence and their understanding, and it would certainly assist them to act more effectively as a check against indiscriminate action on the part of the government or on the part of a minister. It may well be that the government in office does not want these sorts of checks and balances against their actions. They may want to carry on in the same field with the same power they have assumed and developed over the years.
When it comes to the question of research facilities, there is no question in anybody's mind, I am sure, that those parties who are in opposition are seriously hampered in this regard also. The duties and functions of the opposition party and the members in that party are to be critical of government policy, to propose alternatives to it where they think it is in error, and generally to act again as a check within parliament on governmental or ministerial actions. Not only opposition members but government backbenchers also are outweighed in whatever attempts they would like to make in this critical approach to government activities. The government not only has the authority and control over parliament but it also has the entire services of the civil service to draw upon; whereas the individual private member has only his own abilities and his own time to use to function properly as he should as an individual member.
I am sure that if the government would undertake to provide research facilities or staff out of the government treasury to opposition parties it would permit a greater and a better contribution to be made to our parliamentary and governmental affairs in this country. Perhaps, likewise, the government does not want this sort of check against its activity. It wants to run things as it has done for so many years. When I use the term "government" I am not confining it to the present government in office; this was equally true of the Liberals when they were in office.
There has been a fair amount of discussion by members who have participated in this debate regarding the pros and cons of our economic system. There are those like the young lady from York-Humber who spoke
The Address-Mr. Howard earlier in this debate this afternoon who belong to the government party who appear to be in support of our present capitalist system. They make use of all sorts of arguments to defend it and say that it is the greatest thing that ever occurred, and that it should continue to function as it has in the past. But there are pretty serious indictments against the present system with regard to unemployment, collapses in the business world, over-production, difficulties in distribution of the production, financial difficulties, and so on. There is a tendency within the operation of the business world, within our so-called free enterprise or capitalist system, among others, toward either monopoly or price fixing.
A cursory reference to the reports of the restrictive trade practices commission, or the cases that have arisen out of those reports and the prosecutions resulting therefrom, would indicate that the price fixing arrangements over the past few years have affected practically every single person in Canada. Farm fencing, matches, rubber goods, footwear, sugar, fine paper, and a host of commodities that are produced have been produced and sold on price fixing arrangements. Practically every person in society has been suckered, shall we say, into paying exorbitantly high prices by the present capitalist system. The ones who most stoutly defend the present system are naturally the business interests and the businessmen themselves, yet unfortunately they are doing the greatest damage to the system that they themselves espouse. They are doing all they can either to pull it down around their ears or to invite governmental or parliamentary interference in their operations.
Probably one of the most recent and most widely publicized instances of this sort of price fixing treachery against society is in the field of pharmaceuticals involving the drug manufacturing industry. I had occasion to make some reference to this matter on the last day of the last session. Unfortunately our discussion then was confined to the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and you, Mr. Speaker, as will others, will appreciate that it did not fit properly within the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare. None the less, I had occasion to raise it and did so then.
In recent months this problem has been given even wider prominence by the activities of the so-called Kefauver committee in the United States which has been investigating the pharmaceutical industry and is now concerning itself in its hearings with that section of the industry having to do with

The Address-Mr. Howard tranquilizers. The thought has been expressed that the committee is not holding bona fide hearings but that it represents a sort of election campaign for Senator Kef-auver. Offhand I do not know whether he is up for election in the coming senatorial elections. Although I understand the opposite is the case I hope sincerely that the idea that this is an election campaign has not seeped into the work of our combines investigation branch which is conducting a research project at the present time into the field of antibiotics and tranquilizers.
The highest cost drugs are those which we generally refer to as wonder drugs or antibiotics. If the material submitted before the Kefauver committee can be relied on, apparently Canada pays the highest price for drugs of any country in the world, including the United States. The average cost of a prescription has increased by over 100 per cent between 1949 and 1958 and everyone will see, comparing this increase with the increase in the cost of living, that it is an exorbitant rise over that period of time.
During the last session and during the last recess I had occasion to make reference to the fact that approximately 30 per cent of the prescriptions issued by doctors are not filled because of the high cost of drugs. I was taken to task for this. It was said that it was not so, that there had not been such a survey and that I was misled. Just a month ago I had occasion to read the Canadian Medical Association Journal, volume 81, December 1, 1959. I am sure no one will dispute that the Canadian Medical Association Journal is the most authoritative and accepted publication so far as the medical field in Canada is concerned. If I was misled then ^ the British Columbia pharmaceutical association has been misled also. On page 958 of the Journal there is reference to the number of prescriptions which are given to patients and not filled. If I may have the indulgence of the house I should like to read a sentence or two from that page so that what I say will be correct and not misinterpreted.


Mr. Vivian:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member from where he is reading? I should like the specific reference.


Mr. Fraser:: What is the name of the book and of the reference?


Reginald Percy Vivian: And the page and the date.


Frank Howard: I am sorry, but I could not hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for the reference from which the hon. member wishes to read.


Frank Howard: I thought I gave it rather clearly. It is the Canadian Medical Association Journal, volume 81, December 1, 1959, page 958.


An hon. Member:: You had better tell him the line.


Frank Howard: It is the seventh paragraph in the lefthand column.


Reginald Percy Vivian: It would be the left.


Frank Howard: Reading from here and so
that my hon. friend, who I understand is a doctor-


Reginald Percy Vivian: You understand correctly.


Frank Howard: Many of our understandings are correct as time has proven time and again. Because the hon. gentleman has raised this question I feel I am obliged to read the entire paragraph, Mr. Speaker, which I did not intend to do.


Reginald Percy Vivian: Could you read the entire article?


Frank Howard: I will gladly read the entire article.


Reginald Percy Vivian: Do so.


Frank Howard: However, I am sure that someone would then raise the question that I was reading my speech.


Reginald Percy Vivian: Well, that is true too.


Frank Howard: I quote:
A development which will be of interest to doctors as well as to the public at large is the possibility that the pharmaceutical profession-


Reginald Percy Vivian: He has not given the author of the article.


Frank Howard: I continue:
-will bring forward a "prescription insurance" scheme whereby any individual or family may, by payment of a monthly fee, receive all prescriptions free. The pharmacists estimate that 30 per cent of prescriptions given to patients are never filled, largely because of the increasing costs of drugs. There is at present one such scheme in operation in Canada, at Windsor, Ontario. The British Columbia pharmaceutical association discussed this at their annual council meeting October 25 to 27.
End of paragraph, end of the entire reference.


Reginald Percy Vivian: Could the hon. member give us the author?


Frank Howard: I would be glad to oblige my friend by answering his questions when I conclude my remarks. I only have a few minutes left and I want to get in as much as possible of what I wish to say before my time runs out. I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate the need for doing that.

One of the major arguments used by the pharmaceutical industry to justify the charging of these high prices is that initially they have high research costs which must be recouped and the only way they can get back these expenditures on research is by charging higher prices to the consumers. I have another reference here which should indicate that maybe the research costs about which the pharmaceutical industry talks so much are not in fact valid figures at all. This is a quotation from an address by Mr. Chet Shaw to the American drug manufacturers' convention in 1956. With respect to the boasted $100 million research figure he said:
We've done lot of talking about an estimated $100 million, but we'd be hard put to document it. What if someone questioned it-someone whose voice we couldn't afford to ignore?
In the antibiotics field the price of antibiotics has not changed one bit since 1951. Even though there has been a tremendous increase in the volume of sales the prices set at the manufacturers' level and suggested list prices have remained identical over a period of nine years both here and in the United States. The price set in 1951 designed to recoup research costs has not declined but has remained static even in spite of the tremendous increase in the volume of sales, even in spite of the entry of newly developed antibiotics into the field at the same level established in 1951. This should indicate that there is a conspiracy to set prices in the field of antibiotics and the drug industry generally. It suggests that Cyanamid of Canada, Bristol Laboratories, Pfizer Corporation, E. R. Squibb and Upjohn are part of this conspiracy to establish unnecessarily exorbitant and high prices in the antibiotic field. In fact, there is a court case on this very subject matter right at the moment.
Unfortunately, I think because of their silence, the pharmacists in the nation, who should know and do know a great deal more about this subject than do most other people, are being branded as one of two things: one, as apologists for the price-fixing manufacturers or, two, they are being looked upon by the general public as the persons mainly responsible for the high cost of drugs. What happens psychologically when an individual takes a prescription into a drugstore? He pays whatever may be charged, $10 or $12, and he relates the money he pays to the pharmacist and says the pharmacist is the person responsible for the high cost.
We know full well that when we are ill we are concerned with getting well, and we are concerned with paying whatever costs are charged to us for whatever particular drugs are prescribed by the doctor. This drug piracy must be discontinued. There is no question but that drug prices, particularly
The Address-Mr. Allard the prices of the antibiotics to which we are referring here, could be cut in half without in any way affecting the income picture or position of the particular manufacturer within the industry. When United States parent companies of Canadian subsidiaries can in one year make up to 40 per cent profit on their sales there is something-well, one could find some harsh words to apply, but it does not sound sensible or reasonable that this sort of profit picture should be allowed to continue.
I know there is an investigation being conducted, so far as we can ascertain, under section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act, a so-called research project. So far as I am able to gather, a report may be made within three or four months. The study has been taking place within the combines branch for some two or three years. I hope that when the report is made it will be such a comprehensive report and in such detail as to show the true picture of the drug manufacturing industry in this nation.
Those are all the remarks I wish to make in this particular debate, Mr. Speaker. If my friend wishes to ask questions, as he indicated earlier he did, I shall be glad to make an attempt to answer them.


Reginald Percy Vivian: The hon. member who has
just concluded his speech has asked if there were any questions. I have a list which is rather lengthy, and I am afraid I would have to look at the written word before I could ask intelligent questions on the many extravagant, and I think erroneous, statements that have just been made.


Frank Howard: There is one good thing, we can have differences of opinion.
(Translation):


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I admire your alertness in so quickly recognizing the members who have been assigned different seats in the house before the opening of this session.
In 1958, I was seated near you. In 1959, a change sent me to your extreme right and I now find myself to your left. You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that it has been quite a trip for me in so little time. But after all, those changes were not made as a result of a general election and my distinguished leader, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is still at the helm.
This year, I shall hardly be able to observe from here the pale and often abashed faces

The Address-Mr. Allard of the opposition members. But, on the other hand, I shall easily see face to face the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries of whom all the people of Canada speak so well.
I wish that in a coming session, my colleagues who have also crossed to this side of the house get a seat nearer to that of the Prime Minister, therefore a more profitable
seat.
I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of
heartily congratulating the new ministers, the parliamentary secretaries, as well as the Deputy Speaker.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) will understand that a good lawyer could not do without the services of a professional engineer in drawing up preliminary plans for many projects.
As to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), he has been preparing himself for a long time for his responsibilities with regard to defence and fighting, for when he left his brilliant military career he wrote a book which, if my memory serves me right, bears the title: "Facing the Enemy". I am therefore convinced that hon. members of the opposition will suffer many a reverse if they dare to lay an ambush for him.
There should also be a word of welcome for two new members of this house. One of them, who represents the riding of Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb), succeeds a very cultured minister. The other (Mr. Tardif) represents the constituency of Russell. Because he waited, Mr. Speaker, until his party went into opposition before he set out to win votes, this hon. member, to my mind, took action too tardily.
Mr. Speaker, without forgetting to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who have fulfilled their task with much competence and brilliancy, I should like, tonight, to raise a matter referred to in the speech from the throne, one which is not only of current interest, but also of national and international concern. I refer to the problem of disarmament and its economic consequences.
Modern weapons have put mankind in a perfectly paradoxical situation. The more man conquers nature, the more he dominates matter, the greater in his heart the feeling of insecurity.
With the success that science has brought him, man seems to have forgotten the great spiritual values which give human life its justification, and which can only develop in an atmosphere of freedom and respect for the human being.
Because men feel more insecure, the question of disarmament has become their major

problem. There have been talks on disarmament for the past 13 years at the United Nations. Between 1946 and 1951, the great powers have discussed all aspects of disarmament in both organizations, the atomic energy commission and the conventional armaments commission.
Having failed to reach agreement, both organizations were dissolved in 1952, and the disarmament committee was set up. The great powers then began a round of endless negotiations, but again in 1953, a deadlock having been reached in the committee, the general assembly recommended the creation of a subcommittee. The disarmament subcommittee met in 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957, alternatively in New York and in London.
While the disarmament committee, set up under a general assembly resolution passed on January 11, 1952, was composed of representatives of members of the security council and of the Canadian delegate, the subcommittee, set up on April 19,	1954,
included delegates from Canada, the United States, France, Great Britain and the U.S.S.R. Throughout those monotonous years, the work done by the committee was essentially a job of negotiation. Delegates analysed, explored and broke ground in every direction. The volume containing the minutes of their meetings staggers the imagination.
Either before the agencies I have just mentioned, or before the security council, or the general assembly, or the first commission of the United Nations, more than 900 meetings were held, with no success in bringing any degree of disarmament. On the contrary, during the last 12 years the countries have accumulated enormous stocks of increasingly developed and destructive weapons. To quote but one example, NATO members have spent, since 1950, more than $420 billion in armaments.
But today, following recent events, hopes have not died out and we may believe even in the possibility of total disarmament. You know, Mr. Speaker, that a new study group of ten members will resume this work in Geneva next March 15. This commission has the privilege of parity between both the opposed blocks; for it includes five communist countries and five countries of western mind. For the west, those countries are the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Canada; the communist bloc is represented by the U.S.S.R., Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Albania.
This commission of ten will act somehow outside the United Nations, who will send reports to this group, and get suggestions in return.

Moreover, during the fourteenth regular session of the political commission of the general assembly of the United Nations the east and the west just reached a significant agreement following a joint resolution with regard to disarmament, by accepting to refer every disarmament problem to the commission of ten.
The basic issues with regard to disarmament deal with the cessation of nuclear arms production, destruction of existing stocks and gradual reduction of armaments of every kind, all within the framework of an efficient inspection and control system.
For several years, the east and the west have recognized that experiments with regard to nuclear arms should be stopped. The point on which they were in disagreement was the duration of such suspension. On various occasions, they expressed views in common, with regard to either the necessity of slowing down the armament race, or the prohibition of nuclear arms or again the cessation of experimental explosions.
For its part, Canada has always felt that a well balanced disarmament is an objective that can only be reached step by step. Suspension of nuclear tests would be, in many ways, a valuable first step in the right direction; it could eventually stop those tests permanently, and control measures put into effect for that purpose could constitute an experiment of international scientific cooperation of the first magnitude, paving the way to control of other more complex aspects of disarmament.
It is known that small nations feel they are just spectators. They cannot content themselves with this role, because they too are, in all respects, exposed to the consequences of the armaments race. Furthermore, they are exposed to resulting dangers, without any means of eluding them, whereas the great powers responsible for creating those dangers are perhaps also able to discover means of guarding themselves against them. In this connection, we may assume that in case of nuclear war, all that would befall the great powers would be the consequences of their own acts, while small nations would suffer through no fault of their own.
The concern of the great powers is rather political and based on their own interests, while that of the small nations is humanitarian in character, being based on the interests of mankind. The threat of war being world-wide, small nations cannot be regarded as mere spectators, because their people form the majority of the world's population.
More than ever, world opinion favours an end to nuclear tests. On June 11, 1958, the
The Address-Mr. Allard News Chronicle, a British newspaper, wrote that in a world public opinion poll concerning the ending of nuclear tests, the number of people in favour of such a move was 90 per cent in Delhi, 82 per cent in Oslo, 79 per cent in Vienna, 70 per cent in Paris and Athens, 69 per cent in Helsinki, 68 per cent in Brussels and 62 per cent in London.
Experts increasingly agree that the continuation of nuclear and thermonuclear tests can cause irreparable harm to all of mankind.
Many of the most prominent scientists of the world, including some of the most reputed of the United States, agree that each test of nuclear weapons produces an amount of radioactivity that spreads in the atmosphere. This radioactivity, as a future fall-out, may drop anywhere in the world. It is also recognized that the amount of fall-out varies according to the size of the bomb, the height of the explosion above ground level and other conditions.
Practically all scientists in the world agree that this radioactivity rises into the stratosphere in the shape of strontium 90-an element which has a very long chemical life- gradually falls back to earth over a period which may last for many years, and is then assimilated by animal and plant life. Strontium 90 can not only increase the incidence of cancer, but also affect future generations.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow a question? In order to break the monotony of his reading, could he give us the page and paragraph he has now reached?


Mr. Fortin:: You chose a bad moment to break the monotony.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I tried, at the beginning of my remarks, to keep to issues which might seriously interest all Canadians, and I am sorry that I must, at this stage, make a digression in order to say that, this afternoon, I had the opportunity of listening to the speech of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) whose statements certainly were consistent with those of the other hon. members of the Liberal opposition which I heard yesterday and which I read as reported in the papers. As a matter of fact, I must say that the speeches in particular of the hon. members for Nickel Belt and Hull (Mr. Caron) were a great disappointment, not only to this house but to the whole Canadian people.

The Address-Mr. Allard
Indeed, we find that members of the opposition are now very talkative. They suggest to the House of Commons and to the whole Canadian nation, bills about which they had kept silent when they were in power; which means that they have waited until they would be in the opposition to consider these issues, and that is why, in my opinion, they are to blame. The points brought up yesterday by the hon. member for Hull in particular, who told us he was happy-though astonished-that the government of the province of Quebec would consider the possibility of the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. His astonishment is easy to explain. For, within the Canadian confederation of 1960, we know- and by we I mean the people of my province-that as between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec, there are two governments who know all the respect due to the union agreements, who understand the causes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear. Hear.


Maurice Allard: Therefore I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see the flexibility and the constructive way with which both the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec work together brilliantly towards the realization of certain projects and in seeking a solution to the many great and complicated problems now brought up by the Liberal opposition and which existed when the members of the opposition were in power.
If the hon. member for Nickel Belt will let me carry on, I shall continue my remarks on the problem of disarmament.
To quote statements made by prominent atomic scientists at a conference held in Central hall, Westminster, in London, during the last week of 1958, I must point out that every large scale nuclear test represents the premeditated murder of 15,000 unborn children, not to mention the harm done to their parents. Nobody can know how many other genetic disasters can be caused in this manner. Physically, morally and intellectually, a man-eating tiger cannot be transformed into a domesticated cat. It is also impossible to make the hydrogen bomb harmless. Apart from all other considerations, common sense requires that this death march be given up.
The United Nations scientific committee report on the effects of ionizing radiations confirms the widespread fear and anxiety with regard to the effects of radiations. Therefore, as I have just said, the problem is clear enough.
A total of 9,234 scientists from all over the world have made a moving appeal in favour

of the suspension of nuclear tests. Professor Pauling, prominent Nobel prize winner of the United States, has already depicted with much eloquence and detail the positive and irreparable damages of atomic explosions.
For the safety of the whole humanity, disarmament is an urgent and vital problem that must be solved by an efficient system of international control.
The system that has been looked into by the experts in Geneva in 1958 would require the establishment of an international control agency; the development, the testing and the acceptation of various equipment; the choice of the most appropriate sites for control stations and their distribution in a system covering the whole world; the establishment of a safe communications system; an agency for the analysis and use of the observations made by the control stations; the recruiting of the staff and other necessary arrangements. All this is listed in the experts' report. Experts are thinking in terms of a chain of stations separated by distances varying from 1,000 to 3,500 kilometres. There would be from 160 to 170 land stations and about ten seaborne stations. Furthermore, scientists have not failed to indicate that the exact number of control stations could only be determined during the very process of their establishment around the globe, as geographical and weather conditions would permit.
Today, an efficient control of the cessation of nuclear tests is therefore considered as physically possible. It is only then that we shall be able to judge the good faith of the Russians who, in the past, have always demanded total disarmament before international control, whose efficiency they did not trust very much.
It should be remembered that control is not an end but a means. The end is the absolute refusal to resort to atomic weapons; the means resides in control. Prohibition without control makes no sense. Where there's a will, there's a way. Whoever wants to achieve prohibition must logically and unavoidably propose and accept control.
Control has become today the executive organ and the guarantee of the observation of the majority of multilateral conventions. Also, control is legal from the point of view of international law. To refuse it or to postpone its application would be to deny the remarkable progress achieved by international law and legal science in the last few years.
Does not control appear as definite evidence of the sincerity of purpose and good faith of the parties concerned? It may create or

re-establish confidence. While control brings to mind a legal fact, confidence is actually a mood.
Besides, this control is not contrary to the principle of the sovereignty of the state, for I believe sovereignty is the authority of the state in the midst of the international community. In view of a modern fact, that is the existence of a community of nations, it is impossible to assert that the state is absolutely supreme, that its sovereignty is independent from the evolution of the international community.
As long as no system of control will be established by an agreement, negotiations should go on, preferably under the sponsorship of the United Nations, in order to achieve the gradual suspension of the production and manufacture, as well as the destruction and gradual transformation of the accumulated stocks, on an equal and reciprocal basis.
In studying the disarmament problem, you have to consider the economic implications.
It is just as important to consider the means of ensuring the discharge of 20 million people from the armed forces, of the various countries, and their integration into the national economy, as well as the transfer of the tremendous amounts invested in armament production into such new fields as consumer goods.
Certainly, you cannot change from a wartime to a peacetime economy overnight at the national level. There must first be an agreement at the international level covering the economic field. It is only after an agreement has been reached on such problems that a wartime economy can shift to peacetime economy on a national level.
Such is disarmament as we see it, with all its difficulties and its new problems. It calls for a constant display of realism. If we really want to help not only this generation, but future generations as well, we must have greater patience, greater strength of purpose, and unfailing courage, because patience and strength of purpose are the basis of negotiations. Even when a good start has been made, serious and practical negotiations involving the contribution of scientific experts will still be required to achieve the objectives of the peoples of the world.
We believe that any practical progress towards the solution of disarmament problems can be achieved only by stages, with a clear recognition of the need for over-all balanced planning at each stage, in view of the close connection between the various aspects of
The Address-Mr. Boivin disarmament. The powers mainly responsible for maintaining peace and security should recognize and practise honestly and sincerely the basic truth that, in the present state of the world, true disarmament measures should be accompanied by a system of effective safeguards, that is to say, a system of international inspection and control.
There was a time when the peoples of the earth had a choice between peace and war. Today, because of the destructive power of nuclear weapons, the world must choose between peace or annihilation. Let us pray the Lord that the men of good will succeed in making reason triumph over bestiality.
The day that disarmament becomes a reality, we will have to have more respect for the rights and basic freedoms of the individual, because the deep cause of war has always been the violation of those rights and freedoms. That is why we are quite in favour of the adoption of a Canadian bill of rights during this federal session, while in 1960, international agencies will earnestly try to bring about total disarmament.
Our beautiful Canada, one of the ten members of the new commission on disarmament, is called upon to play a part of prime importance, and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Green) said on October 31, 1959:
Our country is now considered as an international power and its particular role is to help the smaller nations and to advise the greater powers.


Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, once more the Canadian people have witnessed on television on Thursday January 14, 1960, the opening of the third session of the twenty fourth parliament.
I would again, Mr. Speaker, pay you a tribute on behalf of the people in the riding I have the honour to represent. I want to add that we, in the opposition, admire the tactful and able way in which you direct our debates in this house.
I note that, after your last trip abroad, you seem rested, which we are happy to see. I am therefore taking the opportunity to congratulate you on the way you represent this country. Your trip which has taken you to Lebanon, together with your charming wife, increased the prestige of Canada among that people, and I am all the prouder of it because it happened that one of my fellow citizens of Granby was a witness to your visit and had the great honour to meet you on that occasion.

The Address-Mr. Boivin
I reminded hon. members in this house last year that my home town was celebrating its centenary. As a matter of fact, during the twelve months which just came to an end, we have tried, by means of religious and civic festivities, to pay a tribute to the founders of the city of Granby as well as to all who contributed from near or far to the success of that anniversary. Therefore, as I am their representative in this house, I would like to express my thanks and my gratitude to them.
Granby was honoured to receive many visitors who came from all parts of this country.
The Prime Minister was so kind as to accept our invitation to visit the gem of the eastern townships, right after the second session, that is last July. By his presence, he wanted to show his appreciation to the people of that town which, like all the others, contributed to the development of Canada, and on behalf of all the people of Granby I want to express to him our gratitude, Mr. Speaker.
The centenary celebrations ended on a grand note at the end of November with the visit of the Queen's representative, accompanied by the hostess of Rideau Hall. We were extremely proud to welcome them, and it is easy to see why the men and women of my constituency felt all the more honoured at this visit considering the many duties to be discharged by the Governor General upon his appointment to this high office by her gracious majesty. In return for the honour he paid us, we pray the Lord to give him a long life.
I was present in the Senate, Mr. Speaker, to hear the speech from the throne, which was short and which His Excellency read with the greatest diginity.
I extend congratulations in customary fashion to the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the honor bestowed upon him, an honour which is reflected on the constituency of Rimouski which he represents. He did try, in his way, to show that Canada is prosperous, but he will not be surprised if I say that many of my constituents do not share his opinion.
We all witnessed a historical event in listening to the seconder of the address.
The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) paid a tribute to her constituency, and under the circumstances, she deserves our full admiration. May I add that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. 
Rowe), a former member of the Conservative cabinet, was doubly honoured, this time as a private member, in hearing the maiden speech of the hon. member. I venture to say it is the first time since confederation that a father had the honour to hear his daughter seconding the address.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Flynn) for his appointment as chairman of committees. Having had the honour of meeting him personally since he came to the house, I am convinced that he will be worthy of the functions entrusted to him.
I should like to associate myself with my colleagues in welcoming the new member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) and in extending the most cordial welcome to the new member for Russell (Mr. Tardif).
The Canadian government paid tribute, once again, to the constituency of Longueuil in making its representative Associate Minister of National Defence. I extend to him my congratulations and best wishes for success. May I add that his sincere support of the Prime Minister has finally got him a double reward.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and I add that we hope to find in him the same cordiality we found in his predecessors.
My most sincere congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) for the straight-forward and sincere outline he gave the house in reply to the speech from the throne, showing once again that he wants to carry out for the time being and with tenacity the task entrusted to him. I should like to add that, for purely political motives, our leader was unfairly criticized by the government side, and I must say personally that there is no member of our party who is not immensely proud of him. Besides, if I glance on the other side of the house, I cannot see anyone who would be worthy of deserving the Nobel prize or be one of the "three wise men" of international politics. His role in history has been guaranteed and approved in advance by all well-thinking statesmen of the world. Moreover, I should like to quote the words of one of my Anglo-Saxon friends: "There is nothing small about him". Would to heaven that some day I could say as much of those who are sitting across the floor!
Our leader extended words of welcome to the Minister of Finance, and I should like to do the same.
You will admit, Mr. Speaker, that it was surprising to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) make the following remark

in this house about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), as reported on page 52 of Hansard:


Mr. Fleming:: I will say again that the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
I was all the more surprised considering the great respect he has for the author of this remark.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the remarks made in this house by the Minister of Finance on February 22, 1950, in the debate on the speech from the throne. I quote from page 137 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the house has listened to a very important and interesting statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Since we in this part of the house have sought at all times to keep our external affairs on a non-partisan basis, perhaps the house will fully understand me when I say that if in this country we must, unfortunately, it seems, for the next several years, have a Liberal administration, nevertheless we are very glad that in that Liberal administration the portfolio of external affairs is in the very capable hands of Mike Pearson.
I fully realize that in 1950, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) never expected to hold his present office, nor did he expect to become the right-hand man of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Had he expected that, I am sure he would have had a different line of reasoning. Deep inside, I know that if he did not have to follow the policies of the Conservative party, he would pay him the same tribute as Leader of the Opposition.
Having read the remarks made by the Minister of Finance on August 21, 1950, it must be admitted that in the Conservative party, when you change places, you change faces.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) is not in his seat. I should like to quote some words spoken in this house by the minister in 1948, because the same words might well be used today as comment on the brief speech from the throne. I quote this from page 1845 of Hansard for March 3, 1948, second last paragraph:
It Is now nearly three months since the address in reply to the speech from the throne was first moved in this house, and the aspect which I wish to discuss this afternoon for a few minutes is not the address itself but the amendment to it that we are debating, because that amendment is, in effect, a vote of want of confidence in the government. It is, therefore, important to go over the speech from the throne, which we are now considering, and find out why it is that we of the official opposition consider that the program there set forth, coupled with the government's past record, is not such as to command the confidence of the house.
When one analyses the speech from the throne he finds that it is almost a completely negative quantity in so far as suggesting constructive steps for the future development of Canada is concerned. I read it over carefully only yesterday, and again today, before speaking, and I was able to find in
The Address-Mr. Boivin it only two paragraphs which contain the outline of a program of a positive nature.
I should like to go over it paragraph by paragraph, to have a look at it, in order to see how much we can find in it, that will be helpful to the future of Canada, where there is an indication of any positive program to build up the country, any indication that we have faith in the future of Canada as a great country, as having a future which we can bring about, not by accident, not merely by letting events take care of themselves, but by a positive series of steps taken in our lifetime, the results of which we shall be able to see.
Mr. Speaker, why does that same minister who is now a member of the government not practice what he preached when he was sitting on this side of the house?
It must be admitted that in the Conservative party, when you change places, you change faces.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand the disappointment felt by Canada's entire population. The people had heard long speeches about all the things the Conservatives would do if elected to office. Well, they are in office, and through their lack of experience, the people are worse off than before. People wanted a change for the better, but unfortunately, it has been a temporary change for the worse.
The Canadian people were again doubly disappointed, particularly after the promises the Prime Minister made recently. I should like to quote one from the Toronto Star for April 26, 1957, reporting on a statement made the previous day, that is the twenty fifth, by the Prime Minister. It reads as follows:
(Text):
He promised an end to unjustifiable and excessive tax rates and charged every Canadian family of four was overtaxed by $120 last year.
(Translation):
And farther down the newspaper goes on: (Text):
When the Conservative party formed the government of this country he promised a session of parliament will be called to reduce taxation. (Translation):
What has he done since then? He introduced a "baby budget," a 1959 budget which brought increases instead of decreases. (Text):
Mr. Pallet!:	Taxes are still lower than
they were before.
(Translation):


Marcel Boivin: I would like to answer the hon. whip of the Conservative party but as my time is limited, I will have occasion to bring up the matter again in the near future.
About taxation, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I was surprised to learn of the Secretary of State's resignation for reasons of ill health, and I remembered a statement he had made in the house on the same matter, adding some personal remarks about civil servants.

The Address-Mr. Boivin
After hearing that statement you will understand why I was surprised at his appointment as Secretary of State, and thank heaven on behalf of those employees his term of office in this capacity has been of short duration.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the record of the House of Commons, dated March 18, 1952, page 550:
Mr. Speaker, not long ago, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a body representing Canadian businessmen, industrialists, merchants, and heads of business concerns, submitted a brief on taxes to our government. Their brief, directed chiefly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), was a protest against the disheartening level of income and corporation taxes, as well as against those excise taxes which, for some time, have been a main cause of the rise in the cost of living.
I do not know if the government experts will take heed of those protests. I say government experts because our public affairs are more and more in the hands of ministers who blindly follow the advice of so-called scientists who are in fact but mere theorists isolated in their ivory tower of pretentiousness and half-science. Their advisers, who in many cases have taken refuge with the federal government after having failed in their own endeavours, will not stop at simple, practical and logical reasoning. They would rather resort to involved theories that have never been put to test, theories which have resulted in budget surpluses 25 to 30 times greater than the amounts forecast.
Mr. Speaker, I say that we have no right to pass such a judgment without due evidence. I may add that, if this Conservative government would take a little more advice from its experts, the ship of state would not be in so great a danger of sinking.
In view of that statement, I can well understand that federal civil servants in the secretary of state department failed to get any raise in salary. Let us hope that his successor will not be opposed to the increase which the civil servants are so anxious to get. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to take up this matter again in a few moments.
I know that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) is not occupying his seat, but I would like to say that formerly, when he was sitting on this side of the house, he had some doubts about the department which is now his responsibility. He used to ask for higher tax exemption, and, today, when he would have the privilege to grant one, he does not mention it. I would like to remind him of what he said in 1953. I am confident that, at the time, he did not expect to head the national revenue department. Memory is a failing faculty, more particularly among the Conservatives. Yet, the written word remains, and that is why I would like to be allowed to quote from the remarks of the minister, which
[Mr. Boivin.l
may be found on page 2530 of the official record of March 2, 1953. This is what the minister said:
I am reminded of what happened in France in the early days, when Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake", when the people were asking for bread. Well, in this budget we did not even get our cake; we got only a little frosting. Indeed, I think we were offered a macaroon, rather than a cake, on this occasion.
I do not think many of the smaller people of this country have as great an appreciation of these alleged reductions as they would have if they received a little better treatment from those responsible for collecting taxes. I am not in a position to speak as to the inner workings of the Department of National Revenue, but certain things are obvious. They tell us that they have caught up with their arrears. We know a large staff is needed to do this.
Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the Minister of National Revenue who, in 1953, claimed to be the protector of the poor in requiring a better treatment or a tax exemption, should now be doing nothing.
He, who had doubts about the administration of the Department of National Revenue, has he improved it at all in the last two years? He has increased his personnel. What about those promises of tax exemption for the taxpayer, after two years of administration? In the Conservative party, when there is a change of place, there is a change of face.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) is not at his place at present; I hope that, even if he is not here, he will be able to practise what he preached in 1955-


William Heward Grafftey: You were seldom here yourself at the time.


Marcel Boivin: Mr. Speaker, it seems that in the Conservative party there is a tendency to forget, and in order that he may not forget it, I should like to recall to the Minister of Transport what he said on April 20, 1955. This will serve as a comment both as regards the last budget and as regards the recent speech from the throne. As a matter of fact, as recorded on page 3007 of Hansard of April 20, 1955, the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, in examining the budget I think we must look first to see what is in it and, second, find out, if we can, why this particular budget was presented. First of all I am going to examine the budget and then a little later I shall describe why I think it was presented.
In examining the budget, may I say that I think it has failed in the main purpose of a budget brought down in a period like this, which should be to provide the stimulus necessary to restore the pace of industrial production, trade and employment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal
with another matter, that is taxation, as I suppose the budget of this session is about to be prepared. In that connection, I should like to recall to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) what he said at Brantford, on February 17, 1958, and which I find in the Daily Star of Toronto of the following day, February 18. I quote:
(Text):
Prime Minister Diefenbaker last night dropped a clear hint that the taxes on cigarettes, cigars and tobacco soon may be cut. He told an audience of 1,400 that no industry in Canada suffers a greater degree of taxation than the tobacco industry.
(Translation):
I should like also to add that the Prime Minister had undoubtedly the support of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), and I am sure that the latter has not changed his mind since 1946. Let us see what the Minister of Finance was thinking at that time, as recorded on page 3413 of Hansard of July 12, 1946. I quote:
I am not a smoker: therefore I can make my next observation I trust, with complete dispassionate objectivity. Consider cigarette papers. 1 suppose they are used chiefly by people who cannot afford to buy packages of cigarettes. A man or a woman pays thirteen cents for a package of 100 cigarette papers of which eight cents represents tax, eight out of thirteen cents. Then there is a tax on cigarettes in packages. The tax is two cents on every five cigarettes, and that affects every smoker throughout the length and breadth of the land. I suggest that if the Minister of Finance is looking about for opportunities to grant some tax relief he had better think about the rank and file of people from coast to coast.
If the minister was sincere in 1946, I doubt very much that he has remained so since he has been sitting on the government side, because following the last budget, that is on April 9, 1959, he imposed a new tax of i cent on cigarettes.
Mr. Speaker, it must be admitted once again that within the Conservative party a change of place involves a change of face.


Mr. Graff  ley:@: For the fourth time.


Marcel Boivin: The Conservative party seems to have high esteem for Mr. Harry R. Jackman of Toronto-I had the honour of meeting him-since he was appointed vice chairman of the Canadian Atlantic Committee; he was thus given the opportunity to take several trips. This goes to prove that his judgment is relied upon. I should like to recall that Mr. Jackman made some remarks on the speech from the throne in 1949 when he sat in the house as Conservative member. As a matter of fact, the member then said, as reported in Hansard of March 8, 1949, page 1251:
If some of our cabinet ministers would become better acquainted with the life of our people they would find what deprivations have to be made in
The Address-Mr. Boivin order that people may meet their bills and, at the same time pay their taxes.
I hope that the ministers will stop playing politics and will follow this wise advice.
It seems strange to me, Mr. Speaker-I come to another matter-that we still run across people who say there is no difference between political parties. Personally, I think there is a very great one. The Liberal party is the party of prosperity, of surpluses and of debt reductions, and therefore, the party of the reduction of the burden of the taxpayer, while the Conservative party is the party of deficits, of increased debt, of higher interest rates and, therefore, of heavier burden on the taxpayer. To be more explicit, may I quote the former minister of fisheries, (Mr. James Sinclair) who said: "Tory times are hard times".
We remember-how could we ever forget it

the disastrous government of that great capitalist, Lord Bennett. Before leaving Canada, he said: "I am now going home". We remember also that he had reduced the salaries of all civil servants and members of the armed forces. Today, this persecution of the civil servants continues. Not only are they denied any increase in salary-while salaries continue to rise in industry-but may I add that they want to continue the persecution by having an inquiry made about all those employees, as this was done quite uselessly under Sir Robert Borden, another Conservative prime minister.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does the present Prime Minister believe, like his Conservative predecessors, that he can make up for his errors of judgment by imposing their burden, as well as the burden of the deficits, on the poor civil servants who already receive starvation wages? In earlier days, those wages seemed reasonable, but because of the present inflation and the increase of the cost of living, they should be increased by at least 10 per cent. May I add that we could thus keep our civil servants who, in many cases if there were jobs available elsewhere, would take them.
I have met with a group of civil servants, Mr. Speaker, and one of them had this to say: "This government has decided that the civil servants are to be made the goats."
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a matter of no less importance, that of textiles.
The Prime Minister himself has referred to the matter and has realized the precarious situation in which this industry finds itself now. May I quote certain remarks made in

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie Guelph on May 13, 1957, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator of May 14. I quote:
(Text):
He struck also at the dumping of foreign goods in Canada, indicating it was time to set up protection for the many manufacturing companies which were being forced to the wall.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I already discussed that matter at length in this house. Unfortunately, Canada has always imported large quantities of textiles. Why? Because the countries that export those textiles pay their workers lower wages than are paid in Canada and are therefore in a position to sell their products at competitive prices with Canadian products. We must also consider that other countries benefit from particularly low duties on the products they export to Canada.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has patronized that industry ever since he was elected to parliament. He even put on the order paper a resolution which does not stand a chance of coming before this house during this session and I feel that the government should assume their responsibilities and fulfil at least one of the many promises made by the Prime Minister, before the textile industry disappears altogether from this continent.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the end of the period allotted to me and I should like to draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that there is in this country another industry on the verge of closing down as a result of a competition similar to that in the textile industry, and I mean the rubber boot industry. I hope that the government will take steps to correct that situation. In conclusion, I should like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) that if he claims that agriculture is prosperous in Canada, he should come in the eastern provinces to meet our farmers. Most of them find themselves in a quite alarming situation for several reasons. When he realizes the situation, I am sure he will introduce measures to assist those who supply us with essentials, with our daily bread.
We from the east are for assisting farmers throughout the country. We gave proof of this only recently. To conclude, I must say that the only solution is that the Minister of Agriculture take action.
(Text):


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I regard as a privilege the opportunity to participate in this debate. The throne speech debate is often referred to by the press as a dull, drab affair. I find it quite the contrary; indeed, I think it very interesting and informative to hear members from all parts of the country presenting their views on a great range of subjects. I think

it underlines very well the representative aspect of our responsible, representative, democratic form of parliamentary government.
I find myself in a new location in this house. The hon. member who just concluded his remarks spoke about changing places and changing faces. It is quite a feat to move from one side of the house to the other, but I have accomplished a move from one end to the other. It is quite a drastic move, but I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that I am under no illusion about this, for I do not intend to mistake movement for progress. I will, however, refuse to regard it as regression.
I should like to join my colleagues, sir in extending good wishes to you upon your election to your office. I should like to express my good wishes to your deputy the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea) for whom we entertain such a high regard.
I listened with great appreciation to the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Morissette) and the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) during their splendid contributions to the debate as they moved and seconded the address. I was impressed by the seconder's references to our historical development and by her interest in the centennial celebrations of 1967. We Canadians are not notably an historically minded people. Perhaps this is the reason that, at times, our nationalism seems to be somewhat sporadic and perhaps a bit tenuous. Although still a young country we have now had nearly a century of our confederation, and we have had a much longer record of political and social organization to our credit. I think it behooves us, as a people, to know and to honour our past. The great Joseph Howe said:
A wise nation preserve's its records, gathers up its monuments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures, and fosters national pride and love of country by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
With that thought in mind I should like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker). I think the decision made to name the new building for the fisheries and public work departments after Sir Charles Tupper is a most happy one. That great father of confederation should certainly be remembered. With the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Casselman) I am happy that the Prime Minister is one of those deeply interested in the history of our land and its institution. I think we can be assured that he and his government will plan imaginatively for the centennial celebration. I am particularly deeply concerned about

this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I have the honour to represent that constituency where confederation began.
In Prince Edward Island, in the capital city of Charlottetown in 1864, a group of colonial delegates held the first meeting in that series which culminated in the agreement upon the Quebec resolutions upon which our federal structure has subsequently been based. Just as the 1864 meeting was a preview and a forerunner of Canadian confederation, so I think will the 1964 celebration of that event be a forerunner and a most valuable prelude and preview to the larger and greater celebration which will take place in 1967 all across the land. I very much hope that the dominion government and the members of the House of Commons will interest themselves in the plans which are afoot already for the Charlottetown celebration. Perhaps some tangible evidence of the dominion government's interest in this matter might well be forthcoming. I would not think of filling out the details, but such a thing as a museum of eastern colonial history or a cultural centre or something equally significant might mark in a very special way this important event in our national story.
On this subject I should like to applaud the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Hamilton) because his department has recognized the old site of Fort Amherst in the harbour of Charlottetown and the old French settlement of Fort La Joie. We now have there a national historic park. The people of my province are deeply appreciative of that park. We have quite a background of French occupation in the province of Prince Edward Island. We look upon Jacques Cartier as our first tourist. He came here in 1534 and he liked it very well. For a moment I thought I might hazard rendering in French the remarks he wrote in his logbook, but since I am not very proficient in contemporary French and am far worse in archaic French, I will translate roughly and say that he found it altogether beautiful and about as pleasant a place as it would be possible to see. We like that impression that he had and we think it is a sound one.
It is interesting-and I assure hon. members that I am not forgetting that I am not in a university classroom embarking upon a historical lecture-that quite often the main strands of political issues and economic arguments can be traced back to certain basic historical facts. When the province of Prince Edward Island in 1873, after some years of delay and after some overtures, shall we say, from Canada decided to enter confederation the representatives of that colony, the present province, had one very
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie urgent question which they put to the forefront of the agenda. Recognizing the importance of communications they insisted that the matter be looked after and that a definite promise be made by the dominion authorities. Although the province at the time was suffering from fairly serious economic disabilities and from the results of unfortunate political decisions the islanders continued to urge that the communications aspect be considered and be kept in the foreground.
They asked for and they obtained the recognition that the dominion was responsible for providing efficient and continuous communication for the province of Prince Edward Island with the mainland of Canada. Down through the years since 1873, regardless of the political complexion of the government either in the province or in the dominion, this has been the bedrock, one of the great essentials of dominion-provincial relations as far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned. I cannot but think how wise were the earlier political leaders in stressing this particular matter and in making it a binding term of confederation for this acute problem of communication has recurred and many times since.
It is a fascinating story, the story of communication across the strait of Northumberland. The early means was by iceboats. There were two types of passengers, namely first-class passengers and second-class passengers. The second-class passenger paid a certain amount but he was required to pull. The first-class passenger paid a good deal more to travel, not in comfort, certainly because it was anything but comfortable to cross the strait, but he was not obliged to get out to provide the motive power. Then there were the early steamboats with great uncertainty as to schedule. About 50 years ago the members of the parliament and senators from Prince Edward Island were very late in getting to Ottawa because the boats were not making their trips. When they arrived here one of them proposed the adjournment of the debate to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, and that matter was one which concerned them so greatly and bothered them so much in a personal way.
In 1911 Sir Robert Borden in his campaign came to the city of Charlottetown and he said, "If you will elect me as Prime Minister of Canada you will get a car ferry". They did and he did and the car ferry was put there. May I say that the fine old car ferry built for less than $1 million is still in operation and is still making its trips across the strait. It is a wonderful ship. Over the years there

The Address-Mr. Macquarrie have been other boats which were far more expensive. If one is interested in the value of a dollar-and we have been discussing that matter here-the present newest boat, the Abegweit, cost about $7 million. The one which was put in service in 1916 cost less than $900,000.
The latest chapter, Mr. Speaker, shall I say, on the boat situation is that a contract has been let for yet another ferry. We greatly appreciate the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) who recognized our need for a new ferry and who moved quickly in that direction. The people in our province look forward to this boat, when it comes into operation in 1961.
But is all this enough? The demands for service have been increasing tremendously. At no time would I think of burdening you, Mr. Speaker, or my colleagues with a mass of statistics and certainly not at this late hour of our sitting. But one aspect of this matter might be illustrative of the magnitude of the problem which faces us. In 1933, 262,000 tons of freight were carried across this strait. In 1958 that figure had risen to 766,000 tons. In 1943-and that is as far back as I can get separate figures for automobiles-9,500 passenger automobiles were carried over and in 1958 the figure had risen to over 120,000. In 1959 we believe there has been a 10 per cent increase over the 1958 figures. It is therefore a problem to meet this growing demand, and it will grow. That is the present problem in Prince Edward Island.
We have perhaps one industry which is expandable and which is expanding, namely tourism. Our new provincial government is planning a vigorous move in this direction and we applaud them for that planning. For although our province is very small there are areas yet untouched and undeveloped. Of course the whole province is unspoiled.
We can project a vast increase, and therefore it is essential that this be provided. The communication link is a dominion responsibility clearly and solely. We are happy with the decision to build a new boat, and we know it will be very busy when it starts operating. But we must urge in the interests of the province, as well as broader interests, that still further steps be taken to meet this confederation commitment. All of the island's members of parliament have urged the building of a causeway, and we appreciate very much the support which has been given to us in this chamber.
I was much pleased at the reference of my colleague from Westmorland (Mr. Creaghan), my neighbour across the strait, when he gave support to the causeway project and even did me the honour of flattering me by quoting

me in this regard. That has not happened since the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chev-rier) did me a similar honour in the twenty-third parliament. I urge upon the government the construction of this final stage in the long story of island-mainland communications. I urge it because it will give us that promised efficient and continuous communication which modern conditions require. I urge it too because it is soundly economical.
I will again demur from producing statistics, but the present service is an expensive one. It is recognized that the dominion government has put forward great expenditures over the years in order to maintain this service. The capital equipment at the present time totals something like $22 million, representing the cost of boats and docks alone.
What about the operating costs? In 1958 there was a deficit of nearly $2 million, and therefore I repeat that economically the move toward building a causeway is a good and sound one. Since 1933 there has been a net loss of $25 million on this operation. I know the difficulties. I know they are tremendous, and I know that this engineering project is one of the greatest in the history of technology and engineering. We want the survey done ' thoroughly; we do not want anything which is ill-conceived or hasty, and we are happy that the minister has undertaken to make a thorough and comprehensive survey. We are pleased that the department has brought in the best experts, not only from within this country but from other countries, thoroughly competent to study every aspect of this important project.
At the same time I must point out that there is an element of urgency. Because of increasing demand the present facilities are becoming more and more inadequate. So something must be done, and I would urge that the causeway survey be pushed to its conclusion, and if it should be proven not feasible-and we hope this will not be the case-then immediate steps will have to be taken to augment and improve the existing ferry service.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am not appealing here for any provincial or regional consideration, although I would have a right to do so. I look at this as another part of a program of national development. This is something far bigger than a local enterprise. One of the things which has made me most happy in my support of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Die-fenbaker) and his government is that they have given us in the Atlantic provinces new ground for hope and new reasons for tackling our own problems with greater vigour. We

all recall the quick action which was taken with the Atlantic provinces adjustment grant and many other instances.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) spoke the other day about the disappointment felt in his province some ten years after confederation. I might say that his province was not the only province in which there were feelings of disappointment from time to time. We have been disappointed quite a few times. We have seen in the development of Canada the economic fulcrum being moved further away from us, where it all began. "Westward the course of Empire ever stayed" is the old expression, and a fine one but, it sometimes does not go quite so well with some of us in the east.
It should be in the interests of national development, and it seems to me it is the duty of the national government to take the steps which are necessary to redress regional inequality and to move in the direction of establishing a greater over-all level of economic prosperity. This direction is being given by the government which I have the honour to support and which has cheered us so greatly in the Atlantic provinces. It has inspired us with confidence that, in this matter of tremendous importance to my province and others, we will have that same attitude, that same revelation of a truly national vision which will recognize the over-all importance of this development. This is not a matter upon which one seeks to make political capital.
Far be it for me to make comments about the provincial election in Prince Edward Island, but much of what took place did reflect a certain appreciation of this government's policy with respect to the Atlantic provinces. I can ask no more than the continuation of this same valued attitude, this same vigorous action and this same understanding and appreciation of our needs, our aspirations and our difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, much more might be said, but I have often shown publicly a certain fidelity to brevity and I will not depart from my adherence to it at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset join with those who have paid their congratulations to the mover and seconder to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They spoke with clarity and they spoke well, and it is a pleasure to join in the compliments which have been paid to them. May I also associate myself with those kind remarks of congratulation which have been offered to you, sir, and to other hon. members of this house who have been paid special honour since we last met.
The Address-Mr. Hellyer
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how sorry I am to hear that General Charles Foulkes is retiring as chairman of the chiefs of staff. He is an officer of outstanding record, and his counsel and guidance have assisted and been invaluable to several ministers of national defence throughout these many years. The loss will be felt at national defence headquarters, and I wish to take this opportunity to express to him the gratitude of the Canadian people for his faithful, devoted and loyal service.
Of the time he allotted to the subject of defence, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) spent the greater part reading newspaper clippings of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson). It was very disappointing performance, and it did no credit either to his position or to the seriousness of the subject. He did spend some minutes dealing briefly with a few of the decisions taken by the government and I should like to take this opportunity to comment on those and other related matters.
The Prime Minister quoted Mr. Khrushchev's recent speech to the effect that the U.S.S.R. had a bountiful supply of rockets and missiles and that it is abandoning the manned bomber. He said this pronouncement by Mr. Khrushchev vindicated the position taken by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) in cancelling the F-105 Avro Arrow. The position of the Minister of Defence with regard to the subject has been neither clear nor consistent, and if hon. members will consult the record, both in Hansard and as it appears in newspaper clippings of speeches which the minister has made on the subject from coast to coast, they will find he said regularly that manned bombers continue to be the main threat against Canada and that it would continue to be so for some years to come.
The Prime Minister said the decision taken a year ago to cancel the Avro Arrow had been based on the best military advice available. Not more than two or three weeks ago, the secretary of defence of the United States, Mr. Gates, told the House of Representatives appropriation subcommittee on defence that a mix of weapons was still required. He said, furthermore, that whereas the United States is to proceed with United States Bomarc B anti-aircraft missile, it may be necessary to reappraise the situation, and that reappraisal might show the necessity of continuing to use manned interceptors in quantity because of their greater flexibility. The Minister of National Defence must set some store by what Mr. Gates said because he quoted his testimony at page 132 of

The Address-Mr. Hellyer Hansard in support of the government's decision to continue with the installation of the Bomarc B.
Another expert witness who differs from the Prime Minister is General Kuter, who is commander in chief of the North American air defence command. General Kuter, when asked about Canadian air defence squadrons, told newspapermen in Ottawa last November that he hoped the Canadian government would soon re-equip the squadrons presently using the obsolescent CF-100. He gave the same opinion in Washington the following day. It is obvious that the United States has always wanted, and counted on, Canada to replace the CF-100 with supersonic manned interceptors. As far as can be determined there never was any United States suggestion to the contrary. General Kuter's statement of last November merely brought the matter again to the urgent attention of the government and the Canadian people.
Is the advice the Prime Minister referred to better than the advice of Secretary Gates and General Kuter? If so, it is only fair that the Prime Minister should tell us the source to assist us in reaching our own conclusions.


An hon. Member:: You know better than that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not necessarily true that United States military advisers are better than ours, even though we rely on them heavily for military intelligence reports. If there is a difference of opinion, however, it is worth while to compare both opinions carefully in order to make sure that so far as possible the one chosen is the best.

The government may have come to the conclusion that it is futile to arm against the manned bomber. If it has reached that decision, we should be told. If it has reached that decision, it should never have decided to go ahead with the Bomarc installations in the first place or, at least, it should cancel the plan forthwith.
The Bomarc is a weapon designed to be used against the manned bomber. It has no function against ballistic missiles. Its role, though not identical with that of the interceptor has the same functions as the manned interceptor against the possibility of attack by manned bombers. If, however, the government has not reached that decision but still holds the view that it is necessary to maintain a defence against the manned bomber until the Russian inventory is depleted, then it should long ago have made a concrete plan to re-equip the air defence squadrons with new supersonic interceptors. The government cannot have it both ways. The Bomarc, by itself, is useless; it is only one of a family of weapons. It only makes sense as a second line to the manned interceptor.
I tried to make this point during the estimates last summer but it is difficult to make much impression on this government. The Minister of National Defence said he subscribed to the theory of defence in depth, but he does not back this belief by action. He should tell us now whether the government still subscribes to the theory of defence in depth with respect to the North American continent or whether it does not.
May I call it ten o'clock?


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

Questions
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS	EGG PRODUCER STATISTICS
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Was any loss sustained by the government from the sale of 10,000,000 pounds of butter for export to Britain in October, 1959? If so, in what amount?
2.	What was the basis of arriving at the price of 56 cents per pound for the sale of this butter?
3.	What are the names of the Canadian exporters to whom the government sold this butter?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	Yes. Butter sold for export was acquired by the stabilization board at a cost based on 64 cents delivered Montreal. Butter acquired by the board is resold in the domestic market at the purchase price, i.e., 64 cents basis Montreal, with the board absorbing carrying charges. The difference between the resale value in the domestic market and the export price was approximately 8 cents a pound.
2.	Butter was sold by tender.
3.	Black Diamond Cheese Ltd., Canada Packers Limited., George Hodge & Son., Lovell & Christmas.



HOG BREEDERS STATISTICS

Mr. Boulanger: 1.	How many hog-breeders are there in Canada?
2.	How many hog-breeders are registered at the establishments inspected and approved by the federal government and where classification is carried out for the purpose of qualification for deficiency payments?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	The 1956 census gives a total of 287,357 farms on which hogs were being raised.
2.	138,717 hog producers were registered at January 15, 1960.

Question No. 42-Mr. Boulanger:
1.	How many producers of eggs are there in Canada?
2.	How many producers of eggs have registered at the grading establishments in Canada?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	The 1956 census gives a total of 347,553 farms with laying hens.
2.	78,296 egg producers were registered at January 15, 1960.



COMMUNITY STAGE AND WHARF, SUMMERVILLE, NFLD.

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	What was the total cost of the community stage and wharf built at Summerville, Newfoundland in 1959?
2.	Was the wharf built by contract?
3.	If so, who was the contractor and what was the amount of the contract?
4.	Have tenders been called for the equipment to supply water to the stage?
5.	If so, has a contract been let and at what price?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Total cost from January, 1959 to December 31, 1959, has been $35,898.40.
2.	The wharf was built by day labour.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes.
5.	Contract not yet awarded.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Has the Minister of Finance lent any money to the Farm Credit Corporation?
2.	If so, when, how much, and on what terms?
Answer by:	Hon. Donald M. Fleming
(Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	For the period October 13, 1959 to January 20, 1960, inclusive, $8,500,000.00, at 5f per cent.

Wednesday, January 27, 1960